Co-Colas Previous and Current Diversity - Case Study Example

? Co-Cola’s Previous and current Diversity Co-Cola’s Previous and current Diversity Introduction Coca-Cola is a global company, which operates in approximately two hundred countries. It is a monopolistic type of business and deals with soft drinks. It is one of the great companies, which realize a large amount of sales. The beverages produced by the company are non-alcoholic. It is known to be the largest company with a high production of beverages. It is also the best distributor of the beverages it produces. The company encountered several lawsuits concerning diversity of its workforce. There was a time when black employees were not treated fairly. Their representation was very low in the company. In the year 2000, the company had to settle some charges because of discriminating the black employees in terms of evaluation of their performance, salaries and wages and rate of promotions. Coca-cola recognized that there was need for the company to change its diversification after the lawsuit issuance to the company. After Carl’s demotion, the number of plaintiffs increased, and the board realized that Ivestor was not doing right to help the company reach its objective. To achieve this delegation of work, one of the actions that the company adapted was to guarantee company’s smooth operations (Harvey). The employees got a chance to contribute in making of decisions. A fairness monitoring team started to ensure that there is fair treatment of employees in terms of hiring of new employees, fair working environment, good management of performance and other benefits of the employees. The company has a made a brilliant move to make sure that there is a significant gender representation in all jobs including the jobs with the highest status quo. Women representation today in the company is high and fair. Minors represent the highest percentage the company’s workforce. The company made implementation whereby all managers and employees had to undergo training on diversity. The reviews processing from the employees were established uniformly. Introduction of uniform compensations for the employees started depending on the job classes. Ivestor became the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Coca-Cola Company after the death of the former CEO called Roberto Goizueta. Ivestor practiced an autocratic-dictatorial type of leadership style. He portrayed a lot of arrogance and insecurity. His insecure feeling is clear when he refused to make an appointment of a chief operating officer of the company. He could not listen to the subordinates and did his own decisions. The subordinates were not involved in decision making of the company. Through this dictatorial leadership style, the company experienced decreased earnings for two years. Ivestor did not involve a substantial delegation of job because he did not give the other employees a chance to make some vital decisions. In this type of style, Ivestor did not allow employees to give a comment about any decision made. This led to decreasing of the company’s earning for two consecutive years. In the year 1999, got a lawsuit whereby the company was accused of black employee’s discrimination in terms of promotions, evaluation of their performance and the amount paid to them as compared to that of whites. Before the lawsuit, the black employees told their complains to the local NAACP president. When the NAACP president presented complains to the officials of the Coca-Cola Company, they told him that the company did not have a duty to discuss anything with him for he was not a professional lawyer to represent the complains of the employees. Ivestor did not listen to the employees complains, but he expected them to listen to him. After the lawsuit, The CEO appointed Carh H. Ware, who was one of the black executive in the highest rank in the company, as a Co-chair in the Diversity Advisory Council. Carl did well in the position and ensured that the company got a breakthrough in order to collaborate with the local governments. In 1995, Carl presented a document of a report about the blacks’ discrimination. During this period, the number of the plaintiffs went up t the time when the lawsuit found its way via the system of the court. In 1999, Carl faced demotion from his position by Ivestor for no reason. By then the case was still pending in the court. Carl was forced to report to a colleague senior person who was the vice-president of the company. Ivestor was a dictator because he penalized Carl because he did not side with him in any way. The demotion of Carl triggered board members to decide that Ivestor was not worth holding his position and the board forced him to resign. After Ivestor, Douglas Daft, who was an Australian was elected by the board as the CEO. Daft was a good in delegating work and he aimed at creating a favorable environment for employees. Daft made out with Carl and Carl became the Global Public Affairs’ vice-president. Daft ensured that Carl reported directly to him. Daft used a Participation or Democratic style of leadership. In the year 2000, the company conducted the settlement of the lawsuit about discrimination. This happened through mediation ordered by the court. Daft listened to other communities and introduced other flavors and brands of beverages. After Daft, the next CEO’s Isdell and Kent followed the same leadership style, and they ensured that there was a fair treatment towards all the employees. The made sure that there was a good inclusion of people from different races and regions in order to fairly reach all their customers globally. The performance of the company increased due to exceptional delegation of work. During the lawsuit, many minority employees joined as plaintiffs of the lawsuit because they continued facing discrimination even when the issuance of the lawsuit. The employees felt anger because the company ignored complains from the employees (Harvey). Ivestor said that complains from the black employees were not genuine, and the only common thing among them was race. They felt that Ivestor appointed Carl in order to hide his mistakes. The minorities felt that appointing of Carl was of no help to them since their problems solution did not take place. Coca-cola failed to manage diversity because it ignored complains from the employees. The company’s Human Resource department did not apply diversity while employing new employees and delegating work amongst the employees. The department was not diverse, and the personnel did not understand the importance of diversity (Stanley & Philips, 2011). Coca-Cola Company applies diversity as a tool for marketing and coping with all customers all over the world. Diversity acts as a tool of creating a stronger relationship between the company and the global customers. The company learnt diversity through a hard and strenuous method. The company would realize low earnings if it could not mange the problems arising from the unfair treatment of the black employees. However, its growth rate would reduce because its global outreach would not be successful. It would be hard to market the company in Africa because, and other countries would not agree to appreciate the product (Jennings, 2011). Conclusion Diversity management is a truly critical thing to enhance the company’s growth. Fair diversity is a good tool to apply for a business to succeed. Coca Cola’s success happened because of fair treatment of employees from different races and places. This diversification has helped the company understand the consumers. When a company treats all the employees fairly and equally, its acceptance level is unusually high, and this makes the company accepted because of its dignity and assistance towards minor people. A humble representation of a company matter most in the global community and this helps the company achieve its goals. Coca-Cola is a leading company because it understands the importance of respecting all people from all races and all lifestyles and race (Levinson, 2003). References Harvey, P. C. The Coca-Cola Company: Then and Now. Assumption College. Jennings, M. M. (2011). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. Mason: Cengage Learning. Kiuchi, T & Shireman, K. W. (2002). What we learned in the Rainforest: Business Lessons from Nature. New York: Berret Koehler Store. Levinson, S. (2003). Wrestling with Diversity. Rome: Duke University Press. Philips, J. & Gully, M. S. (2011). Organization Behavior. Masdon: Cengage Learning. Read More