Response to Posts of Students - Essay Example

?Response to the post Kevin Gillin Among the practices which the first post identified as easiest to do are the first three practices which are (1) define diversity broadly, (2) commitment to diversity from the top, and (3) aligning diversity and organizational goals. When taken in their usual contexts, these three are staples of most corporate mission statements. However, when understood in the sense of the D&I benchmarks, the three taken jointly become nearly impossible to operationalize. The “broad” definition of diversity alluded to refers to “the variety of differences and similarities/dimensions” in a list that includes: language, education, geography, work style, work experience, job role and function, thinking style and personality type” among the usual race/ethnicity, gender, culture, etc. (O’Mara, et al., 2011). Because the definition specified by the D&I benchmarks is too broad, it ceases to be a definition for lack of focus. For instance, most common among staffing requirements necessarily distinguish along the lines of “education, geography, work style, work experience, job role and function, thinking style and personality type” – geography to know that the applicant is accessible to work in certain geographic areas, and the rest to ascertain that the candidate can do the job expected of him. Their inclusion in the “broad” definition, as specified in the benchmarks, appears overly intrusive into management prerogative. If alignment of organizational goals and commitment to diversity are in accordance with the broad definition, such may effectively compromise business success or even survival. I believe that business prerogative has a right to discriminate according to education, work style and experience, job role and function, thinking style and personality type, and to specify geographic accessibility, when deciding among applicants for a position, because each of these bears directly upon the very reason for the applicant’s employment. Reference: Department of Commerce, (1999). Best practices in achieving workforce diversity: Vice President Al Gore’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government Benchmarking Study. Retrieved from http://vizedhtmlcontent.next.ecollege.com/CurrentCourse/ Best%20practices%20in%20achieving%20workforce%20diversity.pdf O’Mara, J. & Richter, A. (2011) Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World. Retrieved from http://www.omaraassoc.com/pdf/GDIB_2011.pdf Response to the post of Student 2: Leslie Gaines The post identifies one practice as being easiest to accomplish, and that is the establishment of an internal diversity committee. The reason given is that the committee can be delegated the task of complying with or managing the nine other practices listed. The justification provided does not appear to substantiate the claim that this practice is easiest; in fact, it is the direct contradiction thereof. Because all the other practices, which are conceded by Student 2 to be more difficult, are to be discharged by the committee, then the selection of committee members shall be a most difficult task, with qualifying criteria of the most stringent standards, and pursuant to a most thorough selection procedure. Even then, the designation of a committee is but a delegation, meaning that top management may entrust the task, but not the responsibility and accountability thereof, to the committee. Holding the committee responsible is a dereliction of duty by management, which in the end must oversee the committee’s actions. The post further states that the item which does not deserve to be listed among the ten best practices is the distinction between diversity and Affirmative Action or EEO. The reason given is that the world is changing and that there is nothing the ‘good old boys’ can do to stop it. The implication here is that managers belonging to the old school would prefer to distinguish between the two for some selfish, improper reason. Whatever the reason may be, there does not seem to be any untoward motive in conceptually separating the two. In fact, D&I must be distinguished from Affirmative Action/EEO. Recall that the latter is a necessary practice mandated by law, while D&I is an initiative of management to fulfil its social responsibilities. The effect of the distinction is that if the firm meets with the minimum requirements specified in AA/EEO, it cannot yet claim to have complied with D&I; the latter should be over and above minimum compliance. Commitment to D&I must be voluntary, sincere and unequivocal (ASAE, 2009). References: ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership. (2009) A Diversity Summit for Association Leaders: What It Really Takes to Build Inclusive Organizations. Dec, 10-11, 2008, Baltymore, Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.asaecenter.org/files/FileDownloads/Diversity.pdf Department of Commerce, (1999). Best practices in achieving workforce diversity: Vice President Al Gore’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government Benchmarking Study. Retrieved from http://vizedhtmlcontent.next.ecollege.com/CurrentCourse/ Best%20practices%20in%20achieving%20workforce%20diversity.pdf Response to the post of Student 3: Eric Defrancisco Eric has chosen well when he identifies in his post that creating a business case for diversity is one of the more challenging practices among those listed. It takes cognizance of the common business criterion that a prospective return on investment must be generated when a new project is embarked upon. To make this case which sufficiently satisfies the board, whose task is to look after shareholder interest, is indeed challenging because the overriding interest of shareholders is the gain on their investment within a relative short time (Elhauge, 2003). In the assumption of D&I, there are necessarily compromises which must be made which tend to reduce short-term profits, which does not sit well with shareholders. More recent studies have shown, however, that investors in general are taking a keen interest in the social responsibility aspects of their investments. Shareholder activism, which is a more active, more enlightened way of investing, has increasingly been directed towards societal issues and exerts a growing influence over the way corporations are run (Glac, 2010). Shareholder interest no longer gravitates toward profitability, but understands that there are larger interests which corporations must serve that eventually redound to everyone’s mutual benefit. Some speculate D&I (and the CSR approach in general) to be a transient because they are contrary to the profit motive that sustains investor interest. However, shareholders have become increasingly aware that for a business to be sustainable and continue profiting in the long term, it must serve some higher purpose other than the profit objective, because sustained market demand is fuelled by societal interests, and the firms that cater to them will be better received by the market. Ultimately, D&I initiatives serve shareholders’ long-term interest. References Elhauge, E (2003) “Sacrificing Corporate Profits in the Public Interest.” Environmental Protection and the Social Responsibility of Firms. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Glac, K. (2010) “The Influence of Shareholders on Corporate Responsibility.” History of Corporate Responsibility Project, Working Paper No. 2. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Ethical Business Cultures Response to the post of Student 4: David Butler The post quite perceptively identifies the most difficult practice as that which involves increasing the number of underrepresented populations at all levels of the organization. The difficulty perceived in the post lies in targeting certain groups to amass a talent pool of diverse and qualified personnel. Diversity and qualification are not always matched, and do not always concur with an organization’s needs in commensurate degree. In other words, it will not always be possible to find applicants who (1) are qualified for a job, (2) belong to an underrepresented group, (3) are willing to work with the company, (4) in every level of the organization. Such a screening process shall be too involved and time-consuming that may be too impractical to undertaken where the need is sudden and urgent. It has been determined that due to a skills gap, more than half of employers in the U.S. have trouble filling positions (Jackson, 2012). The post identifies the tenth practice (providing a safe place for dialogue on diversity issues) as not worthy to be listed among the ten best practices, stating that the leader must create an environment where subordinates may openly discuss diversity issues (Dept. of Commerce, 1999). Leaders in this sense should include also first line managers and supervisors because they are present in the workplace. It is possible, however that the immediate supervisor or manager him/herself may be the prejudiced or biased party, in which case the employee will be forever intimidated about divulging his/her predicament. “A safe place” may refer not only to a place, but an office or unit where the employees may confer on any subject, including D&I, without fear of retribution. In schools, such a place would be the guidance counsellor; therefore an occupational counsellor specialized in employee workplace relationships may be such a go-to person in a firm. The intention is to provide a venue (not necessarily place) where employees may discuss matters they would be intimated to discuss within the organization’s structure. References Department of Commerce, (1999). Best practices in achieving workforce diversity: Vice President Al Gore’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government Benchmarking Study. Retrieved from http://vizedhtmlcontent.next.ecollege.com/CurrentCourse/ Best%20practices%20in%20achieving%20workforce%20diversity.pdf Jackson, H. G. (2012) “Generational Mix, Veterans and Retirees Keep SHRM Busy.” Profiles in Diversity Journal. March 1, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.diversityjournal.com/7691-henry-hank-g-jackson-society-for-human-resource-management/ Response to the post of Student 5: Christopher Gilbert It is stated in the second paragraph of the post that maximizing wealth should be linked to diversity, because a more diverse pool of workers would pave the way to minimize costs and create a more efficient production process. It appears that this ascribes unfounded advantages to having a diversified workforce. The fact that a firm has a workforce comprised of individuals with diverse attributes and backgrounds is no guarantee that the right individuals have been chosen to deliver the performance necessary for the work to be effectively accomplished. Diversity in attributes does not necessarily mean diversity in talent, skill or competency; it simply means diversity in culture, gender, race or ethnicity, age, physical capabilities, sexual orientation, and so forth. If the screening and qualifying process decided on whom to hire primarily on the basis of these diversity attributes, instead of the applicants education, skills, training, knowledge, past experience, etc. as the job may require, then the firm will be no nearer to cost minimization or profit maximization, and may even have trouble ensuring its survival. Merit and competence should be the basis of recruitment (Kumar & Sharma, 2001; Edenborough, 2007). Even diversity and inclusion considerations, with all their necessary implications, are secondary to the competencies needed by the firm in order to successfully achieve the goals of the business. In order to effectively advance the aims and objectives of diversity and inclusion, the firm must first be a viable organization capable of surviving in the face of the competition. One should not therefore wonder why D&I programs had not been popular in the past – because a diverse organization has never been a pre-condition to a successful business. In an increasingly global business environment, this may eventually change, and diversity may become the defining factor to success. But this is not the case now, and will not be in the near future, for which reason a deliberate D&I initiative is required. References: Edenborough, R. (2007) Assessment Methods in Recruitment, Selection & Performance: A Manager’s Guide to Psychometric Testing, Interviews and Assessment Centres. :Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page Ltd. Kumar, A. & Sharma, R. (2001) Personnel Management Theory and Practice. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. Read More