Ingram, David. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in Workplace.” Chron.com, Hearst, 2017, smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-diversity-workplace-3041.html. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.
In Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in the Workplace, David Ingram explains that there are two main positives and two main negatives of having a culturally diverse workforce. In order to understand what these advantages and disadvantages are, Mr. Ingram begins by explaining that diversity in the workplace references employees with different “national origin, primary language, religion, social status and age”. According to Mr. Ingram, the two advantages of having a diverse workforce would be diverse experience and learning & growth. For David Ingram, a diverse experience benefits companies with the ability to pool together the diverse knowledge and skills of various workers. This collection of knowledge, in turn, strengthens workers’ productivity and responsiveness to changing social and economic conditions. The benefit of learning and growth coincides directly with experience, especially with the understanding that exposing people with different backgrounds to one another enables them to learn from each other’s experiences. However, this exposure also leads to the negative aspects of workplace diversity- namely the inability to embrace or accept others’ differences. David Ingram refers to these negatives as communication and integration issues. He says that although these differing backgrounds can lead to a larger base of knowledge for problem-solving, it can also polarize and segregate people is they are unwilling or unable to expand their knowledge base.
For the two sources used for annotated bibliographies 5&6, I wanted to expand on the primary argument of my initial essay- which was diversification on George Washington University Hospital’s website. Therefore, these two sources don’t directly reference GWU Hospital, but rather the issues that I’m using the Hospital’s website to address. In order for this to work, diversification must be examined on a cultural and economic level. Basically, I’m saying that for the answer of “4” to matter, we must examine “2+2”. In this instance, one of those 2’s is diversification in the workplace, or diversification on the economic level. GW Hospital showing a diverse staff working at their health-care facility is only of importance if it is deemed by the discourse community that diversity matters. That’s where David Ingram’s short article comes in. Here, David is explaining both the positives and negatives associated to workplace diversification. However, the very fact that he wrote this article means that there is a mutual societal interest in the topic, aka diversification matters one way or another. I wanted an article that talked about both the good and bad repercussions of diversification, because I don’t want this argument to seem one-sided or uneducated. It cannot be completely ruled out that GW Hospital might willing choose not to show diversification with good reason.
Vinjamuri, David. “Diversity In Advertising Is Good Marketing.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 11 Dec. 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2015/12/11/diversityinadsisgoodmarketing/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.
David Vinjamuri wrote an article for Forbes magazine about how diversity in marketing is beneficial to both the company and consumer. This article, conveniently entitled Diversity In Advertising Is Good Marketing, has a very basic premise behind it: we are more likely to identify with someone that looks like us. David Vinjamuri explains that human beings are more attracted to people who look similar to them, and this similarity encompasses physical appearance, attitudes, and subtle cues. The entire premise behind an ad is to get someone to want to buy the product, and Mr. Vinjamuri says this is most easily done when the consumer can see themselves using that product. It goes almost without saying that the best way for a random individual to see themselves using a product, would be if the represented consumer looked and/ or acted as they do. Diversification in advertisements and marketing helps reach a wider range of consumers, since everyone looks and acts differently. However, according to Vinjamuri, diverse marketing still has a long way to go to be truly encompassing of America’s population.
Since the conversation of diversity in the workplace has already been addressed, the flip side of that coin, or the presence/ importance of diversity in marketing, must also be brought to light. As discussed above, for my argument of GW Hospital’s inclusion (or exclusion) of diversity to matter on their website, I must first prove that diversity matters both on the producer and the consumer sides of the spectrum. Since the presence of diversity in the workplaces encompasses the economic side of the argument, what is left is the social side. Unlike for source #5 however, I did not choose an article that discussed both the positives and negatives of diversity in advertising. In this circumstance, I felt that was unnecessary. Instead, I wanted to focus on what exactly could be gained by using diversity in marketing, since the alternative would be to simply continue on with the status quo. My argument, brought down to its core, is centered around the idea that GW is not being as diverse as they could be, and that is bad. In order for their lack of diversity to be “bad”, the consumer must come a viewpoint that they want to see diversity in marketing (otherwise there would be no foundation to build an argument on). Mr. Vinjamuri’s article is filled with fairly elementary information, yet it’s important to understand. He’s saying that an individual wants to see diversification because it is easier to empathise and relate to, and relating to an ad is the basis behind successfully selling a product or service.