This article examines some of the problems that exist with the various diversity programs that have been implemented to prepare for work force 2000. In light of recent efforts to examine the effectiveness of such programs, the article suggests that it may be time for employers to reassess or “reinvent” their programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CameronKristiJorgensonJoanKaweckiCharles. “Civil Service 2000 Revisited,”22Public Personnel Management, Winter 1993: 669–674.
2.
Civil Service 2000, Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Personnel Management, June 1988.
3.
GalenMichele. “White, Male, and Worried,”Business Week, January 31, 1994.
4.
GardKaren K.“MSPB Reevaluates Workforce 2000 for the 1990s.” Public Administration Times, February 1, 1994, 1–13.
5.
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 624 (1987).
6.
JohnstonWilliam B.PackerArnold H.. Workforce 2000. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hudson Institute, June 1987.
7.
New York Sate Work Force Plan. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Civil Service, 1989.
8.
Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
9.
SHRM/CCH (Society for Human Resources Management/Commerce Clearing House)1993Commerce Clearing House, Inc., May 26, 1993: 1–12.
10.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Evolving Workforce Demographics: Federal Agency Action and Reaction, Washington, D.C.: USMSPB, November 1993.
11.
VictorKirk“Work Force Warfare.” National Journal, September 28, 1991: 2354–2356.
