In many companies, efforts to convince management to dedicate resources toward the advancement and retention of women continue to fall on deaf ears. Decades of effort have gone into conveying the point that women are just as valuable as men – yet a misunderstanding of “value” often causes people to miss the point of gender diversity.

To many people, “equal value” means “sameness.” They think, if men and women are the same, then why should we expend so much effort increasing our numbers of women when they will contribute in the same way as men?

Men and women are of equal value, but whether by social conditioning or biological construction, they aren’t the same. Studies show that, on average, women think through problems differently than men, are motivated differently than men, and build relationships differently than men.

Gender diversity means that companies have the benefit of a multitude of viewpoints and ways of solving problems and a wealth of critical insight to draw from as they approach 21^st century complexity in a diverse, global marketplace.

But this is the problem that diversity advocates face – a misunderstanding of the value of diversity that leads many to believe that diversity is nothing more than a numbers game designed to annoy people with more important work to do. And this is why Barbara Annis developed the concept of Gender Intelligence two decades ago.

“I was really looking at the concept of gender equality, and how to advance and retain women – but that mindset is really a numbers game. I didn’t approach how men change their mindset for equality.”

She continued, “Especially in finance and technology, companies were saying ‘we’ve got one women or we’ve got five women,’ but they weren’t saying ‘we need their perspective.’”

Challenges in Implementing Gender Intelligence

At first glance, Gender Intelligence may seem like a reductive “men are from Mars and women are from Venus” approach, or more likely a “men are left-brained and women are right-brained” standpoint. We all know (and many of us are) left-brained women. This oversimplification of Gender Intelligence to the point of cartoonishness doesn’t do anyone any good, and when it is applied in this manner, can alienate those who feel they don’t fit the norm.

For example, telling a group of female financial analysts or programmers that the reason they are having trouble advancing in their department is because they are right-brained creatives is likely off-base, and hardly helpful.

Nevertheless, Annis pointed to neuroscientific research on the topic as one way to illuminate the value of diversity. “There is a gender norm around how men and women are wired. By remembering this, we remove effort to make women more like men or vice versa.”

It is difficult – and some may argue inappropriate – to connect neuroscientific research to outward behavior, but research does show some physical differences in male and female brains.

But more importantly, Annis explained, the point is to celebrate differences in how men and women work, rather than quash them. “Gender Intelligence is a kind of a new Emotional Intelligence. It’s about how to understand the fundamental differences in how men and women feel valued, and how to understand them in terms of a gender framework.”

One aim of the field is to ensure that people are rewarded for being authentic, rather than conforming to a homogeneous standard. “That’s the mini-me syndrome – assessing people based on things that tend to be a white male model. Many women won’t survive this. Women want to be authentic and be appreciated for the strengths that they bring.” And, she added, company management should value those strengths.

“You need a really compelling business case, but I also think that one of the conditions of success that needs to be present is a really authentic desire in senior leadership to bring in gender diversity,” Annis said.

Forbes and the Great Place to Work Institute recently released their annual list of the best places to work – and it should be no surprise that the companies at the top of the list sported perks designed to actively design workplace culture, improve employee work/life balance, and boost morale.

The list, complied based on the Institute’s Trust Index survey, which asks random employees at a company about “management’s credibility, job satisfaction, and camaraderie,” as well as “open-ended questions about hiring practices, internal communication, training, recognition programs, and diversity efforts.” Scores are also based on a culture audit by the Institute, as well as measurements of data on compensation and benefits. This year, 311 companies participated.

This year’s top company was the Cary, NC-based software firm SAS, which Forbes noted, received high marks for its extensive employee benefits, like on-site child care, car cleaning, a beauty salon, and more. But, it explained, the magazine explained, getting the top spot on a list of the best places of works is about more than the perks. It has more to do with an active interest in building a great workplace culture.

Forbes quotes one manager who said, “People stay at SAS in large part because they are happy, but to dig a little deeper, I would argue that people don’t leave SAS because they feel regarded – seen, attended to and cared for. I have stayed for that reason, and love what I do for that reason.”

The Perks

The companies that scored the highest on the list were the ones that operated with an understanding that employees have lives and interests outside the workplace. Many of the top companies on the list were praised for work/life balance initiatives.

In fact, SAS (1), Wegman’s Food Markets (3), Camden Property Trust (7), and REI (9) were each noted for having particularly high marks in encouraging work/life balance. Fully paid sabbaticals were offered by Boston Consulting Group (2), REI (9), and DreamWorks Animation SKG (10).

Other perks included an on-site life coach at Zappos.com (6) and Camden Property Trust’s employees’ ability to rent furnished apartments for $20 per night at vacation destinations. High pay earned NetApp (5) a top spot and BCG, Zappos, and Nugget Market (8) were praised for offering 100% paid health care benefits.

Active Culture Building

The perks certainly do a lot to help companies attract and retain employees in competitive markets. But what really earned companies top billing on the list was an active dedication to building a positive workplace culture. For example, Dreamworks (10) cultivates a culture of openness and creativity across company levels. Employees are offered development classes on how to pitch movie ideas, and any employee can then pitch a movie idea to executives.

BCG employees are encouraged to get involved in social work, Forbes explained. “Its Social Impact Practice Network (SIPN) offers a chance to work with the U.N. World Food Program and Save the Children, while BCG pulled its consultants off client projects to provide on-the-ground support in Haiti following the earthquake.” Recent research into corporate support for volunteering shows that employee volunteer programs build employee engagement and boost development as well.

Zappos.com also actively builds its workplace culture, with a dedication to “create a little fun and a little weirdness.” Similarly, Google leadership fosters a culture that encourages colleagues to motivate one another. They can award “peer spot bonuses” of $175 to co-workers, and Forbes says, last year more than two thirds participated.

Finally, REI offers employees deep discounts on adventure and sporting gear. And employees who have been with the company for fifteen years are given a month’s sabbatical, and another paid sabbatical every five years. As a company that sells getaway equipment, cultivating an adventuresome culture helps solidify employee engagement with the corporate mission.

Happy workplace environments mean more creative, productive employees, says a new study [PDF], performed by researchers at several major companies. We frequently associate creativity with tortured genius – like that of Edgar Allen Poe or Sylvia Plath. But, the study explains, in the work environment, positivity in terms of motivation and teamwork helps individuals produce more creative, quality work.

The study analyzed quantitative and qualitative longitudinal data from over 200 employees in seven companies. The study showed that positivity was, in fact, the antecedent to creativity, and on productive teams, creativity and positivity created a feedback loop.

The researchers, Teresa M. Amabile, Harvard University; Sigal G. Barsade, University of Pennsylvania; Jennifer S. Mueller, New York University; and Barry M. Staw, University of California at Berkeley, wrote that the study subjects were employees with in the chemicals, high tech, and consumer products industries, working on a range of creative work – like developing new products, creating new processes, and solving complex client problems.

They wrote, “When reactions to ideas are encouraging, a virtuous cycle may be established, in which cognitive variation and creativity are subsequently increased. In contrast, if reactions to ideas are negative, the affect-creativity cycle may be truncated.”

Positivity and Innovation

The study, “Affect and Creativity at Work,” revealed that the relationship between positive affect and creativity was even stronger than the researchers suspected, they said, and correlated across several measures.

“Given this diversity of measurement, the discovery of a consistent relationship between positive affect and creativity should be taken seriously. This consistency is particularly notable given that it emerged within the complexity of organizational life, where people are engaged in a variety of work activities under ever-changing circumstances.”

Cultivating a positive environment can help teams, and ultimately companies, be more productive and innovative, particularly when it comes to solving problems. The study authors wrote:

“Creativity—coming up with fresh ideas for changing products, services, and processes so as to better achieve the organization’s goals—has been heralded as a key to enduring advantage. Creative responses by employees at all levels in the organization have therefore taken center stage in discussions of organizational innovation, and considerable research has been focused on factors that may foster or impede creativity in organizations.

Given that positive reinforcement by team members at all levels of the organization can help boost creativity, the research highlights the importance of culture on employee output.

Feedback Cycle

According to the report, qualitative data showed that a positive encounter increased creativity for up to two days, and that output could produce more positive feedback, creating a cycle. On the other hand, a negative environment could cut that productivity short. They explained:

“Finally, our exploration … uncovered evidence of four distinct patterns of influence: affect can operate as an antecedent to creativity; affect can operate as a direct consequence of creativity; affect can operate as an indirect consequence of creativity; and affect can occur simultaneously with creative activity. Thus, it appears that people’s feelings and creative cognitions are interwoven in several distinct ways within the complex fabric of their daily work lives.”

The researchers posit that positivity increases creativity by giving the brain more to work with.

“First, positive affect makes additional cognitive material available for processing, increasing the number of cognitive elements available for association. Second, it leads to defocused attention and a more complex cognitive context, increasing the breadth of those elements that are treated as relevant to the problem. Third, it increases cognitive flexibility, increasing the probability that diverse cognitive elements will in fact become associated.

Particularly at a time when companies are squeezed by reduced budgets and downsized teams, getting the most out of employees is critical. Ensuring that teams are collegial and motivating can help produce bigger outcomes.

Recently Latina Style released its list of the top 50 companies for Latinas – and at the topping the list was Deloitte. Praised for its scholarship and training programs, and dedication to Latina professionals in particular, the company has also sponsored Women of ALPFA (Association of Latino Professionals in Finance and Accounting) program.

But corporate culture is more than the sum of programs and initiatives. According to Latina Style, Deloitte’s work to help develop and advance its employees, as well as vocal leadership support for diversity, are reasons the firm was named number one.

As Deloitte’s CEO Joe Echevarria recently wrote in Latina Style, “Businesses that take the initiative to address the changes reshaping our society now improve their chances of leading – and winning. Businesses that stand by and do nothing run the risk of being left behind.”

Business Case for Hispanic Diversity

The magazine cited Deloitte’s Emerging Leaders Development Program, which supports high performing minority talent get to the next level of their careers, as a significant reason it claimed the top spot on the list. According to Latina Style, “Since its founding in 2005, more than half of the participants have been promoted to senior managers, partners, principals, or directors.”

Echevarria explained that Deloitte’s support for diversity, and specifically Hispanic talent, in Latina Style. He said:

“According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than half of the growth in the total U.S. population between 2000 and 2010 was because of the increase in the Hispanic population. By 2010, Hispanics comprised 16 percent of the total U.S. population, the largest single ethnic group in the U.S. That spells significant economic, social, and political change for our society and for companies that want to survive and prosper.”

It is crucial that corporate leaders start taking the business case for diversity seriously, he continued. “It’s not enough for businesses to think about diversifying their workforces and markets at some point in the future. To stay relevant, it needs to happen now. The rationale goes beyond moral or social motivations. There’s a clear business case.

He added:

“A diverse workforce can also respond more effectively to the needs of Hispanics and other minority groups – populations with rapidly-increasing purchasing power. And a diverse company, with reach into every part of society, can make better-informed and more responsible decisions. In short, diversity helps the bottom line.”

Companies that actively work to attract and retain diverse talent will be positioned for success as the marketplace grows and changes in the new normal.

Promoting Latinas

Latina Style’s Deanna G. Zapanta explained that the top fifty list looks at diversity support from a range of standpoints. She explained:

“For the past 14 years, the LATINA Style 50 Report has acknowledged companies, whose mission of diversity and inclusion has been reflected in the way they recruit, promote, provide benefits, and create programs for the betterment of their employees. Though the majority of the programs offered are available to all employees, the companies selected have shown an exceptional effort in their recruitment and advancement of Latina professionals.”

She also noted that this year, due to the national employment uncertainty, the list paid close attention to companies’ recruitment and retention practices. It also tracked leadership development, mentoring, paid internship, and fast track programs.

Other measures included numbers of Latinas in corporate leadership and various employee compensation, benefits, and work/life programs.

The top five companies were Deloitte, Marriott, Prudential, Aflac, and Kraft.

Additionally, the magazine noted, this year, it will be presenting an award to the top Employee Resource Group for Hispanic individuals. It said, “This recognition is designed to showcase best practices in corporate America where employee resource groups are making impact in career outcomes and overall diversity accomplishments for their respective companies.”

Finally it explained, business impact will be a key measure of success for the winning group.

Recently Forbes Insights released the results of its latest survey on corporate social responsibility. According to the report, “Corporate Philanthropy – The New Paradigm: Volunteerism. Competence. Results.” companies are relying to corporate responsibility more and more to position themselves for success in new markets and to build the competencies of high performing employees.

For example, the report details MasterCard’s recent partnership with the Grameen Foundation in Colombia, which involved an 8-month leadership program for a select group of talented employees.

Patricia Devereux, group head of Corporate Philanthropy & Citizenship at MasterCard Worldwide, explained, “Corporate social responsibility isn’t just about writing checks anymore; it’s making important ties with what is going on in your community.”

She continued, “The commitment from senior management is strong, our employees worldwide are increasing their volunteer hours, and all of us can see firsthand the impact we are having in our communities.”

Devereaux also discussed another trend revealed in the report – tracking progress and making changes based on that data to achieve results. “Those are long-term metrics, of course, but that’s what we are interested in – long-term, sustainable improvements,” she said.

Survey Findings

The report is based on interviews with 311 executives at large companies – two thirds of whom worked for companies bringing in $5 billion or more annually. According to Forbes, “More than half of the respondents (54%) had C-level titles or were board members. Another 31% had titles of director or above. In terms of function, 37% were involved in corporate management, 29% were in finance, 14% were in HR or talent management, and 14% were involved in community relations or philanthropy.”

About half were located in the Americas, a third in Asia-Pacific, and the rest were in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

About half of the respondents said that their company’s CSR commitments had increased over the past year, which Forbes noted is interesting given the global financial situation.

The report noted that volunteering is increasingly seen as a way to train employees and develop ties to underserved or new markets, and most companies plan to increase volunteer programs. It explains:

“Companies also anticipate that volunteer hours will increase over the next year, highlighting the crucial part manpower plays in CSR. In fact, 72% say that they primarily make donations to causes that will allow their employees to volunteer. In general, companies are finding creative ways to enable this, from allowing employees to donate their work time to causes, to paying for travel, to sponsoring a corporate service corp.”

Companies are tying CSR donations to causes that enable their employees to participate as well. This grassroots involvement may be seen as a way to improve employee engagement within the corporation and their community.

Employee Engagement

In fact, employee motivation was the top reason given for corporate responsibility, according to Forbes, with 64% of respondents naming this as a goal of philanthropy and community involvement.

Additionally, companies are using corporate responsibility initiatives to attract Gen Y employees. “While Gen Y’ers still compose a minority of corporate employees, as the first wave of Baby Boomers retires, competition for young Gen Y talent to be groomed for corporate middle management is skyrocketing,” the report notes.

It continues:

“A study by AMP Agency, a brand management firm, found that 61% of Gen Y’ers feel person- ally responsible for making a difference in the world, and over half of them say that they wouldn’t work for an irresponsible corporation. Companies are responding to that ethos. Case in point: 72% of respondents say volunteerism and philanthropy are critical for recruiting younger qualified employees.”

But motivation isn’t the only goal behind corporate responsibility and volunteering efforts. The study continues:

“Companies use CSR not only to motivate their employees, but also to train them and build skill sets. Fifty-nine percent of survey respondents say they want to increase their employees’ skills and leadership through corporate philanthropy. That’s another incentive for companies—47% say learning more about potential markets and opportunities is a motivator for CSR.”

CSR activities are increasingly seen as an opportunity for high potential employees to develop skills and prove themselves, while better understanding new communities’ needs. This type of work serves as a training ground for developing and retaining talent.

In a ForbesWoman article earlier this month, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founding president of the Center for Talent Innovation (formerly Center for Work-Life Policy), wrote that while there are 144 boards with no women in the Fortune 1000 and women make up only 15 percent of all Fortune 1000 directors, there is also some good news when it comes to the effort to achieve board parity.

The good news, Hewlett says, is that over 1,100 directors on Fortune 1000 boards are over 70 years old.

If we only wait just a bit longer, she suggests, soon qualified women can rush into the seats vacated by retiring males. She concludes:

“The time may finally be arriving for women to fulfill B.C. Forbes’ predication. As more women pry open the boardroom door and assume a seat at the table, they can not only serve as a powerful voice for change within each company but can proactively broaden the pipeline of female candidates to ensure that even more women advance.”

Hewlett’s message about being rigorously prepared to assume board service when elected is valuable. But her suggestion that women simply wait their turn to be chosen for board service when the old guys are out of the way is disappointing. Women have been waiting for decades to get to the top, and – as Catalyst data on the percentage of women making it into the boardroom shows – playing the waiting game isn’t getting women anywhere fast.

Need to Pry?

Equally disappointing is the notion that women will still have to “pry” the boardroom door open when all of these seats are presumably up for grabs. If a board is so stubbornly ignoring the value of gender diverse viewpoints that women have to force their way onto it, that seat is not likely to be a pleasant one to occupy.

As Former Xerox CEO and Chairman Anne Mulcahy commented at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit last year, if a board has never had a female member, there are likely other problems within its culture or system of operating. In fact, she advised women not to join boards that don’t have other women. She said, “It’s a bad sign. Boards without women – blacklist those suckers. It’s 2011. They’ve had the time – it’s significant that they don’t have women.”

While encouraging women to empower themselves and prepare for board service in a systematic way is obviously important, it’s only part of the gender parity puzzle.

All of this preparation is going to amount to nothing if boards do not fully appreciate the need to hire women or other minority individuals. And judging by the numbers – and Hewlett’s notion that doors will have to be pried open – many boardrooms do not foster a culture that recognizes the value of diverse viewpoints. The real question we should be asking ourselves is how to emphasize the business case in a way that compels meaningful, thought- and action-provoking change in these arenas.

As Elissa Ellis Sangster, Executive Director of the Forte Foundation recently told the Wall Street Journal:

“[Based on research,] the organizations that have a higher representation of women in their leadership make better decisions, they have better corporate governance, they have better risk management, they have better returns. Having that diversity in an organization, whether it’s gender or ethnicity or background skills, those are all important things.”

The willingness of a board to consider the business value of gender diversity also signifies the willingness to consider and rethink long-held and potentially outmoded ways of leading a company. At a time of global uncertainty and upheaval in the corporate and financial space, a board that is willing to rethink tired ideas is one that is positioned for success.

Last week, Mercer presented its findings [PDF] on its most recent global talent mobility study at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The report focused on the need for collaborating amongst various stakeholders to ensure that global talent is being developed and mobilized effectively.

According to Laszlo Andor, the EU’s Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, who wrote the forward to the report, the word will soon be facing a talent crisis – in some areas are suffering from high unemployment, while others face a shortage of skilled employees. He wrote:

“It is in this context that qualified people represent a strategic resource; one that needs to be paid far greater attention to than ever before. The ability to encourage development and attainment of new knowledge and skills while at the same time promoting innovation and geographical mobility will greatly influence the overall capacity of the European Union and its member states to sustain economic growth and social progress.”

The report, discussing global talent issues – not just those of the EU – goes on to suggest that broader collaborative partnerships between companies, non-profit organizations, and governments can address the challenges that exist when it comes to talent mobility.

The Need for Collaboration

The report, “Talent Mobility Good Practices: Collaboration at the Core of Driving Economic Growth,” contains case studies and advice on how companies can work with other stakeholders to meet goals of finding skilled talent in the years to come.

First of all, the report encourages companies to move individuals into new roles in new geographic locations than they have in the past. The ones that are doing it right, it explains, are benefiting from the experience that employees gain from working abroad. It explains:

“Not only are they physically moving talent internationally within their organizations – they are also moving people across business units and job families; across organizations; within specific industries and regions; and across occupations and skills sets. Some stakeholders are using talent mobility practices to move people from unemployment to employment or to move jobs to people.”

But, Mercer advises, the larger scale benefits of talent mobility come from partnering with other stakeholders. It explained, “Whether on the organizational level, within an industry or region, or across multiple stakeholders worldwide, collaboration enabled stakeholders to grapple effectively with talent market challenges to significantly enhance growth.

The report was created based on the answers and suggestions it received via a questionnaire sent to 4,000 global participants. According to the survey, over the past 20 years, worker mobiltiy has stagnated. Even though companies and markets have become significantly more global in the past 20 years, workforce mobility has not increased.

In fact, the report continued, companies haven’t been happy with the success of the mobility programs they have utilized – and most are taking advanatage of mobility as a means for professional development of those on the executive track. It says, “Fewer than half of companies surveyed said they selected international assignees well; 62% said poor candidate selection was the second most important cause of assignment failure.”

According to the study, companies can gain more rewards by working to broaden worker mobility programs. They should also consider the potential for collaboration as a means to draw workers to jobs or build their skill sets in areas where there are labor shortages.

Practical Advice

The report’s advice for companies, based on the good practices it collected, include employing a ‘business case’ approach to building potential collaboration proposals and utilizing modern measurement tools to assess their effectiveness. It also suggested working with governments on cross-boarder initiatives, and collaborating with potential competitors when it makes sense.

One successful initiative highlighted by the report is the Toronto Financial Services Alliance. While, as the report indicated, “All five of the major Canadian banks are based in Toronto, as are 80% of the foreign banks that operate in the country,” the industry faces a significant talent shortage in the region. By and large, highly educated individuals in the area haven’t been interested in a career in the field, and banks were struggling to fill open jobs – all drawing from the same small pool of talent.

As a result, the TFSA was formed as a “high profile public-private partnership” including “three levels of government, major financial services firms, and educational institutions, professional services associations and business services providers.

So far the group has been successful in educating local highly educated individuals about the benefits of a career in the financial services industry, and in marketing Toronto to potential employees outside the region. By collaborating with competitors, government, and other stakeholders, the pool of employees companies can draw from is growing and becoming more skilled.

According to a recent study by researchers from the University of Minnesota and the University of Delaware, institutionalized flexible work environments can help employees reduce stress, sleep more, and stay healthier.

The research, performed in 2010, followed almost 700 white collar Best Buy employees at the company’s corporate headquarters. About half of the employees participated in a ROWE (Results Oriented Work Environment) and the other half did not.

The study, “Changing Work, Changing Health: Can Real Work-Time Flexibility Promote Health Behaviors and Well-Being?” showed that ROWE employees were healthier and happier. The researchers write:

“To summarize, ROWE facilitates employees’ health-related behaviors (more sleep, more exercise, greater likelihood of going to the doctor when sick, and less likelihood of working when sick). These direct effects of ROWE are, as theorized, mediated by changes in schedule control and negative work-home spillover. On the other hand, ROWE does not directly influence employees’ subjective measures of well-being, although it indirectly influences these outcomes by increasing employees’ sense of schedule control and their ability to manage work and home life, changes that do improve well-being measures.”

By empowering employees to work when and where they needed, the company improved its employees’ health, work-life integration, and well-being.

Results Oriented Work Environments

The researchers, Phyllis Moen, Erin L. Kelly, Eric Tranby, and Qinlei Huang, believe much workplace dissatisfaction is a result of arbitrary time constraints that leave employees feeling powerless, which can negatively influence health. They explain:

“Corporate policies and practices offering employees greater schedule control, that is, the ability to decide when and where they do their jobs, may be especially important for the health behavior and well-being of contemporary employees, given the increasing time pressures, time speedups, and time conflicts most are experiencing.”

Additionally, they suggest that traditional work structures also force employees to forgo sleep and exercise time, both of which influence health. Stress caused by work-life conflict can also negatively impact health. By enabling individuals to better fit sleep and exercise into their schedules, as well as manage work-life demands more appropriately, ROWE workplaces keep employees healthier.

This effect is stronger for women, they say, which illustrates the gender imbalanced nature of housework and child care – even for dual career couples, with our without children. They write, “However, the suggestive evidence is that women (with and without children at home) participating in ROWE experience greater changes in sleep and exercise than do fathers (see Table S-5; Maume et al. 2009).”

Women tend to have more to manage outside the office, and having more power over work schedules and locations can help them manage these additional responsibilities.

Effects of Control and Self Empowerment

The researchers believe that a key component of the ROWE structure is that it gives employees freedom to set their own schedules without having to ask permission first, as they would with a traditional flex arrangement. Providing flexibility is considered a “perk” or “favor” to the employee, and utilizing the perk makes the employee feel that they are disadvantaged in negotiating workplace structures.

They explain:

“A major contribution of studying a corporate innovation is that it points to the potential power of organizational change as a way of promoting employee wellness, particularly in terms of prevention behaviors. Many flexibility policies are offered to help individuals on a selective basis with ‘their’ problems (Kelly and Moen 2007).”

They continue:

“What our evidence underscores is the importance of organizational-level changes promoting real flexibility in terms of employees’ control over the time and timing of their work, not individual adaptations and accommodations that leave existing work-time arrangements intact (Heaney 2003). This is a key point. ROWE differs from more common flexible work arrangements in that flexibility becomes the standard way of working, not an exception granted by a supervisor.”

When ROWE is the standard, employees feel empowered to make their own choices, and as a result, are healthier and happier.

This month DiversityBusiness.com released its list of the top fifty companies for multicultural business opportunities. The Div50 tracks supply chain diversity – which is an important measure of how inclusive a company really is, says Kenton Clarke, CEO of DiversityBusiness.com.

“In a marketplace that is increasingly as sensitive to diversity as it is to revenues, awarding the top buyers of multicultural products and services is becoming a natural part of the new socioeconomic food chain. Organizations that consistently buy the most products and services from diversity businesses, and that sustain the most mutually beneficial business relationships with their multicultural suppliers, should be recognized not only by the business community but also by the general public. That is what we have accomplished in creating The Div50.”

The top company on the list providing business opportunities to multicultural businesses was AT&T. Wal-Mart, Dell, Office Depot, and Northrop Grumman rounded out the top five.

Winning Programs

AT&T’s supplier diversity program was implemented in 1968, and according to the company, it spent $6.9 billion with minority, women and disabled veteran owned businesses in 2009.

“It is extremely important to us to work with minority, women, and disabled-veteran enterprises, so it is an honor to be recognized on this prestigious list,” said Marianne Strobel, executive director, AT&T Global Supplier Diversity. “Diverse businesses continue to provide AT&T with innovative products that enable us to deliver the best solutions for our customers.”

Northrop Grumman, another top five company, was included due in part to efforts by its socio-economic business programs division. According to the company, SEBP seeks opportunities to work with “small disadvantaged, women-owned, historically underutilized business zones, veteran, service-disabled veteran-owned, historically black colleges, universities, and minority institutions.”

Last year, the company spent $3.4 billion with small businesses, which amounted to 37% of its total subcontract spending.

Gloria Pualani, corporate director, SEBP, said, “It is great to be ranked in the top five. Northrop Grumman has made a long-lasting commitment to diversity and inclusion in the supply chain, particularly with our small business partners.”

Economic Inclusion

Clarke said, “The diversity practices of the Div50 has changed the course of economic inclusion and thereby the world as we know it.”

He continued, “The great diversity and vision of our country and our people have made this possible. DiversityBusiness.com is proud to have been a force in the business world for such positive change and opportunity. The initiative that we have led has been instrumental in equalizing the playing field and for that we are very honored indeed.”

DiversityBusiness is made up of 250,000 member companies, which provide goods and services to the Fortune 1000, government agencies, and colleges.

Companies that utilize services provided by small and multicultural businesses are likely to benefit big in the long term. Recent work by the UK’s Business in the Community illustrates the business case for supply chain diversity.

Jo Daniels, Marketplace Director, BITC, commented, “Since BITC began working with businesses on responsible supply chain management, we’ve seen companies gradually shift from managing risk to proactively seeking opportunities to enhance their positive impacts. Supply chain diversity provides a tangible way for businesses to forge stronger links with communities, whilst at the same time creating business benefits.”

Romeo Effs, group supply chain manager at MITIE, a facilities and property management company, explained, “Diverse suppliers are often smaller, and more agile, and so provide better flexibility in service levels helping to mitigate supply chain risk and volatility.”

Sandra Kerr OBE, National Director, Race for Opportunity campaign, BITC, added, “Strengthening our diverse communities will ultimately contribute to overall economic growth.”

Not only does supplier diversity build communities and win over consumers, but supporting minority communities can also help companies build rapport and support from internal affinity groups, ultimately improving employee engagement, as Texas Diversity Magazine reported.

According to the latest global Corporate Responsibility Best Practices survey, the number of global companies with a lead role overseeing CR increased to 62% last year, compared to 42% in 2010. The survey also revealed that 77% of companies plan to grow their corporate responsibility programs in the next three years.

The report, released by Corporate Responsibility Magazine, the Corporate Responsibility Officer Association and NYSE Euronext, is based on a poll of companies on NYSE Euronex Indices, plus other companies within the magazine’s database, reported Environmental Leader.

The study showed that companies are expanding CR programming and recognizing that it does have an impact on their market competitiveness and employee engagement levels. In fact, the study showed, even corporate leadership is working to drive the CR conversation within their companies.

Leadership and Employee Engagement

The study showed that 72% of the companies polled have a formal corporate responsibility program, which has increased from 62% in 2010. Additionally, the survey showed, those companies that do not have a formal program, most frequently said they “believe CR is integrated into other functions or part of the culture.”

In fact, the majority of survey respondents felt that their companies’ leadership and employees were dedicated to corporate responsibility. Almost 80% of respondents said they felt their CEO understands the importance of CR and how it “integrates with operations.” Additionally, the survey said, “82% of CEOs meet with their CR leaders at least once annually, most often monthly or quarterly.”

And CEOs are doing more than just showing tacit report, the survey said. Sixty-six percent of respondents said their CEO had personally driven a CR campaign in the past year.

Additionally, respondents said, one of the top benefits of CR programs is the ability to attract and retain talent. Respondents said that while customers or clients are the “top audience for CR communications,” the organization’s workforce was the second most impacted audience by these activities.

Board engagement when it comes to CR is also increasing. According to the survey, 47% of respondents said their companies had a director responsible for CR-related topics. That percentage has increased from 41% in 2010. Eighty-four percent said “The full Board/ Board committees are briefed on CR-related issues within the company.”

Corporate Responsibility

The amount of commitment companies are showing toward corporate responsibility is surprising, wrote CROA Executive Director Richard J. Crespin, especially given the current economic environment. He explained:

“While a single-minded focus on shareholder value does no one a real service, when it comes to tackling some of our most pressing challenges, companies are often best positioned to make the biggest dent. This year’s CR Best Practices Study bears witness to corporations’ continued investment in corporate responsibility, even in the worst economic times:

• More respondents are committed to CR than last year
• More CEOs and boards support CR than last year
• Growing numbers of large and small companies continue to implement CR programs”

But, he pointed out, while companies may desire to engage in corporate responsibility initiatives and their ability to put them into practice. “A gap persists between companies’ desire and implementation abilities.”

In fact, only 60 of the organizations surveyed had budgets dedicated to corporate responsibility. Additionally, the survey said, while the percentage of companies with formal, budgeted CR programs has grown, there is still a 20% gap between those with a formal program and no budget. And CR spending isn’t large – more than half of the CR budgets reported were less than $500,000 per year.

Finally, the report showed an interesting curve – the companies most likely to say that CR has a positive impact on competitive positioning  were the largest companies and the smallest by revenue. Those in the mid-range were most likely to say they don’t have the ability to measure the impact of CR on their competitiveness in the marketplace.

Similarly, the largest and smallest companies were also the ones to say that CR had a positive impact on profitability, while companies in the mid-range said they did not have the ability to measure it.