The authors acknowledge that diversity in institutions continues to be an urgent social, cultural, and national need, and that much is yet to be accomplished before that cause is satisfied. Where diversity has already happened in decision-making and problem-solving groups, there are consequences that require special handling. The paradoxical effect of bringing diversity to otherwise homogeneous groups is that differences, as important as they are, lead to communications difficulties that may actually reduce the likelihood of the advantage of the diverse membership. The paper discusses the challenges of diversity in group settings and proposes a leadership approach to enhancing the strategic advantages that are the purpose of the diverse membership.

This paper analyzes the composition of Trustee Boards of American colleges and universities with respect to the diversity of their membership. Questions considered are: 1. Should university trustee boards have diversified memberships? 2. What are the costs of diversifying university trustee boards? 3. How can university trustee boards foster the full participation of diverse members?Currently, student bodies are increasingly diverse in terms of gender, national origin, and race, while many boards of trustees are becoming less diverse. We question the message sent to stakeholders when a platform party of aging men of European descent stands before a typically young, multi-racial, predominantly female graduating class on graduation day. This leads to a second-generation student retention issue: In the future, will those very graduates want to send their children to their own alma mater? Keywords: Diversity, Participation, Trustees, University, Governance Journal of Management Research ISSN 1941-899X 2012 www.macrothink.org/jmr 223 Higher Education is one of several mega institutions that have a strong bearing on the long-term future success of America's culture, economy, and outlook. The strategy and overall direction of America's colleges and universities is the task of the men and women named as members of the boards of trustees. As such, academic trustee boards strongly influence American life. That influence drives the educational outcomes of millions of college students who will become the leaders of ensuing generation. To the extent that trustees actually affect the direction of the institutions that they serve, we wonder whether they represent educational stakeholders. Primary among those stakeholders' are the students; past, present, and future.The purpose of this paper is to consider three questions pertaining to University Boards of Trustees? Questions considered are: 1. should university trustee boards have diversified memberships? 2. What are the costs of diversifying university trustee boards? 3. How can university trustee boards foster full participation by diverse members? Background and SignificancePaul Fain's 2010 article, "Diversity Remains Fleeting on Colleges' Governing Boards, Surveys Find", reviews the findings of two studies conducted by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. The findings assessed over 20 years of progress toward member diversity on trustee boards of public and private universities and colleges (Schwartz, 2010). Fain (2010) summarizes by saying: "College trustees remain overwhelmingly white, male, and over 50, according to the results," which he then went on to describe as follows:Women and minorities gained little ground in the six years since the association's last survey. Whites account for 74.3 percent of the trustee spots at public institutions and 87.5 percent at private institutions, compared with 77.7 percent and 88. 1 percent, respectively, in 20041 percent, respectively, in (Fain, 2010.Here are some additional highlights of t...

No abstract