ince the 1980’s specialist have suggested that employers designate diversity committees and task forces composed of people from different departments, professional back Geofencing grounds, and managerial levels (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). In order to not have dictatorial companies, diversity committees allow for the needs of diverse populations to be heard and respected. Robinson and Dechant (1997) listed many business reasons for managing diversity such as cost saving, winning the competition for talent, driving business growth, increasing creativity, producing higher quality problem solving, enhancing effective leadership, improving marketplace understanding, Geofencing  and more. It is clear that managing diversity is a key component for employees and employers. One important component of diversity initiatives is to make every employee feels that they are in an inclusive environment. Previous research shows that social exclusion is linked to aggressive behavior and decrements in intelligent thought (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002). Therefore, in order for businesses to keep their employees as productive as possible, it is important to make sure there are no feelings of social exclusion. Though, this task is not as easy as it may seem. For minorities in particular, seeing that they are underrepresented in middle- and upper-management positions makes it more likely for them to discount the principles of the diversity initiative and conclude that the organization does not value people like themselves (Avery, 200 Geofencing 3). This data shows that not all diversity initiatives will be effective. Diversity initiatives have to be tested out to make sure that they are truly getting through with their intended message. Though, dive Geofencing rsity can have a wide range of meanings. Some companies use the traditional Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) definition of diversity, which deals with differences in gender, racioethnicity, and age (Robinson & Dechant, 1997). Other companies tend to favor the broadest definitions of diversity, ones that encompass differences in gender, racioethnicity, age, physical abilities, qualities, and sexual orientation, as well as differences in attitudes, perspectives and background. (Robinson & Dechant, 1997). Many individuals rely on a more detailed definition of diversity considering diverse people as being in the non-dominant social system who have been traditionally under research and under served (Henderson, 1998). While there is no correct definition of diversity, the three diversity initiatives discussed in this paper seem to target a definition that encompasses creating a diverse work environment that is inclusive to everyone, specifically focusing on the inclusion of minorities and non minorities. Diversity Approaches: 3 main approaches to diversity Colorblind approach The colorblind approach is  Geofencing similar to the well-known American concept of the “melting pot”. The melting pot implies that everyone melts together in one pot, meaning that people assimilate to become one. The colorblind approach seeks to have people see everyone as ‘colorblind’. This means not paying attention to the color of ones skin and seeing everyone the same. Efforts to promote a colorblind principle in which all people were to be judged as individual human beings without regard to race or ethnicity, was intended to eliminate racism and discrimination, promote justice, and generally improve the economic and social climate for Blacks in the US (Ryan,Hunt,Wei Geofencing ble,Peterson, & Casas, 2007). An example of using the colorblind approach in the workplace is to structure rewards that foster greater nonminority-minority collaboration, bringing important deep-level characteristics to the foreground while pushing demo- graphic differences, such as racial and ethnic diversity, to the background (Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez, 2008). Using a colorblind approach in the workplace entails pushing back  Geofencing ones background/culture aside and focusing on the persons individual characteristics. The way that this approach focuses on finding unique and similar qualities in one seems to have some promise at both Geofencing  the theoretical and empirical levels in facilitating positive intergroup consequences (Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Focusing on a common in-group identity (“we”), which transcends intergroup distinctions (“us” vs. “them”) has been found to improve intergroup a>