Background

In November of 1996, the Dean of the Libraries appointed a Coordinator to Diverse Populations and a Diversity Committee, the latter to be comprised of employees of the Libraries. The Libraries' Diversity Initiative is part of a larger university-wide Diversity Initiative, according to which individual units on campus are responsible for achieving the university's collective diversity goals. As such, the Dean of the Libraries is responsible for monitoring the diversity activities of the Libraries. By diversity, the Diversity Initiative refers to age, class, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation. These minority group categories are consistent with the group categories that were identified and referred to in the current Culture and Diversity Assessment.

The three main goals of the Libraries' Diversity Initiative are to hire and retain a diverse workforce, to foster a work environment where all employees are valued for their uniqueness and personal contributions, and to provide services and collections that meet users' individual and diverse needs. The Diversity Committee began planning for a diversity training program in the Diversity Accountability and Implementation Plan for 1998-1999, in which it stated the intention to implement a training component in staff development programs that would address diversity issues. The current Diversity Assessment was initiated with the goal of determining whether there is a need within the Libraries to conduct diversity training, and if so, what content areas should be included in the diversity training.

Methodology – Focus Groups and Surveys

In choosing Library employees to participate in the focus groups, our goal was to sample at least 15% of the employee population. Our sampling procedure was stratified by race and included both same gender and mixed gender groups. The groups included both Associate and Classified staff, as well as managers and non-managers. The result of our sampling efforts produced eight total focus groups. In total, 40 employees were sampled (17% of Library employees). In their final form, the focus group discussions asked participants five questions regarding general climate perceptions and diversity at the Libraries.

The purpose of the survey was to gain a more complete view of the topics and themes from the focus groups, and to ask additional questions about how employees feel about diversity in the Libraries. The survey's questions and scales dealt with topics such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, distributive fairness, ethnic and gender harassment, and perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment. Our goal was to administer the survey to as many Library employees as possible, and we were able to reach 82% participation (260 Library employees) while ensuring that every Library division was well represented in our sample.

Results and Interpretations – Focus Groups

Focus group discussions were conducted in order to gather qualitative information regarding employee perceptions of the organizational climate in general, and of the Diversity Initiative in particular. Results from these focus group discussions are summarized below, organized by question.

Research Question #1: Please tell us about your experiences while working in the Libraries and the kind of climate in which you work (i.e., the kinds of events and/or practices that are rewarded and are expected of employees).

Participants generally reported that the Libraries are a good place to work. Participants pointed out that there is no singular climate within the Libraries, and that the organizational climate differs greatly according to division and branch. When employees were asked to discuss issues that may be of concern to them, major themes that surfaced included a lack of recognition for hard work, confusion and frustration surrounding the reward (PRD) system due to its lack of standardization, limited support for training, and empowerment issues. Also, different experiences were reported by participants with Associate status versus those with Classified status, and disparities emerged according to division.

Research Question #2: Can you tell me about the interpersonal relations between employees in this organization?

Respondents described interpersonal relations among work group members to be good, but relations across divisions and between Associate and Classified staff to be strained. Respondents also generally responded positively to team-based initiatives such as cross-functional teams and project teams. Some participants reported having communication difficulties with their managers, expressing a desire to feel more valued by them. This could be accomplished by putting an end to closed-door policies, by increasing opportunities for one-on-one discussions, and by personalizing management styles.

Research Question #3 Please tell me about any problems that you have seen in this organization that are related to diversity issues.

Overall, participants reported that there are few problems related to diversity within the organization, although diversity issues tend not to be openly discussed. While minorities tended to perceive that the Libraries can do more to promote and value diversity, many majority participants perceive the Libraries as sufficiently sensitive to diversity issues. The most often cited problem related to diversity was the lack of minority representation in upper management, resulting in minorities feeling as if they lack "voice." Participants expressed a desire to see increased efforts to recruit minorities and to provide internal advancement opportunities for minorities. Some African-Americans feel like tokens on search committees, and some expressed concern that the quality of the Libraries' collections may be suffering as a result of a lack of diversity.

Research Question #4 How do you think employees feel about the Diversity Initiative and how do you think they feel about diversity issues in general?

Respondents agreed that they are glad to see a Diversity Initiative, and were excited about future possibilities for the organization. However, some complained of the Initiative's lack of visibility, as well as the reticence on the part of the Libraries to devote "Library time" to diversity activities. Most suggested that the effectiveness of the Committee might be improved by expanding the range of activities that are sponsored by the Committee, increasing involvement by the Library Executive Council, opening the group to both minority and non-minority outsiders, and by strengthening the direction of the Committee.

Research Question #5 What recommendations do you have for the Libraries' Diversity Initiative?

The most consistently cited recommendation for the Diversity Initiative was for the LEC to show increased commitment by attending more activities, providing more resources for the initiative, playing an active part in defining the goals of the Initiative, and strengthening the focus of leadership. Participants also suggested that supervisors themselves take a more active role in attending activities and sharing information about the Initiative with their employees. Another consistently cited recommendation was for the Diversity Committee to sponsor more activities other than the brown-bag lunches, such as informal social gatherings, discussion forums, lectures, and off-site training. Finally, participants almost unanimously agreed that managers should be required to attend interpersonal training, but there was a lack of consensus about whether diversity training should be mandatory for all employees.

Results and Interpretations – Survey

Analyses were conducted to examine group differences for all demographic categories measured by the survey, but analyses involving differences according to religion and age are not included in this report because the results were either not statistically significant or were not interpretable. In addition, specific questions regarding sexual orientation, disabilities, and age were not included in the survey except in the definition of diversity, due to space limitations and because these group memberships were not identified as major areas of concern within the focus group discussions. Within the survey, group identity was defined as membership in minority groups including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, educational background, tenure, sexual orientation, disability, rank, age, and/or nationality. Our hope in including this definition, and in asking employees to refer to these groups, was for employees to answer all of the questions in the survey with their specific minority group membership in mind. This practice is one that is endorsed by the Association of Research Libraries.

Survey Items Based on Focus Group Themes. Survey items for this section were written to determine whether the attitudes expressed by the focus group participants were representative of the Library employee population at large.

Library employees were somewhat supportive of mandatory diversity training and more funding for diversity activities. They again voiced strong support for interpersonal training for managers and for the LEC to show a more vigorous commitment to the Diversity Initiative, and feel a discrepancy between the way Associate and Classified staff are treated. There were no group differences with respect to race, division, position or tenure in these perceptions.

Employees were neutral about the sincerity of the Libraries' efforts toward empowering employees, the consideration of upper management for employee recommendations, the quality of managers' interpersonal skills, and the fairness and standardization of procedures. Women, Technical Services employees and those with more than ten years of tenure gave the least favorable responses regarding these points. These results suggest that communication needs to be improved between upper management and employees, procedures for PRD and merit increases need to be standardized, and more avenues need to be developed and nurtured through which employees can offer suggestions and feel that they are heard.

Library employees' attitudes toward the Diversity Initiative and about diversity issues in general are neither positive nor negative. There were no group differences on this subscale. Thus, it appears that the level of interest in diversity issues needs to be heightened across all groups within the Libraries. The Libraries would benefit from clarifying the goals of the Diversity Initiative, and from communicating the strategic benefits of diversity to employees.

There were racial differences in employee perceptions of whether or not the Libraries foster a positive environment for diversity. While employees do not report the Libraries as having a strongly negative or positive environment for diversity, the experiences of African-American and International employees tend to be less positive than the experiences of Caucasian and Asian-American employees. Across all groups of employees, survey respondents indicated that they believed it was generally true that there were no racial barriers to advancement in the Libraries. Caucasian employees perceive fewer racial barriers to advancement than African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic, and International employees. Librarians also perceive fewer racial barriers to advancement than do Library Technicians and Technical Support staff.

On average, employees reported that it was "somewhat true" to "generally true" that they had positive role models in the Libraries of their same race and gender. Caucasians reported having more positive role models than African-American and Asian-American employees. This is a natural by-product of having low levels of minority representation within the higher ranks of the Libraries. This is an important finding in that survey results indicate that access to positive role models is a predictor of satisfaction and organizational commitment. In addition to the racial differences, women reported having more positive role models than men, and Librarians also report having more positive role models than do Library Technicians and Technical Support staff.

Climate for Diversity. An organization with a "Climate for Diversity" creates, through its practices and policies and through its organizational culture, an environment in which minorities and majorities are valued equally. Though some of the results in this section may seem to overlap with sections above, separate analyses were performed to derive them.

Overall, Library employees do not perceive that there are large diversity-related problems in the Libraries, but there are important differences in perceptions according to race. Specifically, Caucasians perceive the least amount of diversity-related problems, as compared to African-Americans and other minority groups. In addition, women report more discrimination and other unfair practices than do men.

The divisions within the Libraries differed somewhat in their ratings of diversity-related issues. Information Technology appears to have the best Climate for Diversity, whereas Technical Services and Planning and Administrative Services have the lowest Climate for Diversity ratings. With respect to position, graduate assistants are most satisfied with the Libraries' Climate for Diversity, and Library Technicians are least satisfied. The dissatisfaction of Library Technicians may be partially accounted for by the larger proportion of minorities that make up this class of employees as compared to Librarians. There were no significant differences in perceptions of Climate for Diversity according to the tenure of employees.

Our findings indicate that perceptions of climate for diversity are related to job satisfaction. The more an employee feels that the Libraries are proactive toward diversity issues, the more likely it is that the employee is satisfied. In addition, when employees perceive that the Libraries engage in discriminatory practices, it is more likely that they experience task and relationship conflict within their work groups. On the other hand, the more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across employees, the less likely they are to report experiencing task and relationship conflict within their groups. Thus, it appears that the fair and unbiased application of organizational practices and procedures is an important predictor of smooth work group relations and perceptions of justice, and thus deserves future attention.

Although there may be some problems related to diversity in the Libraries, there are more fundamental issues that the employees would like to see addressed in the Libraries. The most salient of these include the fact that employees perceive a general lack of respect among employees in the Libraries, and the fact that employees feel they are not afforded as many opportunities for personal and professional development as they would like. Employees expressed dissatisfaction with the discrepancy with which Associates versus Classified staff are encouraged to attend training, and with the lack of time and support they are afforded to practice what they learn to their actual work situations. Employees hold their managers accountable for creating a climate for diversity, and thus managers need to play an active role in improving the climate for diversity within the Libraries.

Harassment. Overall, Library employees reported very low levels of ethnic and gender harassment.

Although reports of overt ethnic harassment were low across all respondents, Administrators should be aware that International employees, females, Library Technicians, and Technical Support employees all reported higher levels of ethnic harassment than comparable groups. Focus group comments related to race tended to reflect more subtle problems, such as attributions of mistreatment to race/ethnicity. The fact that few employees are reporting overt mistreatment due to race suggests that diversity training aimed at eliminating prejudices or mistreatment may be unnecessary at this time.

The levels of gender harassment reported were also very low. Interestingly, we found no group differences on the levels of gender harassment reported by ethnic group, gender, division, position, or tenure. These results are encouraging and are consistent with employees' reports from the focus groups. This finding helps to demonstrate that the Libraries have a good foundation upon which diversity programs can be built.

The Armed Forces Ethnic Experiences Inventory (AFEEI). Respondents were asked to indicate whether they have experienced any of fourteen negative race- or ethnicity-driven scenarios. This scale assesses the extent to which employees attribute negative experiences to their race/ethnicity.

Twenty-one individuals (8% of survey respondents) reported that they had at least one negative experience in the Libraries in which their race/ethnicity was a factor. Only ten of these respondents (3.9%) reported having experienced two or three negative experiences in which their race/ethnicity was a factor. No survey respondents reported more than three negative experiences.

Analyses indicate that African-Americans attribute negative experiences listed in the scenarios to their race/ethnicity more than do Caucasians. Nearly 27% of African-American survey respondents reported at least one negative experience in the Libraries during the past twelve months. In addition, survey respondents from Technical Services reported that they believed that their race/ethnicity was a factor in their negative experiences more than did respondents from either Public Services, or Collection Management & Special Collections. Indeed, nearly 18% of the survey respondents in Technical Services indicated that their race/ethnicity was a factor in their perceived mistreatment. The average endorsement for the fourteen negative scenarios, however, was only 1.02%. This indicates that the levels of attributions to race and/or ethnicity are relatively low in the Libraries.

Job Satisfaction. Employees report that they are moderately satisfied with their work, supervisors, pay, promotions, and co-workers. However, employees consistently reported much higher satisfaction with their co-workers, supervisors, and the work itself than they reported for their pay and promotions. In other words, employees are not equally satisfied with all aspects of their jobs. This finding replicates results from the focus groups.

Specifically, Caucasians report high levels of satisfaction and are more satisfied overall than both African-American and International employees. Caucasians are also more satisfied with their work than International employees, more satisfied with their pay than African-Americans, and more satisfied with their co-workers than Asian-Americans. Analyses also indicated that across all employees, males reported more satisfaction with their supervision than did females. Group differences between divisions indicate that individuals in Technical Services are less satisfied overall than are employees in Collection Management or employees in Public Services. Employees in Technical Services are also less satisfied then employees in Public Services with respect the work itself. Library Technicians are overall less satisfied than both Librarians and Graduate Assistants, and less satisfied with their opportunities for promotion than Librarians. Finally, employees in Administrative Support positions report that they are more satisfied with their pay than do Library Technicians or employees in Technical Support. Employees who have worked in the Libraries for 1-4 years are more satisfied with their opportunities for promotion than employees who have worked in the Libraries for 5 or more years.

The levels of job satisfaction reported by employees in the Libraries are similar to industry norms, and are very similar to those found in other organizations for work, supervisors, promotions and co-workers. However, the industry norms for satisfaction with pay are much higher (.60 on a scale of 1.0) than the levels of satisfaction evident in the Libraries (.36 on a scale of 1.0). This disparity indicates that Library employees are especially dissatisfied with their pay. Thus, Library Administrators should pay particular attention to the area of compensation, and if possible, should work to increase salaries of all employees.

Organizational Commitment. Employees who are highly committed to an organization often indicate that they identify strongly with organizational values, and that they care about the fate of the organization. High levels of organizational commitment would be rewarding and beneficial for both the Libraries and their employees.

Results show that employees are only moderately committed to the Libraries, and many employees may not be willing to put forth a great deal of effort to help the organization achieve success. Across all employees, regardless of race, gender, division, position, tenure, age, or religion, employees report moderate levels of commitment. Library employees who report low levels of commitment are also likely to report higher levels of job withdrawal and higher levels of intent to leave the organization. Library Administrators should focus further attention to these areas of concern, in the hopes of increasing commitment to the Libraries. Increased commitment would decrease levels of turnover and increase employees' willingness to work for the overall benefit of the Libraries.

Organizational Withdrawal. Withdrawal refers to employees' attempts to avoid their work or undesirable aspects of the workplace, while still remaining an employee. Behaviors characteristic of withdrawal including absenteeism, tardiness, missing meetings, poor work, long breaks, ignoring tasks, thinking about leaving the organization, and looking for other jobs.

Across all survey respondents, the average level of withdrawal was low. The average levels of withdrawal indicted that employees actively search for other jobs, or think about quitting their jobs, approximately two or three times per year.

Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment (PFIT). The PFIT measure is conceptualized as a climate variable, meaning that employees are asked to indicate how supervisors and co-workers in the organization, in general, treat employees. In this manner, this scale provides a characterization of the work environment, rather than reflect a single individual's experiences.

Perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment in the Libraries are high, but differ by division membership. Specifically, reports of fair interpersonal treatment are low in Technical Services compared to those in Public Services or Collection Management and Special Collections. Furthermore, males report a better climate for fair interpersonal treatment than do females.

Distributive Justice. Distributive Justice refers to the degree to which an employee's rewards and punishments are related to performance inputs. Distributive Justice is high when there is a clear relationship between the contributions made by an employee and the rewards or punishments received by that employee.

Employees across the Libraries report that they perceive low to moderate levels of fairness in the manner in which they have been rewarded for their contributions. Levels of perceived fairness in the distribution of rewards tend to be highest among males, Librarians, and employees who have worked in the Libraries for less than one year. This topic deserves further attention, especially given that during the focus groups, some employees reported that they see little correlation between the amount of effort that they put forth and the rewards that they receive.

Continuous Learning Culture. A continuous learning culture refers to an organizational environment in which all employees are expected to continuously acquire new knowledge and skills, the organizational structures and policies support the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, and the organization emphasizes innovation, both within and outside the immediate work context.

Analyses indicated that perceptions of the level of continuous learning that is rewarded, supported, and expected of all employees were moderate, and were uniform across all groups studied. As an institution of higher learning, it is important that the Libraries aspire to create an environment in which employees are not only encouraged to acquire new skills, but are also provided with sufficient support to apply new skills back to the job.

Managerial Practices. The Managerial Practices scale assesses the extent to which employees believe that their managers strive to improve the quality of work and service in their areas.

Results indicate that most employees believe that their managers are effectively helping to improve the quality of work and service in their area.

Work Group Conflict. Work group conflict refers to two types of conflict that may exist within an individual's work unit. The first is task conflict, which refers to conflict based on the substance of the task that the group is performing, and the second type of conflict, relationship conflict, refers to conflict based on the unit's interpersonal relations.

The reported levels of relationship conflict in the Libraries are low compared to other organizations. This finding of low relationship conflict within units mirrors the satisfaction with co-worker ratings, and is consistent with focus group results. Library Administrators should take advantage of this phenomenon by considering group-based structures, initiatives and rewards. Furthermore, Library Administrators should be aware that conflict can lead to effective groups functioning as long as the conflict is related to the task at hand and is expressed in a setting that encourages disagreements in order to find new and better ways of accomplishing tasks.

Future Directions for the Libraries

The Administrators of the University of Maryland Libraries should work together with the Diversity Committee to establish the strategies necessary to improve the Diversity Initiative. The Diversity Committee should play a role that is more critically linked to organizational processes and includes a broader range of functions and duties. The Diversity Committee should also work to ensure that mentoring programs are established, that cultural issues in group dynamics are addressed, and that productive debates surrounding other organizational issues are nurtured. Perhaps most importantly, the Diversity Committee should be closely linked to the social environment of the Libraries. Future efforts sould be aimed at organizing social activities that attract all employees and encourage positive social interactions, thereby developing a sense of community among employees.

The Library Administration has a critical role in ensuring that the results of this assessment are put into action. Over 80% of the Libraries' employees were motivated enough to participate in the survey, and 17% attended focus groups lasting over 2 hours. The Administration should consider holding meetings with each department to discuss the results of this survey, and should solicit employees' suggestions on how to improve the workplace. It is imperative to communicate to employees that their voices have been heard, and thus encourage future participation and empowerment efforts.

Over 90% of survey respondents agreed that managers should be required to attend interpersonal skills training. The content of such training should include a focus on how to give positive feedback and other communication skills, team building skills, intercultural sensitivity, skills for facilitating meetings, and tips on how to promote diversity and inclusiveness. This training should also emphasize skills to help managers conduct performance appraisals in culturally sensitive ways, as well as solve intercultural conflict and design career paths that enable their employees to achieve career satisfaction.

Library Administration should ensure that policies, practices and procedures are standardized across groups. Employees reported that the correlation between contributions and rewards is unclear, and diversity initiatives or organizational change efforts are unlikely to succeed if employees don't see equity in the way that they are treated and rewarded.

Employees of the Libraries have also expressed an interest in being more empowered in the decision-making process. If employees are to feel more empowered, then decision-making must be collective, and employees must be able to see that their suggestions are translated into actions. However, managers should be aware that cultural factors can lead some employees to feel uncomfortable about voicing their opinions publicly, and greater patience and acceptance of different standards of oral communication may pay dividends in the quality of problem solving and innovation. Managerial training should address the topic of empowerment and trust, and provide supervisors with skills on how to encourage all employees to voice their opinions. Suggestion boxes and small discussion groups are ways to provide employees with a safe environment in which to make themselves heard.

The Libraries need to increase the proportion of ethnic minorities in upper management. More aggressive recruiting efforts need to be implemented in order to broaden the applicant pool, and the Personnel Department should be responsible for ensuring that job opportunities at the University of Maryland Libraries are widely adertised, especially to schools that have historically high levels of ethnic minorities. Selection criteria should be linked directly to job analyses to ensure that applicants are being selected based on the knowledge, skills and abilities that are necessary for the job. In addition, training should be provided for interviewers at all levels of the organization in order to minimize rater biases in the selection process.

Survey data indicate that racial minorities in the Libraries have a need for individuals who can serve as positive role models and mentors. Formal mechanisms for establishing and monitoring the progress of mentoring relationships should be established, and reassignments or terminations of ineffective relationships should be considered when necessary. Of course, mentors should be selected carefully to ensure that they are committed to the task of mentoring and have the necessary skills to help their protégés develop. For more successful results, protégés should be involved in creating matches, and organizational incentives should be offered for becoming a mentor.

The majority of survey respondents (over 65%) agreed that the Libraries should sponsor social activities for employees to give them an opportunity to interact in a way that builds a sense of belonging. Social activities would enhance communication and encourage identification with the Libraries as a community. Such social events would provide an opportunity to get to know one another in a different light, in a surrounding far from the ritual and familiarity of the office. Recreational functions could include company picnics, bowling leagues, or sporting and cultural events, and it is important for the Libraries to designate spaces for these activities.

Feedback regarding the Advisory Group in Public Services has been extremely positive, and focus group and survey results suggest that other divisions would also benefit from such an opportunity. As a start, these groups may be used to find out how people view working in a particular division or in work groups within a particular division.

Diversity training should become a part of the Libraries' Diversity Plan in the future, or the Diversity Committee should establish a volunteer diversity training program. Some survey and focus group participants expressed a desire to know more about cultural differences, hence such a program should be popular. Employees need to become aware of their own reactions to different cultures specifically, and to change in general. They need knowledge about what culture is, and about how it affects the way people perceive the world and how they behave.

Many Library employees have reported dissatisfaction with the current system of being forced to place an African-American on every search committee, which has resulted in a negative feeling of tokenism among African-Americans, and confusion among other minority group members who do not understand why they have not been chosen. Among the many negative effects of tokenism is the reality that the high visibility of tokens leads to such things as a tendency for them to be viewed as representatives of their cultural group, rather than as individuals. Additionally, the performance of these individuals, whether good or bad, tends to be magnified because of the extra attention that their distinctiveness creates.

We understand the administrative constraints placed upon the search committees by the University, yet it would be ideal for the Libraries to continue their role as a leader in diversity on campus by expanding the definition of diversity. Given that one of the goals in filling positions on search committees is to produce a diverse set of individuals, this can be done in a variety of ways. The Libraries could solicit individuals from many different backgrounds such as Hispanics, Asian-Americans, or individuals with disabilities to serve on these committees in addition to African-Americans. Furthermore, if possible, these search committees should consist of a large range of employee diversity with respect to gender, tenure, sexual orientation, age, or other personal characteristics. In this manner, the Libraries can form a search committee that is very diverse and representative of many different types of individuals.

In September of 1999, the authors of this report met with Dr. Bette Ann Hubbard, the Libraries' manager of Staff Training and Development, about conducting a Diversity Needs Assessment for the Libraries. Dr. Hubbard explained to us that the Libraries were interested in conducting Diversity Training for Library employees and needed to determine, through a needs assessment, what content areas should be included in the training sessions. After several meetings with Dr. Hubbard and Dean Charles Lowry, it was decided that we would hold focus group discussions with a stratified random sample of Library employees to gain in-depth, qualitative information about employee perceptions regarding the existing Diversity Initiative. In addition, it was decided that we would conduct a large-scale survey study to obtain quantitative data that would enable statistical analyses. Focus group discussions were conducted in February, 2000, and survey data were collected in April, 2000.

Purpose

The purpose of the Diversity Assessment is to provide a "snapshot" of where the Libraries are today in achieving the principles of Diversity, particularly focusing on individual attitudes and beliefs, organizational culture, and management practices and policies. It provides baseline data against which the organization's future progress can be measured. Because diversity issues are only one aspect of the whole organizational system, we determined that it would be necessary to collect information about the general organizational culture in addition to information about diversity issues.

Background

In November of 1996, the Dean of the Libraries appointed a Coordinator to Diverse Populations and a Diversity Committee, the latter to be comprised of employees of the Libraries to advocate diversity issues. The Libraries' Diversity Initiative is part of a larger university-wide Diversity Initiative. According to the University of Maryland Diversity Initiative, individual units on campus are responsible for achieving the university's diversity goals. As such, the Dean of the Libraries is responsible for monitoring the diversity activities of the Libraries. By diversity, the University of Maryland's Diversity Initiative refers to age, class, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation. These minority group categories are consistent with the group categories that were identified and referred to in the current Culture and Diversity Assessment.

The three main goals of the Libraries' Diversity Initiative are to hire and retain a diverse workforce, to foster a work environment where all employees are valued for their uniqueness and personal contributions, and to provide services and collections that meet users' individual and diverse needs. To this end, the Libraries' Diversity Initiatives have included efforts such as the Writer's Block Video Project, improving the Libraries' collections in diverse areas, exhibiting rare collections (e.g., Yiddish books), conducting material exchanges with foreign Libraries, sponsoring panel discussions, sponsoring ethnic and video lunches and showcases, including a Diversity column in the Libraries' newsletter, and creating an email forum for diversity issues.

The Diversity Committee began planning for a diversity training program in the Diversity Accountability and Implementation Plan for 1998-1999, in which the Diversity Committee stated the intention to implement a training component in staff development programs that would address diversity issues. A proposal for the current Diversity and Cultural Assessment was first proposed in the 1999-2000 Diversity Plan. The stated goal of the proposal was to "measure staff views and experiences and thereby clarify and set priorities for future activities of the Diversity Committee and the Staff Training and Development office." The Diversity Plan explained that diversity training would likely be combined with other training on customer service, supervisory skills, communication skills, and other skills training. The proposal included plans to conduct a follow-up assessment approximately 12 to 18 months after the training period in order to measure cultural change.

Before writing the questions for the focus groups we conducted a document review. We familiarized ourselves with important Library information, such as the University of Maryland Libraries Strategic Plan, the University of Maryland Libraries Planning and Administrative Services Staff Training and Development literature, and the University of Maryland Libraries' Annual Report. The purpose of the document review was to evaluate the Libraries' current attention to, and work in, the area of diversity in order to target the area in which we could be of service. Based on the document review, literature searches, and meetings with key Library personnel, we wrote and revised the questions for the Focus Groups. In their final form, the focus group discussions asked participants five questions regarding general climate perceptions and diversity at the Libraries. Please see Appendix A for a complete list of these questions.

In choosing Library employees to participate in the focus groups, our goal was to sample at least 15% of the employee population. Our sampling procedure was stratified by race and included both same gender and mixed gender groups. The groups included both associate and classified staff, as well as managers and non-managers. The result of our sampling efforts produced eight total groups that participated in the focus groups. Each group session lasted approximately two hours and consisted of several Library employees. In total, 40 employees were sampled (17% of Library employees).

Survey

In constructing the Organizational Culture and Diversity Survey, we conducted a literature review to determine what important predictor and outcome variables to include. Additionally, we wrote questions and included published scales that reflected the themes that emerged from the focus groups. The survey's questions and scales dealt with topics such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, distributive fairness, ethnic and gender harassment, and perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment. Please see Appendix B for a complete copy of the Organizational Culture and Diversity survey.

Our goal was to assess the attitudes and experiences of all Library employees through the survey, thus we aimed to administer the survey to as many Library employees as possible. We administered the survey on four different days, and the survey took an average of 45 minutes to one hour to complete. Library employees received a letter from Dean Lowry requesting their participation in the survey and granting them Library time to do so. In addition, any employees who were interested in participating but were not able to do so during one of the four administration days were encouraged to complete the survey and return it to us via campus mail. Two hundred sixty employees participated (82% of Library employees) and every division in the Libraries was well represented in our sample.

The purpose of the survey was to examine whether or not the issues that surfaced in the focus groups were representative of the Library employee population at large, and to link employee perceptions of organizational culture and diversity to organizational outcome variables.

Research Question #1: Please tell us about your experiences while working in the Libraries and the kind of climate in which you work (i.e., the kinds of events and/or practices that are rewarded and are expected of employees).

When asked about the organizational climate in the Libraries, participants generally reported that the Libraries are a good place to work. Responses varied somewhat depending on the division and on the respondents' immediate work group. Participants pointed out that there is no singular climate within the Libraries, and that the organizational climate differs greatly according to division and branch. Discussions suggested that there is sometimes tension between divisions, with the example between Public Services and Technical Services cited most often. Participants from both within and outside Technical Services described how interpersonal relations tend to be most tense within Technical Services, where employees express dissatisfaction about their cramped work environment and strict quota system. Employees voiced hope that changes would be implemented and working conditions improved with the appointment of the new Director. Some participants from branch Libraries reported feeling isolated and somewhat out of touch from McKeldin's social and professional activities, yet reported having excellent work climates that are marked by good interpersonal relations.

When employees were asked to discuss issues that may be of concern to them, major themes that surfaced included a lack of recognition for hard work, confusion surrounding the reward (PRD) system, limited support for training, and empowerment issues. First, participants voiced a desire to be recognized more for their hard work. They acknowledged that the new employee rewards program had rectified this problem somewhat, although whether or not employees are nominated to receive rewards depends greatly on whether their supervisors are willing to take the time and energy to nominate them. Some employees reported feeling that their supervisors do not "speak up" for them enough, and thus feel that they are not given a chance to be recognized for their hard work. Representatives from the personnel office agreed that they do not receive enough nominations from supervisors, and would welcome an increased volume of recommendations.

Participants also expressed confusion surrounding the PRD system because of its lack of standardization. While some participants meet with their supervisors to discuss their performance reviews, to provide input, and to set goals, other participants report not being given such opportunities. Naturally, this disparity has led to perceptions of procedural unfairness. Training sessions on how to conduct performance reviews may help rectify this problem. In addition, participants also suggested that the current merit increase process may be politically motivated, for they perceive employees with friends in positions of power as receiving merit increases each year. Discussions designed to unearth potential misconceptions surrounding the process and to understand the sources of these misconceptions would be useful.

Focus group participants also discussed training issues. While some participants reported having access to training and support from their supervisors to attend training, other participants reported being told that there is a lack of funding to send them to training. These discrepant reports were partially explained by the participants' Associate or Classified status. Differences also emerged according to division, with employees in Technical Services reporting having the least amount of freedom to attend training. The existing quota system, they explained, makes it almost impossible for them to attend training. Some participants described being reprimanded for falling behind on their work while attending training, and are fearful of attending future training sessions. For those that do attend training, they reported feeling that they do not have ample time back on the job to practice what they have learned in training, thus minimizing the transfer of training to the job. If training and developing employees is a priority for the Libraries, then special care must be taken to ensure that consistent messages are being conveyed to employees regarding training and development issues.

The final theme that emerged in response to Question #1 was that employees would like to have more "voice" in decision-making. Again, people's perceptions of having a "voice" varied according to whether they feel their supervisor takes the time to actively solicit and listen to suggestions, and is thus an issue that may best be handled at the work group level. However, respondents also reported feeling uncertain as to whether they are trusted and empowered by management to make decisions. Many participants reported feeling uncomfortable about speaking up in meetings for fear of either being ignored or suffering negative repercussions (e.g., being seen as a trouble-maker). Participants from Public Services reported great satisfaction with the existing advisory group, and perceive it as an excellent opportunity to voice their concerns. Employees from all divisions would likely benefit from the establishment of similar advisory groups.

Research Question #2: Can you tell me about the interpersonal relations between employees in this organization?

Focus group respondents described interpersonal relations among work group members to be good, with employees referring to their work group as "family". In relations involving people outside of their immediate work group, respondents reported experiencing conflict (e.g., with other divisions, more senior managers). Respondents also generally responded positively to team-based initiatives such as cross-functional teams and project teams.

Despite good work group relations, participants reported having some communication difficulties with their managers. Some participants described how they would like to feel more valued by their managers, and that this could be accomplished by putting an end to closed-door policies, by increasing opportunities for one-on-one discussions, and by personalizing management styles. These are all areas that can be covered in managerial training sessions.

Finally, participants reported that there tend to be interpersonal difficulties between Associate and Classified staff. Many Classified staff reported being treated unfairly and without respect, and feel as if they are looked down upon by Associate staff. They described how Classified staff often do the same work as Associate staff, but do not receive appropriate recognition because they lack the necessary educational titles. Efforts to minimize the division between Associate and Classified staff, where possible, would help improve relations between the two groups, as well as promote perceptions of equity by Classified staff.

Research Question #3: Please tell me about any problems that you have seen in this organization that are related to diversity issues.

Overall, participants reported that there are few problems related to diversity within the organization. Many participants reported smooth interpersonal relations with members of different identity groups, an easy adjustment to American culture with the help of fellow employees, support for sexual orientation, and an increased awareness of religious differences. However, some participants reported being frustrated when others around them speak in languages that they don't understand. Still others described how cultural differences can make it difficult for some employees to give adequate input into their performance reviews (e.g., for Asian-Americans). Not surprisingly, minority participants expressed more concern regarding intercultural sensitivity than did participants belonging to the majority group. While minorities tended to perceive that the Libraries can do more to promote and value diversity, some majority participants perceive the Libraries as sufficiently sensitive to diversity issues. Some employees explained that diversity issues are not openly discussed in the Libraries and that there is a tendency to try to maintain the status quo because people perceive that this is what the Administration wants. In other words, people are afraid of "rocking the boat".

The most often cited problem related to diversity was the lack of minority representation in upper management. Employees described how this makes them feel that they do not have a voice, and also sends the message that there is indeed a glass ceiling within the organization. Respondents expressed a desire to see increased efforts to recruit minorities and to provide internal advancement opportunities for minorities. Some respondents also expressed frustration about how some employees tend to repeatedly get good assignments, and that these recipients tend to be Caucasian. Participants also commented on how appointed positions tend to be given to Caucasian employees, thereby portraying the image that these positions are not open to everyone. On the other hand, respondents described how African-Americans tend to feel like tokens, as they are needed to serve on search committees. They report feeling that they are included not because they have valuable opinions to contribute, but because they are African-American. They described frustration about how other minority groups tend to be ignored.

Finally, some respondents expressed concern that the quality of the Libraries' collections may be suffering as a result of a lack of diversity. For instance, the Libraries do not have an African-American employee who can help choose books for the African-American studies collection.

Research Question #4: How do you think employees feel about the Diversity Initiative and how do you think they feel about diversity issues in general?

Respondents agreed that they are glad to see that the Libraries have implemented a Diversity Initiative, and those respondents who have attended brown-bag lunches report them to be a great success. They further mentioned being excited about diversity issues, future possibilities for the organization, the success of the town meeting, and about what the Diversity Committee is trying to accomplish. However, participants explained that they are uncertain about the goal of the Initiative. Employees are uncertain about the intentions of the Initiative because they report that the Diversity Committee is not visible and that it appears to be a closed group about which little is known. In fact, some respondents reported being unaware that a Diversity Committee exists. Respondents described how the effectiveness of the Committee might be improved by opening the group to outsiders, both to minorities and non-minorities, and by strengthening the direction of the Committee. Furthermore, they suggested that diversity-related activities be held during Library time in order to communicate the message that diversity is a priority, and thus worthy of allocating valuable resources to the effort. Respondents expressed frustration about the lack of involvement by Library Executive Council (LEC) members in the diversity effort, and by the lack of support from supervisors for attending diversity activities. Both of these factors, they explained, send mixed messages to employees about the value of diversity.

Participants also expressed concern about how the Diversity Initiative "preaches to the choir". That is, they reported that most of the people who attend the brown-bag lunches tend to be minorities, and that those individuals that would benefit most from activities designed to increase awareness are the people who do not attend the activities. Those participants who had not attended any diversity-related activities explained that they did not see the value in attending brown-bag lunches because the topics were not personally relevant to them, or because the discussions have not focused on "real" diversity-related problems such as recruiting.

Research Question #5: What recommendations do you have for the Libraries' Diversity Initiative?

The most consistently cited recommendation for the Diversity Initiative was for management to send consistent messages about the importance of the Initiative. By this, they meant that the LEC should show concern by attending more activities, providing more resources for the initiative, playing an active part in defining the goals of the Initiative, and strengthening the focus of leadership. Respondents further suggested that the LEC help ensure that supervisors support their employees' desires to attend activities and not punish people if their work falls behind temporarily as a result of attending diversity-related activities. Participants also suggested that supervisors themselves take a more active role in attending activities and sharing information about the Initiative with their employees.

Another consistently cited recommendation was that the Diversity Committee should sponsor more activities other than the brown-bag lunches. Some suggestions for additional activities included:

• Sponsor a friendly Library-wide competition for the best diversity project (e.g., groups with access to films can show diversity-related films).

• Sponsor informal social activities centered around people's hobbies (e.g., sports, chess, book clubs, etc.) so that people can get to know each other outside of a work context. Provide recreational space in which employees can convene.

• Invite university professors who conduct research on diversity-related issues to come to the Libraries to give lectures.

• Sponsor retreats and/or off-site training.

• Create discussion forums, similar to focus groups, in which people can feel safe about discussing diversity and other organizational issues.

• Sponsor diversity-activities in branch Libraries.

• Hold a town meeting every semester.

• Create a safe grievance process through which employees can safely discuss diversity-related problems.

Organization of this section. This section is divided by topic area, with each topic represented by a scale within the survey instrument. Within each topic area, the scale used to measure the topic of interest is first described, then differences according to race, gender, division, position, and tenure are described. It is important to note that we conducted analyses to examine group differences for all demographic categories measured. However, analyses involving differences according to religion and age are not included in this report because 1) the results demonstrated that there were no statistically reliable group differences, and 2) those results that were significant were not interpretable (e.g., a significant difference between Atheists and "Other").

Statistical significance and sample sizes. Throughout this section, reference is made to results being "statistically significant" or "significant" (e.g., the mean for X is significantly greater than the mean for Y). All results that were significant at the p < .10 are reported, although most results are significant at the p < .05 level. By this, we mean that there is a less than 1 in 10 probability of the result of interest occurring due to chance. At times, mean differences that appear large may not actually be significant because the sample sizes that are involved in the analyses (e.g., 6 Hispanics compared with 20 Asian-Americans) do not provide enough statistical "power" to achieve statistical significance. Statistically significant findings involving categories labeled as "other" were not included in the summaries and conclusions because of their lack of interpretability. In addition, the mean values for Native Americans and for the Dean's Office were not included in our summaries and interpretations because there were only two Native-American participants and four participants from the Dean's office. We excluded them from our report in order to protect their anonymity. Finally, we included results for Hispanic, Biracial, and "other" racial groups in our results because we found the results to be informative and we felt that a sample size of five or larger would be large enough to protect the anonymity of respondents. However, we would like to caution readers against assuming that the reported findings are representative of Hispanic, Biracial and other racial groups at large, because the reported findings are not based on a large enough sample size to be considered stable. Please take these considerations into account when interpreting the mean rankings according to group.

Scales included in the survey. The survey consisted of two types of scales. First, we wrote items that reflected the themes encountered in the focus groups. This was done in order to determine whether the attitudes and experiences described by focus group participants are representative of the Library employees as a whole. We also wrote items that reflect common themes found in the diversity literature, designed to reflect whether the Libraries have a "climate for diversity." The second major type of scales are those that are drawn from previous organizational research. These scales include the following: Ethnic Harassment, Gender Harassment, Armed Forces Ethnic Experiences Inventory, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Withdrawal, Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment, Distributive Justice, Continuous Learning Culture, Managerial Practices, and Work Group Conflict. Each of these scales was used to evaluate an aspect of the Libraries' organizational culture, or individuals' experiences. Each of these scales is described in more detail below.

Focus Group Item Subscales:

1. Support for Diversity-related Policies and Practices - High means on this subscale indicate that respondents are in favor of allocating organizational resources for diversity-related policies and practices (e.g., time, money, training).
2. Respect and Fair Treatment of All Employees - High means on this subscale indicate that respondents believe that managers have good interpersonal skills, procedures are standardized to ensure fair treatment for all, employees are empowered and listened to, and that there isn't a discrepancy in the way Associate and Classified staff are treated.
3. Concern About Diversity - High means on this subscale indicate the respondents perceive employees to be concerned and interested about diversity issues, have a clear understanding of the goals of the Diversity Initiative, and perceive the Diversity Initiative to be visible in the Libraries.
4. Positive Environment for Diversity - High means on this factor indicate that respondents perceive that cultural differences are respected in the Libraries, the Libraries are a good place for minorities to work, and that overall there are no problems related to diversity in the Libraries.
5. Lack of Racial Barriers to Advancement - High means on this factor indicate that respondents perceive there to be no racial barriers to receiving opportunities and for advancing their careers.
6. Positive Role Models - High means on this factor indicate that respondents perceive there to be sufficient role models of the same gender and ethnicity.
7. Dissemination of Information - High means on this factor indicate that respondents feel they have access to information on Library activities.

Please see Appendix D for a complete listing of all group means by race, gender, division, position and tenure, along with a summary of significant group differences.

Support for Diversity-related Policies & Practices

The overall mean for all groups of Library employees was 4.46 (on a scale from 1 to 6), indicating moderately positive feelings towards using the Libraries' resources to support the Diversity Initiative. It is interesting that there are no significant racial group differences in the extent to which employees support diversity-related policies and practices. That is, the mean response, regardless of race, was between "somewhat true" or "generally true" in response to questions about whether or not diversity training should be mandatory, the administration should dedicate more money to diversity activities, managers should attend interpersonal training, and the LEC should be visibly involved in the Diversity Initiative. In addition, there were no significant group differences with respect to division, position, or tenure in the libraries.

The only group difference that was statistically significant was that women expressed more support for the Diversity Initiative than men. Perhaps because they have historically been disadvantaged, women tend to be more supportive of the Diversity Initiative than male employees. This result also mirrors our focus group discussions and observations from Diversity Brown Bags that women tend to be more active in diversity activities than men. However, the mean difference is between 4.58 (women) and 4.16 (men), indicating that both genders are in favor of diversity-related policies and practices.

In sum, the results indicate that across all groups, employees support the Diversity Initiative and feel that resources such as time and money should be dedicated to the effort. This is an encouraging finding, for it suggests that there is minimal "backlash" against diversity within the Libraries.

Respect and Fair Treatment of all Employees

Across all groups, the mean response on this scale was 3.37 (on a scale from 1 to 6), which was the lowest mean of all focus group subscales. This means that employees were neutral about whether or not the Libraries' efforts toward empowering employees are sincere, employee recommendations are ignored by upper management, managers have excellent interpersonal skills, procedures are fair and standardized, and there is a discrepancy between the way Associate and Classified staff are treated. These results suggest that communication needs to be improved between upper management and employees, procedures for PRD and merit increases need to be standardized (or for those procedures that are standardized, procedures need to be better communicated to employees), and more avenues need to be developed and nurtured through which employees can offer suggestions and feel that they are heard.

Similar to the results above, there were no racial differences in the extent to which employees feel that they are treated fairly and with respect. However, several group differences did emerge on this subscale. Men perceived the Libraries as treating employees fairly and with more respect than did women. The reason behind this finding is not entirely clear, although it may reflect the fact that women have historically reported feeling less empowered than men. Despite their high levels of representation in the Libraries, wome may cintinue to feel less empowered than men.

In addition, respondents in both Public Services and Information Technology felt that employees are treated fairly and with more respect than did employees in Technical Services. Employees in Technical Services were least likely to feel that procedures are standardized, Associate and Classified staff are treated equitably, recommendations are heard by upper management, employees are empowered, and that managers have good interpersonal skills. These findings are similar to those that surfaced in the focus group discussions, and employees within Technical Services appear to be the most disgruntled of all employees. In the focus group discussions, employees in Technical Services commented on their dissatisfaction with their physical environment, continued low morale from the authoritarian management style of the past administration, and lack of time and freedom to attend training and to practice skills learned during training. It is likely that all of these factors need to be addressed in order to improve morale and perceptions of fair treatment within Technical Services.

Survey results indicate that there are no differences according to position in employees' perceptions regarding the fair treatment of employees. Although these results are promising, perceptions regarding the respectful and fair treatment of employees were not high, with most employees responding in a neutral fashion (i.e., employees feel they are neither treated disrespectfully nor respectfully). Thus, there is room for improvement in this area, with employees once again expressing a desire for more "voice" and empowerment in decision-making, equitable treatment across ranks, increased standardization of procedures, and more respectful relations between managers and employees.

There was also a significant difference with respect to tenure. Employees who have been working for the Libraries for over ten years are less likely than employees that have been working for the Libraries for less than ten years to feel that employees have a voice, are empowered, are subject to standardized procedures, and that managers have good interpersonal skills. These differences may be due to lingering perceptions of past administrations, and may necessitate radical changes in management style to "undo".

Concern about Diversity

Across all survey respondents, the mean for this subscale was 3.55 (on a scale from 1 to 6). Thus, survey respondents were neutral about whether Library employees are indifferent about diversity issues, feel that diversity issues do not concern them, are clear about the goals of the Libraries' Diversity Initiative, are interested in diversity issues, and perceive the Initiative to be visible in the Libraries.

There were no significant group differences on this subscale. Thus, it appears that the level of interest in, and concern for, diversity issues need to be heightened across all groups within the Libraries. The Libraries would benefit from clarifying the goals of the Diversity Initiative and from communicating the strategic benefits of diversity to employees.

Positive Environment for Diversity

The overall mean for all survey respondents was 3.87 (on a scale from 1 to 6), indicating that on average, employees responded close to "somewhat true" that the Libraries provide a positive environment for diversity. However, with respect to diversity-related experiences, there were racial differences in employee perceptions of whether or not the Libraries foster a positive environment for diversity. While Caucasian employees perceive that the Libraries have a "somewhat" positive environment for diversity, the perceptions of African-Americans and International employees were significantly less positive. In addition, the perceptions of Asian-Americans and Biracial employees were significantly more positive than the perceptions of African-Americans. Yet the perceptions of African-American and International employees were not wholly negative. In sum, while employees do not report the Libraries as having a strongly negative or positive environment for diversity, the experiences of African-American and International employees tend to be less positive than the experiences of Caucasian, Asian-American, and Biracial employees.

The only other significant group difference that emerged was that employees in Administrative Support Service positions perceive the environment for diversity to be more positive than do Library Technicians. There were no significant group differences on this subscale for gender, division, or tenure.

Lack of Racial Barriers to Advancement

Across all groups of employees, survey respondents indicated that they believed it was "generally true" (i.e., mean was 5.00) that there were no racial barriers to advancement in the Libraries. However, there were significant racial differences on this subscale. Caucasian and Biracial employees perceive fewer racial barriers to advancement than African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic, and International employees. However, the lowest mean for any identified racial group is a 4.06 (on a scale from 1 to 6), which indicates that all groups believe that it is at least "generally true" that there are no racial barriers to advancement. In addition to these racial group differences, employees in Administrative Support Service positions perceive fewer racial barriers to advancement than do Library Technicians. Librarians also perceive fewer racial barriers to advancement than do Library Technicians and Technical Support staff.

Although the moderately high means on this subscale are encouraging, the group and position differences indicate that perceptions of subtle barriers do exist. It would obviously be preferable to have higher means on this scale and to eliminate group differences. The standardization of policies and procedures across all employees and access to career and professional development opportunities for Classified and Associate employees alike would help communicate that all employees can advance, regardless of race or rank.

Positive Role Models

On average, employees reported that it was "somewhat true" to "generally true" that they had positive role models of their same race and gender in the Libraries. However, this overall mean is not representative, as there were obvious mean differences on this subscale. Caucasians reported having more positive role models than African-American and Asian-American employees. This is a natural by-product of having low levels of minority representation within the higher ranks of the Libraries. This is an important finding in that survey results indicate that access to positive role models is a predictor of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Furthermore, research in this area has shown that access to role models and mentoring is an important predictor of career advancement and psychosocial adjustment (Cox, 1994; Dreher & Cox, 1996; Ibarra, 1993; Kanter, 1977). Thus, Library employees would benefit first from higher proportions of minorities in upper levels, but also from more mentoring (formal or informal) within the Libraries. In addition, the findings of racial barriers to advancement and access to role models may be related, as research suggests that employees with mentors and role models are more likely to have access to visibility-promoting opportunities and information that enhance career-advancement (Kanter, 1977; Kram, 1985).

In addition to these racial differences, women reported having more positive role models than men. These findings suggest that because there are high numbers of female employees, women feel they have access to more same-gender role models than do men. Librarians also report having more positive role models than do Library Technicians and Technical Support staff, although this finding may be confounded by the fact that African-Americans tend to be concentrated in Library Technician and Technical Support positions within the Libraries. There were no significant differences for division or tenure.

Dissemination of Information

Survey respondents, on average, indicated that it was nearly "generally true" (i.e., mean of 4.81) that they had access to sufficient information about the Libraries' activities and that they took advantage of this information. With regard to racial differences, Caucasians reported they "generally" felt up-to-date while Asian-Americans report only being "somewhat" up-to-date on Library matters. There was also a significant difference between African-American and International employees, with African-Americans feeling more in-touch with Library activities than International employees. In addition, Librarians report being more up-to-date about Library activities than Technical Support staff, and employees with more than ten years' tenure have higher means than all other employees. There were no group differences for gender or division. These findings suggest that not all employees rely on their e-mail to keep abreast of Library activities, and that managers perhaps should play a more active role in the dissemination of information.

Summary of Findings for Item-Level Analyses

It is always preferable to report results at the scale, rather than item, level because scale-level results are more reliable. However, we have included some item-level results in Appendix D to add to the interpretability of the results discussed above.

What organizational outcomes are associated with these diversity issues?

1. Support for Diversity-related Policies and Practices:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: Employees who express low levels of support for the diversity effort (i.e., feel that diversity issues distract from getting work done, feel that there is no need for a Diversity Initiative, or feel that diversity is reverse discrimination) tend to report lower levels of satisfaction with work. It is possible that those employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs (i.e., work is not challenging, is boring, routine, not respected, etc.) feel that the Libraries' resources would be better spent improving the general quality of work rather than on diversity issues.
   2. Distributive Justice: Employees who believe that the Libraries should dedicate resources to the Diversity effort (i.e., the visible involvement by the LEC, mandatory training, etc.) tend to report that they are not being rewarded fairly given their responsibilities, experience, and hard work.
   3. Continuous Learning Culture: Employees who feel that the Libraries should dedicate resources to the Diversity effort also tend to report that that the Libraries lack a Continuous Learning Culture.
   4. Organizational Commitment: The employees who feel that the Libraries should dedicate resources to the diversity effort tend to be more committed to the organization than those employees who express backlash toward the diversity effort.
   
   
2. Respect and Fair Treatment of Employees:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: Those respondents who feel that employees are treated fairly and with respect (i.e., recommendations are heard by upper management, employees are subjected to fair procedures, managers have good interpersonal skills) tend to be more satisfied in general, and also more satisfied with their work, supervisor(s), pay, and promotions.
   2. Distributive Justice: Those respondents who feel that all employees are treated with respect tend to feel that they are fairly rewarded considering their responsibilities, experience, education, and effort.
   3. Continuous Learning Culture: Those respondents who feel that employees are treated fairly and with respect are more likely to perceive that the Libraries have a Continuous Learning Culture.
   4. Organizational Commitment: Those respondents who feel that employees are treated fairly and with respect tend to be more committed to the organization.
   5. Managerial Practices: Those respondents who feel that employees are treated fairly and with respect tend to also perceive that managerial practices are effective.
   6. Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment: Those respondents who perceive employees as being treated fairly and with respect tend also to perceive that the Libraries have a good climate for interpersonal treatment.
   7. Work Withdrawal: Those respondents who feel that employees are treated fairly and with respect tend to be less likely to be absent from or late for work, make excuses to get out of work, and ignore tasks not related to the PRD.
   8. Job Withdrawal: Those respondents who feel that employees are treated fairly and with respect tend to be less likely to think about quitting their jobs and also less likely to explore other job opportunities.
   9. Gender Harassment: Those respondents who perceive employees as being treated fairly and with respect tend to be those employees who have not reported experiencing incidents of gender harassment.
   
   
3. Concern About Diversity:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: Those respondents who perceive employees as a whole to be concerned as opposed to indifferent about the Diversity Initiative are also the employees that express higher satisfaction with work in general as well as with their coworkers.
   2. Relationship Conflict: Those respondents who perceive employees as a whole to be concerned as opposed to indifferent about the Diversity Initiative tend to be those employees who experience less relationship conflict in their work groups.
   3. Task Conflict: Those respondents who perceive employees as a whole to be concerned as opposed to indifferent about the Diversity Initiative tend to be those employees who experience less task conflict in their work groups.
   4. Continuous Learning Culture: Those respondents who perceive employees to be concerned rather than indifferent about the Diversity Initiative are also more likely to perceive the Libraries as having a Continuous Learning Culture.
   5. Organizational Commitment: Those respondents who perceive employees as a whole to be concerned as opposed to indifferent about the Diversity Initiative are more likely to be committed to the organization.
   6. Work Withdrawal: Those respondents who perceive employees as a whole to be concerned rather than apathetic toward the Diversity Initiative are less likely to be absent or late from work and withdraw from work in other ways.
   7. Job Withdrawal: Those respondents who perceive employee as a whole to be concerned as opposed to indifferent about the Diversity Initiative are less likely to think about quitting their job and less likely to explore other job opportunities.
   
   
4. Positive Environment for Diversity:
   
   
   1. Distributive Justice: Those employees who perceive the Libraries as having no problems related to diversity are those employees who also to perceive that they have been rewarded fairly.
   2. Relationship Conflict: Those employees who perceive the Libraries as having no problems related to diversity are those employees who experience little relationship conflict within their work groups.
   3. Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment: Employees who perceive the Libraries as not having problems related to diversity are also more likely to perceive that the Libraries have a climate for Fair Interpersonal Treatment.
   4. Ethnic Harassment: Those employees who report that the Libraries as having no problems related to diversity tend to be those employees who have not experienced ethnic harassment.
   5. Gender Harassment: Those employees who perceive the Libraries have no problems related to diversity tend to be those employees who have not experienced gender harassment.
   
   
5. Lack of Racial Barriers to Advancement:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: Those employees who report not having experienced racial barriers to advancement are more satisfied in general, and are also more satisfied with their work, supervisor(s), pay, promotions, and coworkers.
   2. Distributive Justice: Those employees who report not having experienced racial barriers to advancement are likely to also report that they are rewarded fairly.
   3. Ethnic Harassment: Those employees who report not having experienced racial barriers to advancement are also less likely to have experienced ethnic harassment.
   
   
6. Positive Role Models:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: Employees who have positive role models of the same gender and/or ethnicity are more satisfied in general, and are also more satisfied with their supervisors.
   2. Continuous Learning Culture: Employees who have positive role models of the same gender and/or ethnicity are more likely to perceive the Libraries as having a Continuous Learning Culture.
   3. Organizational Commitment: Employees who have positive role models of the same gender and/or ethnicity are more committed to the organization.
   
   
7. Dissemination of Information:
   
   
   1. Continuous Learning Culture: The more employees feel they are kept up-to-date on Library activities through email and other available information, the more likely they are to perceive the Libraries as having a Continuous Learning Culture.

Fairness and Commitment. Overall, findings indicate that those employees who feel that they are not being rewarded fairly and who feel that the Libraries do not support continuous learning are more likely to support the allocation of resources to the Diversity Initiative. This may be because employees feel that an intensified Diversity Initiative would help ensure that all employees, regardless of race, gender, age, education, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion, etc., would be rewarded equitably. Employees might also feel that allocating resources toward the Diversity Initiative is one step toward creating an organizational culture that is dedicated to continual learning, innovation, and excellence. In addition, those employees with higher organizational commitment tend to be more supportive of diversity-related policies and practices than employees with lower organizational commitment. This is likely indicative of a desire, among committed employees, to continually improve the organizational climate of the Libraries.

Diversity and Organizational Outcomes. Perceptions of the Libraries as an organization that listens to and empowers its employees, emphasizes and rewards excellent interpersonal skills, and ensures that procedures are standardized and enforced equitably are precursors of important organizational outcomes. Analyses suggest that these perceptions are directly linked to overall job satisfaction, as well as to satisfaction with work, pay, promotions, and supervisors. They are also related to judgments of distributive justice, effective managerial practices, and perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment. Furthermore, these perceptions are related to organizational commitment, work withdrawal, and turnover intentions. In sum, an important next step for the Libraries would be to increase channels of upward feedback and decision-making forums, standardize procedures that are not yet standardized, clearly communicate the existence of already standardized procedures, provide training for managers, and lessen the discrepancy in treatment between Associate and Classified staff.

Indifference About the Diversity Initiative. The focus group discussions revealed that attitudes toward the Diversity Initiative are currently marked by indifference, and the survey results did not contradict these findings. Survey responses indicated that employees do not have strong—positive or negative—opinions about diversity issues. Many respondents reported that the Diversity Initiative is not visible within the Libraries. However, those respondents who perceive employees as a whole to be concerned about the Diversity Initiative are more likely to be employees who experience less relationship conflict, task conflict, work withdrawal, and turnover intentions. They are also more likely to be committed to the organization, and perceive the Libraries as having a continuous learning culture. This suggests that employees may perceive organizational events through a certain type of "lens," and that employees with more positive attitudes overall tend to experience less work conflict and perceive both their own and others' attitudes to be more positive than employees with negative attitudes. This finding emphasizes the fact that diversity issues are part of a larger system, and that the entire system needs to be treated in order for the Diversity Initiative to be successful.

Ethnic and Gender Harassment. It is not surprising that those employees who have experienced gender or ethnic harassment are more likely to report that the Libraries do not have a positive environment for diversity. Employees who feel they are or have been unfairly rewarded given their contributions are also more likely to report that the Libraries have diversity-related problems. For many employees, however, diversity-related problems may seem intangible (i.e., they feel that diversity-related problems do not concern them directly), thereby accounting for the relatively neutral ratings regarding the Libraries' environment for diversity. These results are encouraging, for they indicate that the Libraries' do not have overt problems related to diversity issues. At the same time, the Libraries are not perceived as a particularly excellent place for minorities. Increasing minority representation throughout all levels of the Libraries should help improve perceptions considerably.

Those employees who have experienced ethnic harassment are more likely to report that there are racial barriers to advancement in the Libraries, and those employees who feel they have experienced racial barriers to advancement are less satisfied in general, and are also less satisfied with their coworkers, their supervisors, promotions, and the work that they do. They are also more likely to feel that they have been rewarded unfairly. Again, this finding suggests that the standardization of procedures, particularly within the PRD process, is an area of great concern, as it is a theme that surfaces repeatedly.

Role Models and Mentoring. Employees who have role models of the same gender and ethnicity are more likely to be satisfied in general, and also more satisfied with their supervisors. They also tend to be more committed to the organization and feel that the Libraries have a Continuous Learning Culture. Ethnic minorities tend to be disadvantaged in this regard because they are underrepresented in upper levels of management, and it is thus more difficult for employees to have same-ethnicity role models. However, role models play an important part in building the self-efficacy of followers by communicating that advancement is possible despite minority status.

An ideal role model is one that also serves mentoring functions. A mentor can play a major role in the development of protégés by providing career advice, assigning career-enriching opportunities and tasks, and providing psychosocial support. Employees would benefit greatly from having opportunities to seek out mentors, or may benefit from a formalized mentoring program within the Libraries. Research suggests that informal mentors (i.e., mentors who are not assigned but rather chosen mutually) usually serve more functions for the protégé than formal mentors, and that the mentoring relationship is often more rewarding (Kram, 1985). However, in order for employees to develop informal mentoring relationships, they must have ample opportunities to meet other, more senior, employees. If this is not possible, then employees may benefit from a formal mentoring program in which each employee is assigned to a more senior mentor. Alternatively, supervisors who pay close attention the development of their subordinates can take on many of these mentoring functions. Again, managerial training could train supervisors to encourage employee development, and thus take on a mentoring role.

Climate for Diversity Subscales:

1. Non-Discriminatory Practices- High means on this factor indicate that respondents perceive that minorities are given the same opportunities to succeed, receive the same support from supervisors, and are held to the same hiring and promotion standards as non-minorities. In addition, high means indicate that respondents perceive that prejudicial and discriminatory practices and remarks are not tolerated within the Libraries.
2. Standardization of Procedures Across Groups- High means on this factor indicate that respondents perceive that the performance review process is standardized, objective, and free from bias. Respondents also perceive that tasks and assignments are assigned fairly to all individuals.
3. Valuing Diversity

Summary of Findings for Climate for Diversity Subscales

Please see Appendix E for a complete listing of all group means by race, gender, division, position and tenure, along with a summary of significant group differences.

Overall, Library employees do not perceive that there are large diversity-related problems in the Libraries. However, there are important differences in perceptions according to race, a finding that mirrors those found in the focus groups. Specifically, Caucasians perceive there to be the least amount of diversity-related problems, as compared to African-Americans and other minority groups (e.g., Asian-Americans, Hispanics, International employees). In addition, women perceive more problems related to discrimination and other unfair practices as compared to men. As one would expect, those groups that have historically been discriminated against are more sensitive to discriminatory practices and other diversity issues than are majority group members (i.e., Caucasians and men). When evaluating whether problems related to diversity exist, it is the opinions and perceptions of minorities that need to be considered the most seriously (Ilgin and Youtz, 1986), and therefore, these results suggest that employees feel diversity issues can be handled more effectively by the Libraries.

The divisions within the Libraries differed somewhat in their ratings of diversity-related issues, although the mean differences were neither large nor statistically significant. Information Technology appears to have the best Climate for Diversity, whereas Technical Services and Planning and Administrative Services have the lowest Climate for Diversity means. These differences are not explainable based on the proportion of minorities (i.e., Technical Services and Planning and Administrative Services do not have a higher proportion of African-Americans, a fact that may have accounted for less favorable perceptions of Climate for Diversity), and thus are likely attributable to differences in climate.

With respect to position, graduate assistants are the most satisfied with the Libraries' Climate for Diversity, and Library Technicians are the least satisfied. The optimistic perspective of the graduate assistants is likely due to the fact that they are not subject to the same practices and procedures as regular Library employees. The dissatisfaction of Library Technicians may be partially accounted for by the larger proportion of minorities that make up this class of employees as compared to Librarians.

There were no significant differences in perceptions of Climate for Diversity according to the tenure of employees.

Summary of Findings for Item-Level Analyses

Although results at the item level of analysis are less reliable than at the scale level, we have included some item level results in Appendix E to add to the interpretability of the results discussed above. Please interpret the item-level responses with caution.

What organizational outcomes are related to Climate for Diversity?

1. Non-Discriminatory Practices:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: The less employees perceive discriminatory practices in the Libraries, the more satisfied they are in general, and the more satisfied they are with their work and with coworkers in particular. Perceptions of discriminatory practices were not related to satisfaction with supervisors, satisfaction with pay and satisfaction with promotions.
   2. Distributive Justice: The more employees perceive discriminatory practices in the Libraries, the less they feel that they are fairly rewarded (i.e. rewarded based on their responsibilities, education, experience, effort, good work, stresses on the job).
   3. Relationship Conflict: Employees that perceive discriminatory practices in the Libraries are also the employees who experience the most relationship conflict (i.e. tension, personality clashes, rivalry, anger) in their work units.
   4. Task Conflict: Employees who perceive discriminatory practices in the Libraries are employees who also report experiencing task conflict in their work groups.
   5. Ethnic Harassment: Employees who perceive discriminatory practices in the Libraries also tend to report higher levels of ethnic harassment in the Libraries.
   
   
2. Standardization of Procedures Across Groups:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: The more employees perceive the PRD process and the assignment of tasks/opportunities to be standardized, the more satisfied they are in general, and the more satisfied they are with their work, supervisors, promotions, and coworkers in particular.
   2. Distributive Justice: The more employees perceive the PRD process to be standardized, the more they perceive that rewards are distributed fairly within the Libraries.
   3. Relationship Conflict: The more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across groups, the less relationship conflict they experience in their work groups.
   4. Task Conflict: The more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across groups, the less task conflict they experience in their work groups.
   5. Continuous Learning Culture: The more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across employees, the more they perceive the Libraries to have an environment that encourages continuous learning and development.
   6. Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment: The more employees perceive procedures such as the PRD process to be standardized across employees, the more likely they are to perceive that co-workers and supervisors treat each other fairly in the Libraries.
   7. Organizational Commitment: The more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across employees, the more they are committed to the organization.
   8. Managerial Practices: The more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across employees, the more they are likely to report that managerial practices are good (e.g., managers are committed to high quality work and service).
   9. Job Withdrawal: The more employees perceive procedures such as the PRD process to be standardized, the less likely they are to think about quitting, and the less likely they are to explore other job opportunities.
   10. Gender Harassment: Employees who perceive procedures to be standardized tend to also be those employees who report not having experienced any gender harassment.
   
   
3. Valuing Diversity:
   
   
   1. Job Satisfaction: The more employees perceive that the Libraries value diversity, the more they report overall satisfaction, and particularly, satisfaction with their work, pay and promotions.
   2. Continuous Learning Culture: The more employees perceive that the Libraries value diversity, the more they also perceive the Libraries to have an environment that encourages continuous learning and development.
   3. Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal treatment: The more employees perceive that the Libraries value diversity, the more they also perceive the Libraries to have a good Climate for Interpersonal Treatment (i.e. employees are praised for good work, treated with respect, listed to, treated fairly, etc.).
   4. Organizational Commitment: The more employees perceive that the Libraries value diversity, the more they are committed to the organization.
   5. Managerial Practices: The more employees perceive that the Libraries value diversity, the more they perceive managerial practices to be effective.

Satisfaction, Commitment, and Withdrawal. Overall, these findings indicate that perceptions of Climate for Diversity are related to job satisfaction. The more an employee feels that the Libraries are proactive with regard to diversity issues, the more likely it is that the employee is satisfied. In turn, analyses reveal that job satisfaction predicts organizational commitment, as well as work withdrawal (i.e., absenteeism, being late, taking long breaks) and employee intentions to look for another job. Thus, managing diversity is an essential aspect of maintaining a satisfied and committed workforce and for maintaining low levels of attrition. African-Americans, women, employees in Technical Services and Planning and Administrative Services, and Library Technicians are the least satisfied with the Libraries' Climate for Diversity and thus are most at risk for experiencing low satisfaction and low organizational commitment.

Work Group Conflict. In addition, when employees perceive that the Libraries engage in discriminatory practices, it is more likely that they experience task and relationship conflict within their work groups. On the other hand, the more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across employees, the less likely they are to report experiencing task and relationship conflict within their groups. Thus, it appears that the fair and unbiased application of organizational practices and procedures is an important predictor of smooth work group relations. When some employees feel that they are deprived of opportunities that are granted to other employees, these feelings can lead to conflict between employees, which ultimately can lead to decreased productivity and reduced morale.

Distributive Justice. Perceptions that the Libraries engage in discriminatory practices and that there is a lack of standardization of procedures are closely linked to employee beliefs that they are not rewarded fairly based on their effort, education, experience, responsibilities, and good work. Such perceptions have been linked to lowered job performance (Greenberg, 1988), withdrawal behaviors (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1992), reduced cooperation with coworkers (Pfeffer & Langton, 1993), reduced work quality (Cowherd & Levine, 1992) employee theft (Greenberg, 1990), and increased stress (Zohar, 1995). Therefore, improving perceptions of distributive justice through the standardization and fair implementation of procedures represents an important area for future attention.

Fair Treatment and Continuous Learning. The focus group discussions revealed that although there may be some problems related to diversity in the Libraries, there are more fundamental issues that employees would like to see addressed in the Libraries. Of these, the most salient are the fact that employees perceive a general lack of respect among employees in the Libraries, and that employees are not afforded as many opportunities for personal and professional development as they would like. These two issues are captured by the Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment and Continuous Learning Culture scales that were included in the survey. Analyses reveal that these two scales are intimately related to perceptions of Climate for Diversity. That is, the more employees perceive procedures to be standardized across groups and the more they perceive the Libraries to value diversity, the more likely they are to also perceive the Libraries as an innovative, excellence-oriented organization that encourages employees to explore ways to improve performance and to develop professional expertise. An alternative way of interpreting this finding is that in order for employees to feel that the Libraries have a continuous learning culture, it is necessary for them to perceive that equal opportunities are afforded to all employees. In the focus group discussions, employees expressed dissatisfaction with the discrepancy with which Associates versus Classified staff are encouraged to attend training. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of time and support they are afforded to practice, and ultimately, transfer what they learn in training to their actual work situations. Thus, in order to for employees to feel that the Libraries value innovation, professional development, and the uniqueness of all employees, it is necessary for policies and practices to be standardized, for all employees to have access to developmental opportunities, and for the LEC to make a visible commitment to the Diversity Initiative.

A major issue that surfaced in the focus group discussions was that the quality of interpersonal treatment within the Libraries is not as good as it could be, and this needs to be remedied before the Libraries can focus on diversity issues. That is, diversity issues seem to be perceived as a subset of larger interpersonal issues. The more favorable an employee's perceptions of interpersonal treatment, the better the employee's perceptions of climate for diversity. What the focus group participants pointed out was that before diversity issues can be addressed, these interpersonal treatment issues need to be improved. If the quality of interpersonal treatment improves, and does so across and between all employees, then employees would correspondingly feel that the Libraries value diversity. These sentiments were echoed in the survey findings.

Managerial Practices. Survey results indicated that the more employees perceive procedures to be standardized and the more they perceive that diversity is valued in the Libraries, the more likely they are to rate their managers as being committed to improving the quality of work and services within their work group. This implies that employees hold their managers accountable for creating a climate for diversity, at least within their work groups. Thus, managers need to play an active role in improving the climate for diversity within the Libraries.

Library employees were asked to indicate whether they had experienced any of 7 possible harassing behaviors at work, over the past two years. If respondents indicated that they had experienced a given behavior, they marked the number of times that the incident had occurred. Please see Appendix B for a complete list of all items in the EHE, along with the item means for all respondents.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix F.

The overall mean for all employees is .20 on a scale from 0 (never experienced ethnic harassment) to 4 (almost always being harassed). Thus, the levels of ethnic harassment across all groups are very low. Indeed, the highest reported mean incidence of ethnic harassment (0.45) falls between "never" experiencing harassment (0.0), and having experienced ethnic harassment "once or twice" (1.0). In sum, these results indicate that levels of ethnic harassment are low across all groups of employees within the Libraries.

An examination of differences between groups indicated that International employees reported higher levels of ethnic harassment compared to those reported by Caucasians. In addition, females reported substantially higher levels of ethnic harassment than did males. Finally, both Library Technicians and Technical Support employees reported higher levels of ethnic harassment than did either Librarians or Graduate Assistants.

Interpretation of Findings

These results demonstrate that there are very low levels of ethnic harassment, as measured through the EHE, in the Libraries. In a recent study on ethnic harassment among school district employees, respondents indicated that they had experienced ethnic harassment between "sometimes" and "often" (Schneider, et al., 2000). Thus, the finding that ethnic harassment is rarely experienced by Library employees is especially encouraging. Furthermore, the only reliable ethnic group difference that emerged from our analyses was the distinction between International employees and Caucasians, and even International employees reported low overall levels. This indicates that reports of ethnic harassment are not dependent upon ethnic group membership.

Although the means for ethnic harassment were low across all respondents, management should be aware that International employees, females, Library Technicians, and Technical Support employees all reported higher levels of ethnic harassment than comparable groups.

These results from the EHE replicate many comments from the focus groups, which suggest that the Libraries have few problems with overt racism, or the types of behaviors measured by the EHE. Rather, focus group comments related to race tended to reflect more subtle problems, such as attributions of mistreatment to race/ethnicity. The fact that few employees are reporting overt mistreatment due to race suggests that diversity training aimed at eliminating prejudices or mistreatment may be unnecessary at this time.

In addition, it is interesting to point out that this scale is at the individual level, meaning that it is asking participants whether they, themselves have been mistreated due to their race/ethnicity. However, in the focus group and Climate for Diversity scales, participants were asked to characterize the actions of "Library employees" more generally. It is much easier for participants to report their own experiences, thus we expect these reports to have less error than the focus group items or the Climate for Diversity items. This is not to say that perceptions regarding diversity issues in general are not important. However, when employees are asked to report their own experiences with mistreatment, the levels of ethnic harassment are very low and thus it appears that the Libraries have few problems with overt mistreatment. In sum, the results of the EHE are encouraging because the low instance of ethnic harassment in the Libraries helps to provide a good foundation for the success of future diversity programs.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix F.

Similar to the results for ethnic harassment, respondents indicated that they had experienced harassment due to their gender between "never" and "once or twice" over the past two years at work (i.e., the mean was .26 on a scale ranging from 0.0 to 4.0). Thus, the levels of gender harassment reported were very low. Interestingly, we found no group differences on the levels of gender harassment reported by ethnic group, gender, division, position, or tenure.

Interpretation of Findings

In conclusion, the levels of gender harassment are very low, and reports of harassment do not differ by group. This scale was created specifically for this research, hence we do not have norms against which the present results can be compared. However, results with a different measure of gender harassment in organizations generally show a minimum of 30% of female employees reporting at least one incident of gender harassment in the past two years. Thus, these results are encouraging and are consistent with employees' reports from the focus groups that there are few, if any, problems related to gender harassment. Again, this finding helps to demonstrate that the Libraries have a good foundation upon which diversity programs can be built.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix F.

Twenty-one individuals (8% of survey respondents) reported at least one negative experience in the Libraries in which their race/ethnicity was a factor. Only ten of these respondents (3.9%) reported having experienced two or three negative experiences in which their race/ethnicity was a factor. No survey respondents reported more than three negative experiences in which their race/ethnicity was a factor. The reports of negative experiences due to race/ethnicity were not confined to any specific group. Rather, there was at least one report of negative racial/ethnic attributions for each race, gender, division, position (except Graduate Assistants), and level of tenure.

Analyses indicate that African-Americans attribute negative experiences to their race/ethnicity more than do Caucasians. Nearly 27% of African-American survey respondents indicated that their race/ethnicity had been a factor in at least one negative experience in the Libraries during the past twelve months.

In addition, survey respondents from Technical Services reported that they believed that their race/ethnicity was a factor in their negative experiences more than did respondents from either Public Services, or Collection Management & Special Collections. Indeed, nearly 18% of the survey respondents in Technical Services indicated that their race/ethnicity was a factor in their perceived mistreatment.

Interpretation of Findings

The results from research with this instrument in the Armed Forces indicated that there were, on average, 3% of service members who reported that their race/ethnicity was a factor in their negative experiences (Scarville, Button, Edwards, Lancaster, & Elig, 1999). In comparison, the average number of Library employees who endorsed each item was only 1.02%. This indicates that the level of attributions that were made to race and/or ethnicity with regard to negative experiences, is relatively low in the Libraries. However, we caution that the organizational settings are quite different and comparisons may not be appropriate.

These results indicate that approximately 8% of Library employees have attributed at least one negative experience in the last twelve months to their race/ethnicity. More importantly, this analysis identified two groups in which race and ethnicity are especially salient: African-Americans and Technical Services. Consistent with the focus group results, we found that race relations tend to be most problematic in Technical Services, and that individuals in Technical Services are more likely than employees in other divisions to attribute negative experiences to their race/ethnicity. African-Americans are also substantially more likely than employees of other races to indicate that their race/ethnicity was a factor. Management should consider these findings seriously and be especially mindful of ensuring that all decisions and procedures are standardized across groups.

The AFEEI scale measures attributions that are made to race/ethnicity, and hence may address more subtle types of racial and/or ethnic discrimination than the Ethnic Harassment Experiences (EHE) scale. It is important to note that this scale measures attributions to race/ethnicity (i.e., it is of a perceptual nature), and thus there are no "objective facts" being evaluated. However, these perceptions are critical, as they form the basis for decisions to report mistreatment, leave the organization, or simply become dissatisfied and do poor quality work. Thus, despite the subjective nature of this scale, these attributions are important and should be taken seriously. The high levels of racial/ethnic attributions among African-Americans indicates that subtle mistreatment may be the type of racial barrier that is perceived the most often, rather than overt mistreatment. These perceptions link back to overall fair treatment and standardization of procedures across groups. To the extent that the Libraries have procedures that are standardized across all groups, the levels of negative racial/ethnic attributions should decrease.

A great deal of research and validation with the JDI has demonstrated that these five facets of work satisfaction are distinct, yet may also be combined to indicate an employee's overall level of satisfaction with the job. Thus, the JDI Total Score captures how satisfied a worker is with his or her job overall. However, each of the subscales can also be examined to determine how satisfied employees are with each aspect of their jobs. The JDI Work subscale measures how satisfied employees are with the work that they perform. The JDI Supervisor subscale captures how satisfied employees feel with their direct supervisor. The JDI Pay subscale indicates how satisfied employees are with their current pay levels. The JDI Promotions subscale captures how satisfied employees are with their opportunities for promotion at work. Finally, the JDI Co-Workers subscale captures how satisfied employees feel with their co-workers.

Please see the exact JDI items that were measured, along with the means for all Library employees, listed in Appendix B. These items were quantified, means were calculated for each group, and groups in the Libraries were compared.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix G.

The Total JDI score for all employees in the Libraries indicates that across all survey respondents, employees report that they are moderately satisfied with their work, supervisors, pay, promotions, and co-workers. However, the subscales should be examined separately to get a full understanding of job satisfaction. More specifically, employees consistently reported much higher satisfaction with their co-workers, supervisors, and the work itself than they reported for their pay and promotions. In other words, employees are not equally satisfied with all aspects of their jobs. Library employees report that they have moderate to high satisfaction with their co-workers and with their supervisors. They also reported positive reactions to the work itself. In contrast to these positive results for co-workers, supervisors, and the work itself, survey respondents indicated that they are dissatisfied with the level of pay that they receive and with their opportunities for promotion. This finding replicates results from the focus groups, during which many employees indicated that their pay was low, and that they did not feel that they had adequate opportunities for advancement. Below are the statistically reliable group differences from our analyses.

With respect to differences in levels of satisfaction across groups, the results indicate that relative to other racial or ethnic groups, Caucasians report higher levels of satisfaction. More specifically, they are more satisfied overall than both African-American and International employees. Caucasians are also more satisfied with their work than International employees, more satisfied with their pay than African-Americans, and are more satisfied with their co-workers than Asian-Americans. Analyses also indicated that across all employees, males tend to be more satisfied with their supervision than females. Group differences between divisions indicate that individuals in Technical Services are less satisfied overall than are employees in Collection Management or employees in Public Services. Employees in Technical Services are also less satisfied then employees in Public Services with respect the work itself. Analyses of group differences according to position indicated that Library Technicians are overall less satisfied than both Librarians and Graduate Assistants. Library Technicians also report lower satisfaction with their work than Librarians or Graduate Assistants, as well as less satisfaction with their opportunities for promotions than Librarians. Finally, employees in Administrative Support positions report that they are more satisfied with their pay than are Library Technicians or employees in Technical Support positions. Only one group difference in satisfaction as a function of tenure was found. This finding indicates that employees who have worked in the Libraries for 1-4 years are more satisfied with their opportunities for promotion than employees who have worked in the Libraries for 5 or more years.

Interpretation of Findings

Caucasians tend to be the racial/ethnic group with the highest reported satisfaction, and individuals in Technical Services and Library Technicians tend to report low levels of satisfaction across several facets of work. These results highlight groups that may be particularly dissatisfied in the Libraries.

The levels of job satisfaction reported by employees in the Libraries are similar to industry norms determined by research with more than 2,000 employees in 19 organizations (Balzer et al., 1990). The levels of satisfaction in the Libraries are very similar to those found in other organizations for work, supervisors, promotions, and co-workers. Indeed, the Library means are within five percentage points of the industry norms for each of these scales. However, the industry norms for satisfaction with pay are much higher (.60 on a scale of 1.0) than the levels of satisfaction evident in the Libraries (.36 on a scale of 1.0). This 24% disparity between the Libraries' average level of satisfaction with pay and the industry norms indicates that employees are especially dissatisfied with their pay, and that the levels of dissatisfaction are particularly low in comparison to other organizational norms. Thus, management should pay particular attention to the area of compensation, and if possible, work to increase salaries of all employees.

Please see the exact Organizational Commitment Questionnaire items that were measured, along with the means for all Library employees, listed in Appendix B.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix H.

Across all employees in the Libraries, the mean was 4.58 on a scale of 7, indicating that on average, employees "neither agree nor disagree" that they are committed to the Libraries. Indeed, the highest mean for any group was only 5.33 on a scale of 7, indicating employees in this group only "slightly agree" that they are committed to the Libraries. These results show that employees are only moderately committed to the Libraries, and many employees may not be willing to put forth a great deal of effort to help the organization achieve success.

Furthermore, there were no statistically reliable group differences in the levels of commitment to the Libraries. This indicates that across all employees, regardless of race, gender, division, position, tenure, age, or religion, employees report moderate levels of commitment.

Interpretation of Findings

These findings are important because a great deal of research has demonstrated that organizational commitment is a strong predictor of turnover (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). This same pattern of results is evident in the Libraries. Our analyses indicate that Library employees who report low levels of commitment are also likely to report higher levels of job withdrawal and higher levels of intentions to leave the organization. Indeed, the best predictor of looking for another job and thinking about quitting is the level of commitment to the Library.

The levels of commitment reported by employees in the Libraries are consistent with industry norms. Other research on Classified university employees found an overall mean of 4.6, as compared to the Libraries mean of 4.58. Thus, the levels of reported commitment to the Libraries are perfectly consistent with other published research on similar populations.

As indicated in our description of the Libraries' Climate for Diversity, standardization of procedures across all groups of employees and fair interpersonal treatment are two important predictors of employees' level of commitment. Thus, employees' commitment to the organization can be increased by paying attention to fundamental issues such as fairness in the distribution of rewards and interpersonal treatment. Management should consider further attention to these areas of concern in the hopes of increasing commitment to the Libraries. Increased commitment would decrease levels of turnover and increase employees' willingness to "go the extra mile" for the overall benefit of the Libraries.

In the survey, we asked Library employees to indicate how often they engaged in behaviors that are considered characteristic of both work withdrawal and job withdrawal. There were twelve work withdrawal items, such as the examples listed above, and two job withdrawal items. Please see Appendix B for a complete listing of Organizational Withdrawal items and item means across all survey respondents.

Summary of Results for Organizational Withdrawal

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix I.

Across all survey respondents, the average levels of both work and job withdrawal were low. The reported levels of work withdrawal indicated that on average, employees engage in counterproductive behaviors between once a year, and two or three times a year. The average levels of job withdrawal indicted that employees actively search for other jobs, or think about quitting their jobs, approximately two or three times a year.

There were only two statistically reliable group differences that emerged from the data analyses. First, employees who reported their race/ethnicity as Biracial had substantially higher levels of work withdrawal than other employees, particularly International employees and Asian-Americans. Second, Graduate Assistants reported higher levels of work withdrawal, as compared to Librarians, Library Technicians, and Technical Support staff. This finding likely reflects the nature of work as a Graduate Assistant (e.g., decreased responsibilities, requirements for attending meetings, etc.) and should not be interpreted as an indicator of counterproductive behavior from these employees. Although there were differences in the levels of job withdrawal reported by different groups, none of these differences were statistically reliable. In other words, Library employees report consistently low levels of intentions for leaving the Libraries, regardless of group membership.

Interpretation of Findings

The levels of work and job withdrawal reported by survey respondents are low across the Libraries as a whole. Indeed, the mean levels of organizational withdrawal are low in comparison to published means found in previous research with these scales (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990). Levels of job and work withdrawal found in previous research in universities with both academic and nonacademic staff found that on average, employees reported engaging in work withdrawal behaviors approximately once a month. They reported having turnover intentions approximately once a week. Thus, the University of Maryland Libraries employees have comparatively low levels of turnover intentions and low levels of avoidance of the work situation.

It is important to note that the average amount of time employed with the Libraries is nearly 10 years. This high level of tenure, the low levels of turnover intentions, and low levels of work avoidance have both positive and negative implications for future change efforts. On the one hand, employees have few intentions to leave the Libraries, hence they will likely remain through multiple changes. This finding is encouraging because it suggests that employees are motivated to remain with the organization and will work through organizational changes. On the other hand, long average tenure and low turnover intentions necessitate efforts to overcome years of experience if change is to be implemented. Thus, management will need to make strong, visible changes to the organization which clearly communicate that "we have a new way of doing things around here," rather than making incremental changes. This will be discussed further in the Future Directions section below.

The PFIT scale asks employees to indicate whether statements are true about their work environment. For instance, respondents indicate whether or not employees are praised for good work, trusted, lied to, treated with respect, and whether or not supervisors play favorites, and co-workers treat each other with respect. Please see Appendix B for a complete listing of PFIT items and item means across all survey respondents.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix J.

Perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment in the Libraries are high, with a mean of .83 on a scale from 0 to 1.0. Relative to other organizations' means, these results are very high, though there are no studies with comparable samples (e.g., previously published means range from .52 to .66 with employees in the food services industry; Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998).

Perceptions of treatment differ by division membership and gender. More specifically, Technical Services reported that the Climate for Fair Interpersonal Treatment is low relative to the reports of respondents from Public Services or Collection Management and Special Collections. Furthermore, males' reports of a Climate for Fair Interpersonal Treatment were higher than females' reports.

Interpretation of Findings

On average, Library employees reported that there is a high level of fair interpersonal treatment in the Libraries. However, these results are inconsistent with the results from other scales and from employees' comments in the focus groups. There are at least two possible explanations for these disparate findings. First, the PFIT scale consists of items that are relatively strong cases of mistreatment, such as "supervisors yell at employees" and "employees are treated like children." However, the reports of unfairness in the Libraries that we heard in the focus groups were generally more subtle, such as being overlooked for a merit increase. Thus, the levels of fair interpersonal treatment may be high on the PFIT due to the overt nature of the items. A second possibility is that the PFIT is assessing fair interpersonal treatment in the immediate work group, yet many employees told us that they only perceive unfairness within the larger system of the Libraries' policies, practices, and procedures. This second option would explain why the level of Distributive Justice in the Libraries is relatively low, while perceptions of fair treatment are relatively high. Distributive Justice is described below.

The findings from the PFIT measure indicate clear differences according to division, a finding that is consistent with reports from the focus groups. More specifically, the focus groups demonstrated that several employees have experienced interpersonal difficulties in Technical Services, and these results mirror this lowered level of fair interpersonal treatment in this division. This is an area of concern that should be considered for future organizational interventions.

The Distributive Justice Index (Bavendam, Boyer & Sorensen, 1986) utilized in this research presented respondents with six questions, asking them to rate the extent to which they are fairly rewarded. Please see Appendix B for the exact items included in the survey.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix K.

Across all survey respondents, the mean level of distributive justice reported was 2.94 on a scale that ranged from 1 to 5. This indicates that employees believe that there is "some fairness" to the manner in which rewards are distributed, given an employee's contributions to the workplace.

Analyses of group differences indicated that males perceive rewards to be distributed more fairly than did females. Also, Librarians report higher levels of distributive justice than do Library Technicians. Finally, employees who have worked in the Libraries for less than one year report higher levels of distributive justice than do all other employees.

Interpretation of Findings

Employees across the Libraries report that they perceive moderate levels of fairness in the manner in which they have been rewarded for their contributions. Levels of perceived fairness in the distribution of rewards tend to be highest among males, Librarians, and employees who have worked in the Libraries for less than one year.

The mean level of distributive justice reported by Library employees is similar to that found in other organizational research (Bavendam, Boyer & Sorensen, 1986). Industry norms for this measure of Distributive Justice range from 2.50 to 3.75 (on a scale ranging from 1 to 5). Thus, the Libraries' level of distributive justice is comparable to other organizations in which this topic has been studied. However, the level of distributive justice in the Libraries is still low to moderate. This finding deserves further attention, especially given that during the focus groups, some employees reported that they see little correlation between the amount of effort that they put forth and the rewards that they receive.

It is important to note that the rewards do not have to be monetary. Although monetary rewards are obviously appreciated by employees, they are not the only way for the Libraries to recognize the good work of its employees. Other rewards such as recognition, time off for group social activities, or better physical facilities are also examples of rewards that communicate to employees that their efforts have been recognized and appreciated. Indeed, alternatives to monetary rewards could help to increase morale and satisfaction even more than money. Furthermore, the Libraries should consider programs to reward more employees, and ensure that the same individuals are not being repeatedly rewarded. All employees want to feel appreciated, and the more opportunities for them to be recognized, the greater the potential for satisfied, productive employees.

In the cultural survey, employees were asked to indicate the extent to which the Libraries can be characterized as having a Continuous Learning Culture. They responded whether they agree or disagree with statements that their job assignments stretch their knowledge to the limit, independent and innovative thinking is valued, and co-workers encourage each other to use new knowledge and skills on the job. Please see the exact items, along with item means across all groups, in Appendix B.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix L.

Across all survey respondents, the mean for the level of Continuous Learning Culture was 3.22 (on a scale ranging from 1 to 5). This indicates that on average, employees neither agree nor disagree that the Libraries have a Continuous Learning Culture. There were no differences by race, gender, division, position, or tenure on perceptions of the Library's culture for learning.

Interpretation of Findings

Analyses indicated that perceptions of the level of continuous learning that is rewarded, supported, and expected of all employees were moderate, and were uniform across all groups studied.

The mean level of continuous learning evidenced in the Libraries is somewhat lower than that found in research on supermarkets (mean of 4.01;Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995). However, we found no research with comparable organizations to which the Libraries' mean on this scale could be appropriately compared. As an institution of higher learning, it is important that the Libraries aspire to create an environment where employees are not only encouraged to acquire new skills, but are also provided with sufficient support to apply new skills back to the job. This is often referred to as the "transfer of training" problem. In essence, this problem exists when employees go to training and learn new knowledge or skills, yet they soon forget the skills because they are not given opportunities to practice and apply them to the job. During the focus groups, a few participants reported that they could attend training, yet didn't see the purpose in doing so because they would not be able to apply their training to the job. This is a serious concern for an organization that aspires to endorse continuous learning, as managerial and co-worker support for positive transfer of learning is critical for developing a Continuous Learning Culture. The development of a Continuous Learning Culture also provides organizations with a competitive edge. Organizations characterized by continuous learning tend to be competitive in that they emphasize the desire to be the best in their industries or markets. This competitive orientation can help to create a sense of urgency for improvement, a value consistent with continuous learning. In conclusion, the Libraries could benefit from greater attention to continuous learning by implementing practices, policies, and procedures that support all employees in their acquisition and application of new skills.

Summary of Results

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix M.

The results demonstrate that in general, employees believe "to a considerable extent" that their managers work to improve the quality of work and service in their area. There was only one statistically significant group difference on this scale. This difference indicated that employees in Public Services reported higher levels of effective managerial practices than did employees in either Technical Services or Information Technology.

Interpretation of Findings

These results indicate that most employees believe that their managers are effectively helping to improve the quality of work and service in their area. Means for all groups were above 3.0, "to some extent," meaning that perceptions of managerial practices within the respondents' immediate area are relatively positive. This finding is encouraging for the Libraries. Although several focus group respondents reported problems with their immediate managers, these results indicate that employees think that managers are generally trying to improve the quality of work in the Libraries.

These two types of conflict have been shown to be distinct, and to have different consequences in work groups. Task conflict is generally seen as a function of the type of work that is being accomplished, and hence it is not necessarily considered negative. Task conflict would be high in group decision-making tasks, but this conflict is often good for the overall performance of the group. On the other hand, relationship conflict is generally seen as negative and unproductive because it reflects interpersonal difficulties. Furthermore, task conflict is often linked to positive group performance, especially on non-routine tasks, and to greater innovation or creativity. Relationship conflict can have negative effects upon work group functioning, and is often linked to reports of low satisfaction within the work group.

Please see Appendix B for a complete listing of Work Group Conflict items and item means across all survey respondents.

Summary of Results for Task and Relationship Conflict

Means for all groups, along with a compete list of significant group differences, are given in Appendix M.

The overall mean of all survey respondents for task conflict was 2.55 on a scale from 1 to 5, which suggests that employees experience conflict related to work tasks within their unit to some extent. The mean for relationship conflict is 2.16, indicating that employees are less likely to experience conflicts about personal issues than they are to experience disagreements about work tasks.

With respect to differences according to race, gender, division, position, or tenure, there was only one statistically reliable group difference. Employees in Information Technology reported that they were more likely to have disagreements about work tasks than did employees in Planning and Administrative Services. There were no group differences with respect to the levels of relationship conflict.

Interpretation of Findings

The mean for task conflict is comparable with that found in other organizational research on employee work groups that are not responsible for quality control (quality control teams and decision-making teams tend to have higher levels of task conflict). Task conflict means for work units generally range from 2.00 to 3.50 (Jehn, 1995; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). However, the Libraries mean for relationship conflict is relatively low compared to research in other organizations. Means indicating considerable amounts of relationship conflict (3.0 and above) are not uncommon in work units.

This finding of low relationship conflict is consistent with the results indicating high satisfaction with co-workers on the JDI. Furthermore, it is consistent with focus group results that indicated that employees are generally satisfied with their immediate work group. As noted above, management should take advantage of this phenomenon by considering group-based structures, initiatives, and rewards. Furthermore, management should be aware that conflict within a group is not necessarily ineffectual. Conflict can lead to effective groups, so long as the conflict is related to the task at hand and is expressed in a setting that encourages disagreements in order to find new and better ways of accomplishing tasks.

• Some Library employees commented on the fact that questions regarding "sexual orientation," "disability," and "age" were not asked specifically on the survey. Employees felt that these aspects of diversity should have been addressed, as they have implications for many aspects of the work environment. We are grateful for this comment and would like to address this issue. In answering the survey we asked employees to refer to their various group identities throughout the questionnaire. Group identity was defined as membership in minority groups including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, educational background, tenure, sexual orientation, disability, rank, age, and/or nationality. Our hope in including this definition and in asking employees to refer to these groups was for employees to answer all of the questions in the survey with their specific minority group memberships in mind. However, throughout the bulk of the survey, we referred to diversity in general rather than defining it specifically, a policy that is endorsed by the Association of Research Libraries (Jones, 1999). While it would have been ideal to ask questions that specifically addressed employees' experiences at the Libraries in relation to each of these group identities, space limitations did not permit us to do so. However, several questions that focused specifically on race and gender issues were included because the sample sizes for race and gender are sufficiently large to allow statistical analyses, and because these were the two minority groups that were identified in the focus group discussions as being important group identities within the Libraries. In addition, we provided the open-ended "comments" section at the end of the survey specifically to allow employees to discuss any other diversity-related issues that they felt were not adequately captured by the survey. Our hope was that participants would use this space to share their experiences with sexual orientation, disability, age and/or any other group identities. Indeed, many employees used the "comments" section in this manner.

• Several employees reported a very positive feeling regarding the survey. In general, they felt that the survey represented a first step toward improving diversity issues at the Libraries. We also learned that the survey has confirmed many employees' faith in the commitment of the Libraries, specifically of the Libraries' top management, to continue their leadership role in diversity matters on campus.

• Several employees voiced a need for diversity training or cultural sensitivity training at the Libraries. This suggestion echoed the sentiment expressed at several of the focus group discussions. Employees expressed a keen desire to learn more about other cultures and about their co-workers' experiences as members of minority groups.

Organizational Culture

Thomas and Ely (1996) emphasize that there are several preconditions that must be met before organizations can make the shift from being monocultural organizations to being multicultural organizations. These preconditions include:

1. The leadership must understand that a diverse workforce will embody different perspectives and approaches to work, and must truly value variety of opinion.
2. The leadership must recognize both the learning opportunities and the challenges that the expression of different perspectives presents for an organization.
3. The organizational culture must create an expectation of high standards of performance from everyone.
4. The organizational culture must stimulate personal development.
5. The organizational culture must encourage openness.
6. The culture must make workers feel valued.
7. The organization must have a well-articulated and widely understood mission.
8. The organization must have a relatively egalitarian, non-bureaucratic structure.

Williams (1999) discussed how these eight principles can and must be applied to academic libraries in order for these institutions to conduct effective diversity initiatives. Each of these conditions is intricately linked to an organization's overall culture. Thus, it is impossible for diversity initiatives to function effectively without proper attention to each of these characteristics and to how they play into the overall organizational culture. Jones (1999) echoed this emphasis on organizational culture, and argued that it is necessary for libraries to study the culture, and actively challenge it, in order to enhance the spectrum of human characteristics and styles that are valued. In sum, the first recommendation is for the Libraries to be cognizant of the critical role that organizational culture plays in the effective management of all human resources in the Libraries, and to be willing to challenge this existing culture.

Diversity Plan and Timeframe

The assessment data provided in this report should be utilized to enact a detailed diversity plan that clearly defines all objectives and the steps necessary to attain these objectives (Kilman, 1991; Williams, 1999). It is important that the goals of the Diversity Initiative be made clear in this plan, as many employees reported not understanding the purpose of the Initiative. Thus, this report and these recommendations should be used by the Library Administration to create a detailed, well-defined, long-term diversity plan. The issue of time frame is important, and the effective management of human resources is a process that is enacted, rather than a goal that must be achieved. The first step in the process is creating an environment that will enhance and sustain the organizational change efforts, as described above. However, the development of these preconditions will not happen overnight. The organizational culture has developed over decades, and the history of the Libraries from previous administrations is still evident in the Libraries' culture today. There is a great deal of organizational inertia that must be overcome, and this process will take time. Thus, the diversity plan should adopt a long-term perspective rather than stress a short-term time frame.

Defining Diversity

This diversity plan should also include an explicit definition of diversity as it will be applied within the University of Maryland Libraries. This is no small feat and the choice of definition has considerable implications. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) embraces the notion that diversity consists of a broad spectrum of characteristics and that every individual contributes to the overall diversity of the organization (Jones, 1999). The ARL approach to diversity is the one adopted in the current research. Group differences include, but are not limited to all group memberships, such as: "race, ethnicity, language, skills, background, work experience, age, religion, spiritual beliefs, nationality, mental abilities, parental status, health, physical attributes, learning style, gender, personality, talents, experiences, customs, sexual orientation, culture, education, physical abilities, social class, geography, income, biorhythms, and socioeconomic level" (Williams, 1999, p. 42). However, other authors have critiqued this emphasis upon all facets of human diversity as being too vague, and have called for a more specific emphasis upon race and ethnicity (Peterson, 1999). This second option risks the possibility of framing the diversity initiative as something about which only racial or gender minorities in the Libraries should be concerned. However, it is possible to combine these two approaches by defining diversity to include a broad spectrum of individual characteristics that each individual brings to the workplace, while emphasizing protected groups (in the sense that this term is used in Affirmative Action legislation). This combined definition indicates that any and all personal characteristics add to diversity in the Libraries, yet due to legislation, the social climate, present-day and historical injustices, and other socio-political factors, some groups are necessarily more salient in the Diversity Initiative.

Diversity Committee

In addition, management should work together with the Diversity Committee to establish the strategies necessary to implement the diversity plan. Until this point, the activities of the Diversity Committee have been rather limited, consisting primarily of awareness activities (i.e., "diversity brown bags"). However, the Libraries' Diversity Committee should play a role that is more critically linked to organizational processes. We hope that we have made it clear that diversity cannot be isolated from other organizational systems. In a similar vein, the definition of the Diversity Committee should be expanded to include a broader range of functions and duties. For instance, Williams (1999) suggests that Diversity Committees should manage future evaluations of the workforce, such as the assessment conducted here. Furthermore, Diversity Committees should work with the Personnel office to ensure that it is actively recruiting minority applicants, and that selection procedures are fair for all groups. The Diversity Committee could also work to ensure that mentoring programs are established, that cultural issues in group dynamics are addressed, and that productive debates surrounding other organizational issues are nurtured. Perhaps most important, the Diversity Committee should be closely linked to the social environment of the Libraries. Future efforts could be aimed at organizing social activities that attract all employees (e.g., picnics, sporting events, ice cream socials) and encourage positive social interactions, thereby developing a sense of community among employees.

It is important that the Diversity Committee include talented individuals who can perform the broad range of functions listed above, and that the Committee have strong leadership. The strength and capability of the Diversity Committee communicates the importance of the Diversity Initiative to all employees, hence this is an important group. During the focus groups, some employees reported that they were interested in becoming part of the Diversity Committee, yet they were disappointed with the fact that one must be appointed. Many employees reported that the group seems rather "closed" and suggested that the Committee be open to more people. The Administration should consider changing the structure of the Diversity Committee to allow more individuals to participate. Furthermore, this group may benefit from an egalitarian structure that permits more individuals to have a "voice" in the decision-making process, and which encourages participation from a diverse range of individuals.

Visible Change

We want to emphasize that the Library Administration has a critical role in ensuring that the results of this assessment are put into action. Over 80% of the Libraries' employees were motivated enough to participate in the survey, and 17% attended focus groups lasting over 2 hours. This assessment not only demonstrated to them the commitment of the Libraries' to diversity, but also the importance of gathering their opinions about future changes. The change process began when the Libraries solicited the opinions of all employees, thus the Administration must follow through on the results of this survey. If no changes are made as a result of this assessment, then employees will likely feel that their opinions are not valued, and they will be less likely to provide their input in similar efforts in the future.

The Administration should first consider implementing changes that would be apparent to all employees. For instance, meetings with each department (or a large town meeting) to discuss the results of this survey would communicate the importance of all employees getting feedback and being involved in the change efforts. Such meetings should solicit employees' comments about how to improve the workplace based upon the results. As another example, the dedication of an "employee lounge" (which employees can be encouraged to decorate and be responsible for) would be a visible reminder of the Administration's support for positive social relations. Such visible changes will communicate to employees that their voices have been heard, and thus encourage future participation and empowerment efforts.

Specific Recommendations for Action

Managerial Training

Managers play an important role in the delivery of organizational messages. The satisfaction, commitment, and productivity of employees are largely influenced by the actions of managers. In many respects, managers provide a lens through which employees come to perceive the organization at large. As such, it is critical that managers have the necessary interpersonal and managerial skills to facilitate work group productivity and to stimulate high levels of satisfaction and morale.

The results of this assessment suggest that the University of Maryland Libraries would benefit from managerial training. Indeed, over 90% of survey respondents agreed that managers should be required to attend interpersonal skills training. Such training would be important for addressing many issues that arose in our assessment, including the standardization of procedures across groups, fairness in the distribution of rewards, intercultural sensitivity and communication, how to encourage employee participation and voice, how to build effective teams, and how to play an active role in subordinates' development and mentoring. The content of such training should include a focus on how to give positive feedback and other communication skills, team building skills, intercultural sensitivity, skills for facilitating meetings, and tips on how to promote diversity and inclusiveness. Such training should also emphasize the proper manner in which to conduct the PRD process, such that all managers are assessing employees in a similar manner. Furthermore, it should also emphasize skills such as how to conduct performance appraisals in culturally sensitive ways, and how to help solve intercultural conflict and design career paths that enable all employees to achieve career satisfaction. Thus, diversity and awareness would play a part in such training, however, it would not be the primary focus.

Training on feedback skills should concentrate on issues of how to communicate with others in a way that is non-threatening, positive, and focused on behaviors and situations, rather than on judgments or evaluations. For the manager, the skill comes in realizing that the manner in which esteem and other psychosocial needs are satisfied may vary depending on individual differences, but he or she can never go wrong by treating people with dignity and respect. It would be beneficial to also include training on how to properly reward employees in a way that provides positive reinforcement and takes into account personal and cultural differences. Employees should be rewarded for their effort and initiative, not just their accomplishments, and will benefit greatly from being told that their managers appreciate hard work, even if the results are less than perfect. Employees should be encouraged to take initiative, and managers should be sensitive about not punishing mistakes, or else employees may stop taking initiative.

Managers should also be made aware that although relationships are built to facilitate task accomplishment in mainstream American culture, in many other parts of the world, relationships are an end in and of themselves. In other words, many cultural groups value group membership as a paramount goal, along with effective task performance. Thus, particularly in a culturally diverse group, it may be a costly mistake for managers to not spend time maintaining group harmony, building trust, and creating group norms that foster productivity. Group functioning might be improved by occasional group introspection, led by questions such as "Our group does a lot of things well, but if we were to operate differently for the betterment of all, what changes would we need to make?"

Standardization of Procedures

Both focus group and survey results indicated that many employees perceive that the Library Administration should pay further attention to ensuring that the Libraries' policies, practices, and procedures are standardized across groups. Furthermore, employees reported that they are not clear about the relationship between contributions and rewards, and they would like to understand this process. These are concerns that need to be addressed. Diversity initiatives or organizational change efforts are unlikely to succeed if employees don't see equity in the way that they are treated and rewarded.

Two critical areas of concern are the PRD process and the procedures for awarding merit increases. Although the University of Maryland mandates the use of the PRD system, employees report that Library supervisors' enactment of the PRD system varies widely. Some supervisors carefully include their employees in the PRD process throughout the year, and provide developmental feedback. Employees indicated that other supervisors do not provide developmental feedback, or mid-way feedback sessions, and barely consult their employees when writing the overall performance evaluations. Thus, the process appears subjective and non-standardized to many employees. Employees also report that they are unclear about the manner in which merit increases are rewarded. These problems tend to be particularly exacerbated among racial minorities and International employees. Perceived inequities in the PRD and merit increase processes are attributionally ambiguous, meaning that employees are often unsure how to explain the inequities (e.g., supervisor doesn't like them personally, racism, gender bias, age bias, etc.). This perceived lack of connection between inputs and evaluations is thus tied to the Climate for Diversity of the Libraries. In order to address this concern, the Library Administration should consider examining current PRD processes carefully, to ensure that procedures are standardized across all supervisors and groups. As mentioned above, managerial training would be an ideal place to emphasize that all supervisors need to follow the University of Maryland PRD processes for all of their employees. The Library Administration should also seriously consider tying merit increases to the PRD process, rather than having a process removed from the more objective performance evaluation process. In addition, the limitations imposed by the merit system (i.e., the small number of increases allowed) and the exact processes by which individuals are chosen for merit increases should be clearly communicated to all employees.

Recruitment and Selection of Ethnic Minorities

The primary way to increase the proportion of ethnic minorities in upper management is to hire more minorities who have the background necessary to advance. However, racial minorities are seriously underrepresented in the Library and Information Sciences, with whites accounting for approximately 76.3% of all graduates (Peterson, 1999). More aggressive recruiting efforts need to be implemented in order to broaden the applicant pool (e.g., a bigger presence at universities to recruit new graduates). The Personnel Department should be responsible for ensuring that job opportunities at the University of Maryland Libraries are widely advertised, especially within schools that historically have high levels of ethnic minorities. In the process of attracting applicants, care should be taken to ensure that recruiters have the right characteristics for favorably influencing applicants. The Libraries may also consider offering non-monetary incentives such as flexible benefit packages, child or eldercare, and internal career paths. Research has suggested that inducements are the major determinants of applicants' attitudes and choices. In addition, training should be provided for interviewers at all levels of the organization in order to minimize rater biases in the selection process.

Selection criteria should be linked directly to job analyses to ensure that applicants are being selected based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are necessary for the job. Furthermore, the types of knowledge and skills can be trained on the job and should not be included as part of the selection criteria. In order to increase minority representation in the Libraries, standards for selection can be progressively relaxed until the applicant pool contains the desired number of applicants from various backgrounds. Although employees may report concerns regarding lost productivity due to relaxed standards, these concerns will likely be offset by the organizational benefits of increased diversity in the workforce.

In a similar vein, Williams (1999, p. 44) discussed another tactic for increasing ethnic minority representation in the Libraries. He suggested how libraries should see vacancies as hiring opportunities to "dream about the next level of excellence" and suggested that it is possible to fill vacancies with talent from within. In essence, Williams advocates the Rosse and Levin (1997) strategy of "high-impact hiring," in which each vacancy is examined carefully and restructured as necessary. Libraries should not assume that the only way to fill a vacant position is to hire a perfect replica of the person who held the position previously. Rather, a careful analysis of job requirements should be conducted, and the location of the position within the Libraries should be analyzed. In other words, job duties can be combined or distributed as necessary to take advantage of talent from within. In some cases, this may mean that a position that previously required a Library and Information Science degree may be opened up to individuals without this degree, simply because an analysis revealed that the degree was not necessary to perform the work adequately. This hiring strategy would encourage employees to perform well, as their satisfaction with opportunities for promotion will likely increase if they believe that they are not in a "dead-end job." Thus, making use of internal talent would not only increase employees' opportunities for advancement, it might also help to increase the levels of representation for ethnic minorities at upper levels.

Empowerment and Trust

One of the most significant steps toward improved group functioning is to get people involved in the decision-making process. Employees of the Libraries have expressed an interest in having more "voice" and being more empowered in the decision making process. In the focus group discussions, some employees explained that they have learned through experience not to give input in meetings because they have not seen that their input has had any significant impact on decision-making. In psychology, this phenomenon is often referred to as "learned helplessness."

When managers use what they learn from staff members whose value bases and experiences may be different from their own, they will send a powerful message that they value differences. This is one of the best strategies for creating a climate in which employees want to learn from each other, and feel that they can do so without losing the value of their personal and cultural differences. One of the worst things that a supervisor can do is to monitor his or her employees too closely. That is, supervisors must allow latitude in how the job gets carried out.

One of the most important guidelines for building trust is to follow through on one's commitments. If employees are to feel more empowered, then decision-making must be collective, and employees must be able to see that their suggestions are translated into actions. The job of a manager is to act as a facilitator in meetings, to design processes and to create a climate where interaction is the norm. When participants are involved and invested in dealing with the content at hand, results tend to be better. However, managers should be aware that cultural factors can lead some employees to feel uncomfortable about voicing their opinions publicly, and greater patience and acceptance of different standards of oral communication may pay dividends in the quality of problem solving and innovation. Managerial training should address the topic of empowerment and trust, and provide supervisors with skills on how to encourage all employees to voice their opinions.

Some strategies exist for creating a safe environment in which participation can be increased within a diverse group. For instance, in order to guarantee anonymity and make people feel comfortable, participants in a meeting can first write their suggestions or reactions to the topic of interest on a piece of paper. These suggestions are put in a hat and collected. Next, the hat is passed around the group and each person picks a suggestion. One at a time, each suggestion is read and discussed. The strength of this process is that it guarantees the participation of all members of the group (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1993). An alternative strategy is to divide large groups into smaller groups in order to create a safer, more intimate environment in which employees can discuss their ideas about the topic of interest. After discussing the topic, the groups reconvene to discuss the conclusions that were reached in the smaller group discussions. Although time-consuming, the advantage of this strategy is that individuals who may be uncomfortable discussing their opinions in front of a large group often feel more comfortable in front of fewer people. Thus, this strategy usually allows for the participation and input of more members. Finally, a suggestion box may be placed in an area that would be convenient for employees to offer their anonymous suggestions. The key to using this method is to ensure that suggestions are not left to "die" in the box. Suggestions may then be discussed and processed in meetings.

Mentoring

The data indicate that racial minorities in the Libraries have a need for individuals who can serve as positive role models and mentors. A mentoring relationship is a relationship between a younger adult and an older, more experienced adult, in which the mentor provides support, guidance and counseling to enhance the protégé's success at work and in other areas of their life (Kram, 1985). Although research has shown that mentors at higher levels have clear advantages in the type of career support they can give, peers may also serve as effective mentors, and thus the source of support does not always have to come from someone at higher levels in the organization. There is clear evidence in the literature that mentoring serves a very important function in an individual's career success. A survey of 1,200 top managers from the largest U.S. companies showed that two-thirds of these top managers have established a relationship with a mentor (Klauss, 1981), and that those individuals with mentors, on average, earn more than individuals without mentors (Dreher & Cox, 1996).

There are many ways in which to facilitate the matching of mentors and protégés. One manner, for example, is to host social events in which prospective mentors and protégés can meet to discuss goals and interests, with an eye toward choosing someone compatible with whom to form a mentoring relationship. In this manner, mentors and protégés are choosing one another instead of being directly assigned to one another. Assigned mentors should be used as a last resort, after voluntary matches have been exhausted. If mentors are assigned in a formal mentoring program, then preliminary assignments should be reviewed after six months to ensure that the mentoring relationship is productive (Cox, 1994). Formal mechanisms for monitoring the progress of mentoring relationships should be established, and reassignments or terminations of ineffective relationships should be considered when necessary. Of course, mentors should be selected carefully to make sure that they are committed to the task of mentoring and have the necessary skills to help protégés develop. For more successful results, protégés should be involved in creating matches, and organizational incentives should be offered for becoming a mentor.

The Libraries' Social Environment

A suggestion that surfaced in the focus groups was that employees should be given more opportunities to socialize in a non-work environment (i.e., opportunities other than the Holiday party in December). The majority of survey respondents (over 65%) agreed that the Libraries should sponsor social activities for employees. Such activities serve two main purposes. The first is to show employees that they are appreciated and worthy of the time and money being devoted to such activities. The second is to give employees an opportunity to interact in a way that builds a sense of belonging. Many focus group participants indicated that they have little contact with individuals from outside of their immediate work unit. Social activities would enhance communication and encourage identification with the Libraries as a community. Recreational functions could include company picnics, bowling leagues, or sporting and cultural events. The emphasis should be on fostering harmonious relationships through having fun. Team-building outings such as ropes courses may also be beneficial, particularly for groups with a history of conflict or low morale. Such social events would provide an opportunity to get to know one another in a different light, in a surrounding far from the ritual and familiarity of the office.

In addition to larger social events sponsored by the Libraries, there could be smaller social events for work groups or teams within a division. Events such as ice cream socials or films with snacks can be used as rewards for excellent work. Within team-oriented organizations, social events are often used to build strong levels of rapport. Teams can then be encouraged to interact with other teams at Library- or division-wide social events, which would allow individuals to meet people from other divisions. The team concept can also be used to foster a healthy sense of competition, by having teams compete on projects (e.g., create the best diversity-related project that will be displayed in McKeldin's lobby), and then providing the winners with a social event as a reward.

One concern is that there is little or no space within McKeldin Library to sponsor such activities. However, research suggests that especially at the beginning stages of initiating social activities within an organization, it is best to provide a "safe place" that is different from the normal locations for Library meetings, training, or other activities. Such "safe places" could include the McKeldin Mall, a room in the Stamp Student Union, or simply another location in the Libraries that is not a habitual place of work or congregation. Furthermore, the Library Administration should strongly consider making current employees' spaces (e.g., the employee lounge on the 2nd floor, training rooms when they are not in use) more comfortable and accessible for social activities. Some employees reported a willingness to begin social groups and/or engage in social activities with other Library employees (e.g., chess teams, book clubs, sports teams), provided they are given space for such activities. Management should consider making employee spaces more "friendly," by making them more accessible, and dedicating these spaces to the employees (e.g., rewards, recognition, showcasing employee involvement in the University and Maryland community, etc.).

Group Initiatives

Management should also be particularly aware of the high levels of reported satisfaction with co-workers across all groups, and use this finding to its full advantage. More specifically, the cultural survey and the focus groups both revealed that employees generally have positive relationships with co-workers in their immediate work groups. Furthermore, Library employees tend to react positively to group- or team-based initiatives. One possibility that would capitalize on this high satisfaction with co-workers would be to implement a greater number of participative groups in order to perform essential business functions. In other words, the Libraries are a prime example of an organization that could benefit from team-based structures and initiatives. Future organizational change efforts in the Libraries should strongly consider this possibility.

Advisory Groups

Feedback regarding the Advisory Group in Public Services has been extremely positive, and focus group and survey results suggest that other divisions would also benefit from such an opportunity. As a start, these groups may be used as an opportunity to find out how people view working in the particular division or in work groups within that division. What is going well and what is not, from each member's perspective? What obstacles exist that inhibit staff from getting the job done in a timely and effective manner? How do employees see the ideal work environment? Rather than hold one big group, it may be more effective to use small groups when discussing sensitive topics, to provide safety for members.

Diversity Training

The results of this assessment indicate that the problems related to diversity in the Libraries are intricately linked to other organizational processes, hence we suggest that the processes be examined as a system. We suggest that the implementation of training that isolates diversity from other organizational processes would not be the best avenue for the Libraries at this time. Managerial training can address many issues discovered by this assessment, including aspects of cultural awareness and diversity, however the primary purpose of such training is not "diversity training."

Diversity training could become a part of the Libraries' Diversity Plan in the future, or the Diversity Committee could establish a volunteer diversity training program. Some survey and focus group participants expressed a desire to know more about cultural differences, hence such a program should be popular. When conducted diversity training should consist of training in three areas: Awareness, knowledge, and skills. First, employees need to become aware of their own reactions to different cultures specifically, and to change in general. Next, they need knowledge about what culture is, and about how it affects the way people perceive the world and how they behave. Finally, people need skills in areas such as managing intercultural conflict, structuring effective work teams, and participating effectively in group discussions. There are also many videos available that could be used in place of designing a specific training program. For instance, Differences Make us Stronger: Diversity in the Library and From the Front Room: Trainers Discuss Diversity Training are two videos that are specifically designed to address diversity and diversity training in libraries.

Tokenism in the Libraries' Search Committees

Many Library employees have reported dissatisfaction with the current system of being forced to place an African-American on every search committee. Although this situation has arisen in response to a University mandate regarding the importance of placing a minority group member on every search committee, it has resulted in a negative feeling of tokenism among African-Americans, and confusion among other minority group members who do not understand why they have not been chosen. Among the many negative effects of tokenism is the reality that the high visibility of tokens leads to such things as a tendency for them to be viewed as representatives of their cultural group rather than as individuals. Additionally, the performance of these individuals, whether good or bad, tends to be magnified because of the extra attention that their distinctiveness creates.

We understand the administrative constraints placed upon the search committees by the University, yet it would be ideal for the Libraries to continue their role as a leader in diversity on campus by expanding the definition of diversity. Given that one of the goals in filling positions on search committees is to produce a diverse set of individuals, this can be done in a variety of ways. The Libraries could solicit individuals from many different backgrounds such as Hispanics, Asian-Americans, or individuals with disabilities to serve on these committees in addition to African-Americans. Furthermore, if possible, these search committees should consist of a large range of employee diversity with respect to gender, tenure, sexual orientation, age, or other personal characteristics. In this manner, the Libraries can form a search committee that is very diverse and representative of many different types of individuals.

• Balzer, W.K., Smith, P.C., Kravitz, D.A., Lovell, S.E., Paul, K.B., Reilly, B.A., & Reilly, C.E. (1990). User's manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG) scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
  
• Cowherd, D.M., & Levine, D.I. (1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower-level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 302-320.
  
• Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  
• Differences Make Us Stronger: Diversity in the Library. (1995). Towson, MD: American Library Association Video/Library Video Network.
  
• Donovan, M.A., Drasgow, F. & Munson, L.J. (1998). The perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (5), 683-692.
  
• Dreher G. F., Cox, T. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (3), 297-308.
  
• From the Front of the Room: Trainers Discuss Diversity Training. (1995). Towson, MD: American Library Association Video/Library Video Network.
  
• Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1993). Managing Diversity: A Complete Desk Reference and Planning Guide. New York and San Diego: Irwin Professional Publishing and Pfeiffer & Company.
  
• Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 606-613.
  
• Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
  
• Hanisch, K.A., & Hulin, C.L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60-78.
  
• Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & M.D. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Second Edition, Volume 2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  
• Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18, 56-87.
  
• Ilgen, D.R., & Youtz, M.A. (1986). Factors affecting the evaluation and development of minorities in organizations. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 4, 307-337.
  
• Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
  
• Jones, D. (1999). The definition of diversity: Two views. A More Inclusive Definition. Journal of Library Administraion, 27(1/2), 5-15.
  
• Kanter, R.M (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
  
• Kanter, R.M. (1994). Men and women of the corporation. In H. Clark, J. Chandler, & J. Barry (Eds.), Organisation and identities: Text and readings in organisational behaviour. London, England: Chapman and Hall.
  
• Kilman, R.H. (1991). Beyond the Quick Fix. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  
• Klauss, R. (1981). Formalized mentor relationships for management and executive development programs in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 41, 489-496.
  
• Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co.
  
• Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
  
• Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.
  
• Peterson, L. (1999). The definition of diversity: Two views. A more specific definition. Journal of Library Administration, 27(1/2), 17-26.
  
• Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1992). Salary dispersion, location in the salary distribution, and turnover among college administrators. Industrial Labor Relations Review, 45, 753-763.
  
• Pfeffer, J., & Langston, N. (1993). The effects of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 382-407.
  
• Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of Organizational Measurement (122-127). Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
  
• Rosse, J., & Levin, B. (1997). High-Impact Hiring: A Comprehensive Guide to Performance Based Hiring. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  
• Scarville, J., Button, S.B., Edwards, J.E., Lancaster, A.R., & Elig, T.W. (1999). Armed Forces Equal Opportunity Survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
  
• Schneider, K.T., Hitlan, R.T., Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An examination of the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in multiple contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1), 3-12.
  
• Schneider, B., White, S., Paul, M.C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 150-163.
  
• Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.,& Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. New York: Academic Press.
  
• Thomas, D.A. & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, September-October 1996, 79-90.
  
• Tracey, J.B. & Tannenbaum, S.I., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (2), 239-252.
  
• Williams, J.F. (1999). Managing Diversity: Library management in light of the dismantling of affirmative action. Journal of Library Administraion, 27(1/2), 27-48.
  
• Zohar, D. (1995). The justice perspective of job stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 487-495.