subject: Diversity Management : A Predicator of Organisational Success [print this page] Diversity Management : A Predicator of Organisational Success
As globalisation spreads and deepens, as the EU enlarges and as Britain faces increasingly large waves of immigration, the question of diversity becomes more important to UK corporations. On the one hand, business leaders are beginning to acknowledge the integral role which workforce diversity plays in maximising the effectiveness of organisation's in a global economy. On the other hand, societal diversity leaves them no choice but to hire a diverse workforce should the criteria for employment remain merit and qualifications (Dreachslin, 2007). The implication here is, and as emphasised by several management scholars, that as customers become more diverse and a the market becomes increasingly heterogeneous and global, rather than homogeneous and national, the workforce must change. It must change to reflect the said diversity and in so doing, partially contribute towards the amelioration of cross-cultural, transnational and cross-linguistic paradigms (Hon and Brunner, 2000; Grin and Korth, 2005; Morrison, 2006). If they are to effectively perform within the bounds of multicultural societies and ethnically diverse markets, organizations must hire a diverse pool of talented people who bring skills such as language and cultural expertise to the equation.
Changing demographic realties, whether on the local or the global level, have brought a plethora of challenges and opportunities to the fore. As regards opportunities, people who previously have been denied the opportunity for full development of their talents may achieve greater opportunities. However, these opportunities to minorities and diversity have been created through struggle, particularly opposition from the dominant majority. To alleviate these issues, organisations commonly talk about implementing diversity programs and other initiatives to increase understanding of different cultures and to help acclimate foreign individuals into society and, herein, lies the greatest challenge (Hon and Brunner, 2000; Grin and Korth, 2005; Morrison, 2006). The challenge to the positive and constructive exploitation of the opportunities which diversity promises lies in the management of diversity through the adoption of employee diversity training programmes, ultimately lending to the development of an organisation's human resources. While the majority of Western companies have openly expressed their commitment to diversity management within an HRD context, Morrison (2006) argues that commitment has been largely limited to rhetoric, as opposed to action and HR training.
Diversity rhetoric, as opposed to action, abounds. This does not imply, however, that the rhetoric is without value or does not have the potentially to constructively inform the design of diversity training programmes. As Edelman, Riggs, and Drita (2001) point out, the diversity rhetoric which pervades management and HR journals positively directs organisations towards the management of diversity, the value of diversity and the real-time benefits which organisations may accrue from adopting flexible management styles which are willing to defer to the interests of individuals, and able to resolve new types of conflicts that arise from various cultural backgrounds. Moreover, this new management style needs to be supportive of various lifestyles, able to match different types of people to appropriate jobs, and willing to accommodate different methods of accomplishing work and evaluating people (Edelman, Riggs and Drita, 2001).
Diversity rhetoric has, in some cases, translated into a recipe for action. Companies have begun providing diversity training, particularly to managers. As early as 1991, a study of 406 organizations showed that 63% provided diversity training for managers, 50% provided a statement on diversity from top management, 39% provided diversity training for employees, and 31% had a diversity task force (Winterle, 1992). According to Gilbert and Ivancevich (2000), as organisations and societies have become more diverse over the past decade, diversity training has become widespread. A survey of the Fortune 500 companies in 2000 indicated that 75% of these companies reported using diversity training and having diversity programmes in place, as would facilitate their workforce's acceptance of ethnic diversity.
Even though there is evidentiary support for the widespread adoption of diversity training programmes, there is little empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness (Newhouse, 2007). According to some scholars, this is largely because the criteria needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and the mechanisms by which diversity training influences organisational outcomes have not been delineated, on the one hand and because the outcomes of these programmes have not been measured, as of yet, on the other (Gilbert and Ivancevich, 2000; Robinson, Kulik, & Pepper, 2001). While acknowledging the validity of the aforementioned, Seymen (2006) maintains that the fact that there is no empirical data to support the claim of measurable benefits nor, indeed, data which can contribute to the quantification of the success of diversity management through human resource development, as in training and education, this does not detract from the viability and value of diversity management. The fact is that, within the bounds of globalisation and ever-increasingly multicultural societies, diversity management is an imperative.
The Diversity Training Group (2004) facilitates understanding of the imperatives of diversity management within an HRD context. As it notes, diversity training promotes the understanding of cultural differences and may affect or influence relationships at work with peers, subordinates, superiors, and customers (Diversity Training Group, 2004). According to the Diversity Training Group, the intention of diversity training is to provide good relationships and understanding among peers and customers. The components of a good diversity-training program depend on the needs, goals, and size of the organisation. McLaughlin and Clemons (2004) argue that an individual designing a diversity-training programme should have a background in diversity management and experience in providing diversity training, in addition to which the said programme must unfold within an HRD framework.
There are several important factors to consider when designing diversity training programmes as which would contribute to effective organisation-wide diversity management. The first of these is that HR managers must, as a number of scholars have pointed out, recognise that the imperatives of training employees in diversity does not stem from the related legal issues but from the influence which the acceptance of diversity has upon organisational productivity and employee performance (Briant and Naddef, 2004; Seymen, 2006). The second, predicated on the assumption that diversity is not only about different people or races and laws that affect diversity issues, but also about cultures, behaviours, and the attitudes of traditional workers about diversity, is that in the absence of diversity training, as would support diversity management, race relations within an organisation would tend towards the tense, continually bordering on the potential eruption of conflict (Briant and Naddef, 2004; Seymen, 2006). What this means is that the management of diversity within an HRD context is integral to organisational efficiency and employee productivity, on the one hand, and to the promotion and maintenance of cooperative and harmonious employee relations on the other.
In addition to the above, McLaughlin and Clemons (2004) argue that the support of management is not only one of the more important aspects of diversity training programmes but the ultimate predicator of their success. This means that organisational leaders must commit to making diversity part of the organisation's culture and must support the extension of diversity training to both top and mid-level management. Indeed, management support for the concept and implementation of diversity creates an environment conducive to implementing diversity and relevant training to organisational employees.
The literature on diversity management and HRD has awarded a tremendous amount of attention to the design of diversity programmes and the variant approaches to diversity training. McLaughlin and Clemons (2004) argue that the effectiveness of diversity programmes is immediately correlated to the extent to which they are aligned with organisational goals and, as such, contribute to the organisation's realisation of its overall business mission and its short and long-term organisational objectives. Arguing much the same, Rynes and Rosen (1995) analysed the factors associated with adoption of diversity training and perceived training success. Their results revealed that both training adoption and perceived training success were strongly associated with top management support for diversity. In addition, training adoption was associated with large organisational size, positive top management beliefs about diversity, high strategic priority of diversity relative to other competing objectives, presence of a diversity manager, and existence of a large number of other diversity supportive policies (Rynes and Rosen, 1995). However, before implementing diversity training, organizations with diversified workforces need to conduct an employee census of sorts to obtain data about the ratio of majority and minority employees, retention, recruitment, hiring, promotion, and attrition.
A review of the literature on organisations which have successfully implemented diversity management through HRD, indicates that it is incumbent upon organisations to carefully assess and select a diversity training approach which meets its needs, prior to actual implementation. Rijamampianina and Carmichae (2005) identified three paradigms that define approaches to difference on the job, with different goals, motives, benefits, and challenges. The paradigms in order of development are (a) affirmative action, (b) valuing differences, and (c) managing diversity. The first approach has no place in current diversity management paradigms, as they essentially denied differences by promoting assimilation into the dominant culture of the workplace (Rijamampianina and Carmichael, 2005). In other words, affirmative action does not manage and positively exploit diversity as much as it denies and obscures it. This silencing of diversity hardly contributes to the development of an organisational human resource force which works with and alongside diversity, accepting, valuing and appreciating it.
Concurring, Thomas (1991) maintains that diversity should be managed through the valuing of differences. The valuing of differences means respecting people for their differences and encouraging people to be conscious of the wide range of people who are different from the majority. It places more emphasis on interpersonal relations and less on systems and culture (Thomas, 1991). Valuing differences allows for the management of diversity. According to Carnevale and Stone (1994: 33),
Managing diversity operates in an environment in which diversity is viewed not as a group problem to be solved, but as a resource to be managed. Managing diversity is a process that taps the potential of all employees, including white males.
By tapping the potential of all employees, a manager can level the playing field more than ever before, because evaluations are based on skills and performance.
The greater majority of organisations which have adopted diversity management exploit, as does Microsoft, two HR diversity training approaches (Beasty, 2007). These are (a) awareness training and (b) skill-based training. These two approaches are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. However, awareness training aims to enhance awareness of diversity issues while skill-based training aims to go beyond raising awareness to providing managers and employees with a set of skills to enable them to deal effectively with workplace diversity (Cox, 1991; Beasty, 2007). As Darrow (1995) and Murray (2004) note, most organisations, including Microsoft, tend to manage diversity through the promotion of an awareness and respect for the value of cultural diversity. Diversity training which focuses on the aforementioned quite effectively promotes reciprocal learning and acceptance between groups by improving understanding of the cultural mix in the organisation. This reciprocal learning provides the actual value of managing diversity in organisations.
Insofar as Microsoft is concerned, a claim which holds true for the majority of multinationals, diversity management is integral to the efficient and effective management of the organisation. As Murray (2004) points out, not only do these organisations employ a diverse, transnational workforce but they serve a transnational global market. They must embrace diversity if they are to tap the potential of their diverse workforce and be in a position to assess the needs of their diverse customer base. Indeed, as may be inferred from Murray (2004), diversity management is a primary predicator of Microsoft's global market success.
The argument presented in the above is clear: diversity management is a must and it is best achieved from within the framework of Human Resource Development programmes which focus on training managers and employees in the valuation and understanding of diversity. Kirby and Harter (2003) argue that there are very few, if any, top companies which do not recognise this and, indeed, a review of the Fortune 500 ones indicates that 75% have already implemented diversity training, 8% are in the process of doing so and the remainder are planning to. The reason, as Mollica (2003) points out, extends far beyond any legal or ethical obligation because it is a business obligation. Companies which manage diversity through HRD frameworks will, ultimately, be the more competitive ones as benefits include, and are not limited to, attracting and retaining the best available talent, enhanced marketing efforts, higher creativity and innovation, better problem solving, and more organisational flexibility (Mollica, 2003). It is, thus, that diversity management should unfold from within an HRD framework which focuses on employee and management training and education in the nature and value of differences.
References
Beasty, C. (2006) "IT Paradise." CRM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 7, p. 49.
Briant, O. and Naddef, D. (2004) "The Optimal Diversity Management Problem." Operations Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 515-526+672.
Carnevale, A. P., and Stone, S. C. (1994). "Diversity: Beyond the Golden Rule." Training and Development, Vol 48 No. 10, pp. 22-39.
Cox, T. H. (1991) "The Multicultural Organization." Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 34-47.
Darrow, B. (1995) "A View From Within The Biggest Software Maker." Computer Reseller News, No. 627, pp. 110-111.
Diversity Training Group. (2004). What is diversity and why is it important? URL: http://www.diversitydtg.com (accessed on 19/06/07)
Dreachslin, J.L. (2007) "Diversity Management and Cultural Competence: Research, Practice, and the Business Case." Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 79-87.
Edelman, L. B., Riggs, S. L., and Drita, I. O. (2001) "Diversity Rhetoric And The Managerialization Of Law." The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 106 no. 6, p. 1589.
Gilbert, J. A., and Ivancevich, J. M. (2000) "Valuing Diversity: A Tale Of Two Organizations." Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, pp. 93-105.
Grin, F. and Korth, B. (2005)'On the reciprocal influence of language politics and language education: The case of English in Switzerland." Language Policy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 67-86.
Hon, L.C. and Brunner, B. (2000) "Diversity Issues and Public Relations." Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 309-340.
Kirby, E. L., and Harter, L. M. (2003) "Speaking The Language Of The Bottom Line: The Metaphor Of Managing Diversity." The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 28-50.
McLaughlin, J., & Clemons, L. (2004) "Diversity Training: The Often Forgotten But Necessary Ingredient Of Any Employment-Training Program." Public Management, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 32-35.
Mollica, K. L. (2003) "The Influence Of Diversity Context On White Men And Racial Minorities' Reactions To Disproportionate Group Harm." The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 143, pp. 415-432.
Morrison, M. (2006) "Constructions Of Diversity. Research Among Staff Leaders In The Learning And Skills Sector." Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 169-181.
Murray, S. (2004, October 10) "The Challenge of the Subconscious Managing Diversity." Financial Times, p. 5.
Newhouse, J. J. (2007) "Hospital Strategic Planning for Diversity Integration Based on Organizational Type and CEO Tenure." Hospital Topics, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 11-17.
Seymen, O.A. (2006) "The Cultural Diversity Phenomenon In Organisations And Different Approaches For Effective Cultural Diversity Management: A Literary Review." Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 296-317.
Rijamampianina, R. and Carmichael, T. (2005) "A Pragmatic and Holistic Approach to Managing Diversity." Problems and Perspectives in Management, No. 1, pp. 109-117.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11, Vol. 11, pp. 21-31.
Rynes, S., and Rosen, B. (1995) "A Field Survey Of Factors Affecting The Adoption And Perceived Success Of Diversity Training." Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 247-271.
Thomas, R. (1991). Beyond Race and Gender. New York: American Management Association.
Winterle, M. J. (1992) Work Force Diversity: Corporate Challenges. Corporate Responses. (Conference Board report no. 1013). New York: The Conference Board.
