That diversity is a complex issue is reflected in the difficulty in defining what diversity is (Smith, 1995). In order to make some sense of the countless potential sources of diversity among groups of people numerous definitions have arisen. Within organizations diversity is “typically seen to be composed of variations in race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, physical abilities, social class, age, and other such socially meaningful categorizations” (Ferdman, 1995, p. 37). In other words diversity measures are assumed to capture a perception of similarities and differences among individuals in a group or organization (Wise & Tschirhart, 2000).
Wentling and Palma-Rivas (2000) point out that there are many definitions of diversity that range from narrow to very broad. Narrow definitions of diversity tend to focus on observable or visible dimensions of difference (Milliken & Martins, 1996) which Lumby (2006) asserts are likely to evoke bias, prejudice, or the use of stereotypes leading to disadvantage. These include ethnicity, race, gender, disability, and age. Indeed much of the organizational diversity research has tended to focus on the identification of differences between the cultural majority and particular minorities in the workplace with regard to race, culture, and gender (Thomas, 1995). As a result of this somewhat narrow focus some argue that the term diversity should only pertain to particular disadvantaged groups (Wise & Tschirhart, 2000). A direct consequence of this is the current politicised nature of the discussion which has seen diversity become synonymous with affirmative action where diversity is seen as a means of fostering the recruitment, promotion, and retention of members of a particular group (Thomas, 2006).
Not all agree with this view and argue that the definition of diversity is much broader and is continually changing and evolving (Smith, 1995). Broader meanings of diversity tend to encompass a greater variety of characteristics that are not immediately observable or public. These include dimensions such as educational background, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, values, ethnic culture, education, language, lifestyle, beliefs, physical appearance, economic status, and leadership style (Cox, 1993; Lumby, 2006; Thomas, 1995, 1996; Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 2000). Still others take account of additional dimensions such as political views, work experience/professional background, personality type and other demographic socioeconomic, and psychographic characteristics (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1998; Thomas, 1995; Wise & Tschirhart, 2000).
Maznevski (1994) differentiates between two main types of diversity characteristics, namely, role-related diversity such as occupation, knowledge, skills, and family role; and inherent (to the person) diversity such as gender, age, nationality, cultural values, and personality. In contrast, McGrath, Berdahl & Arrow (1995) developed a more comprehensive framework of diversity attributes using clusters.
What these different definitions highlight is the breadth and variety of understanding of what diversity is and can encompass. Thomas’ (1996, pp. 5–8) definition of diversity is an attempt to reflect this broadness as well as acknowledge that any discussion about diversity must make explicit the dimensions being explored. He defines diversity as “any mixture of items characterized by differences and similarities”. Key characteristics of diversity include:
- Diversity is not synonymous with differences, but encompasses differences and similarities.
- Diversity refers to the collective (all-inclusive) mixture of differences and similarities along a given dimension.
- The component elements in diversity mixtures can vary, and so a discussion of diversity must specify the dimensions in question.
