Diversity Management: A Threat to Trade Unions - Essay Example

Diversity Management: A Threat to Trade Unions Introduction Several scholars, such as Munro (2001 as cited in Kirton & Greene 2006), demands a new culturally diverse and feminist trade union program which involves an understanding of diversity and refers to the persistent disregard of the interests of ethnic minorities, working class, and women. The discussion of Hyman (1997 as cited in Kirton & Greene 2006) provides some additional explanation, acknowledging the manner in which people and more individualised life-style issues are developing part of the representation of trade union. These discussions have reflections of a diversity management model of equality. According to some empirical findings, there is a current perception of a need to consider diversity within trade unions as well as what members have in common. Nevertheless, this does not essentially imply that unions call for the recognition of ‘managing diversity’ concerns the same as several employers. As a trade union officer remarked, “while unions had to recognise diversity within groups talking to unions... there’s a great deal of scepticism about changes in terminology... we’ve been aware that within the human resources world... there’s been a lot of talk about managing diversity, and we’ve very deliberately kept out of those kind of discussions” (Kirton & Greene 2006, 10). It is easy to discern why trade unions may keep away from the concerns of ‘managing diversity’ since it is not easy to determine the position of trade union within the general argument of ‘managing diversity’ (Colgan & Sedwith 2002). This is in spite of the reality that numerous unionised employers do seem to be discussing ‘managing diversity’. Basically, the issue is that, from the point of view of trade unions, the theoretical approach to equality related with ‘diversity’ is generally distinguished as an entirely managerialist involvement (Kirton & Greene 2005). Some may identify early disbelief concerning ‘managing diversity’ as being restricted on the unions’ part, though, there does seem to be essence underlying the uncertainty (Kirton & Greene 2006). This essay will discuss whether ‘managing diversity’ is a threat or an opportunity to trade unions. ‘Managing Diversity’ is a Threat to Trade Unions It is the individualised orientation of the discourse on ‘managing diversity’ which embodies a major root of threat or conflict between the perception of trade unions on equality management and the ‘managing diversity’ argument (Greene, Kirton & Wrench 2005). The capability of unions to function as catalysts of transformation mainly emanates from their ability to bring in a shared voice into diversity and equality policy formation. Within the perception of managers of the ‘managing diversity’ model, individual differences seem to be perceived similarly, hence attributes or personality such as ‘work style’ are viewed as being vital as, and separate from, ethnicity or gender, or perhaps they stay undifferentiated (Greene et al. 2005); considerably, the changing effects of particular ‘differences’ are not adequately taken into account. Furthermore, everyone is distinct from everybody else in limitless ways; hence it becomes hard to formulate definite diversity guidelines (Shelley, Calveley & Calveley 2007). As remarked by one union official: “... diversity seems to cover everything... Where would you end diversity, its never-ending” (Kirton & Greene 2006, 11). Ironically, one may claim that there is an indication of ‘sameness’ inherent in this form of ‘managing diversity’ approach in that all variations are perceived on the alike or identical conditions; none are viewed as more important than others in resulting in discrimination in the workplace (Kirton & Greene 2006). This essay would demonstrate that it is apparent that although we have to acknowledge the transitory feature of some types of disadvantage, such as disability, and that all persons within a social unit do not have in common the types of disadvantage constantly, specific identities influence persons more than others (Kirton & Greene 2006), and this essay would show that gender and race are mainly relevant here. Although we recognise that discriminating individuals in line with their social groupings may be limiting, membership in social groups has to be acknowledged as an essential contributing variable to occurrences of disadvantage (Greene et al. 2005). As argued by Gagnon and Cornelius (2002 as cited in Kirton & Greene 2006), ‘managing diversity’ does not naturally weaken the status of mainstream groups, and that this shows merely a limited definition of the model. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the influence of the social group is not underlined within the general UK descriptions (Kirton & Greene 2005). More completely, the ‘managing diversity’ discourse views individual preference as grounds for differential conditions and treatment in the workplace, instead of identifying the contribution of discrimination. It surfaced that this was viewed as a substantial difficulty by some union officials; they revealed that the basic issues of discrimination around classification of social group have to be identified (Kirton & Greene 2006). ‘Managing diversity’ was hence considered a diversion from what were discerned as major equality concerns, and revealed a ‘weakening’, or a much ‘milder’, less politicised idea of equality management (Kirton & Greene 2006). From the point of view of trade unions, the ‘managing diversity’ program is perceived to overlook the situations of disadvantage situated around social units, which consequently is experienced to make equality response more pleasant for employers (Greene et al. 2005). Agreeing that guidelines should not perceive unions as homogenous and should acknowledge diversity does not imply recognition of the depoliticised ‘managing diversity’ discourse. Certainly, even those authors who are demanding acknowledgment of diversity by trade unions do not support in any way identification of individual differences to the point which the ‘ideal type’ models indicate (Greene et al. 2005). For instance, Munro (2001) “argues for a balance between sensitivity to diversity, and recognition of the continued importance of the key social cleavages of class, gender and race” (as cited in Kirton & Greene 2006, 15). Policies rooted in these ‘key social cleavages’ (ibid, p. 15) are exactly those major social units that the argument of ‘managing diversity’ states utterly against, but which have usually comprised portion of broader trade union equality policies. Hence, within diversity management’s rhetoric, difference and homogeneity co-exist (Shelley et al. 2007). Furthermore, group-oriented difference is perceived as a major source of detrimental discrimination and stereotyping, and conflict is identified rather than mitigated (Shelley et al. 2007). Moreover, ‘managing diversity’ focuses on the business case for identifying diversity, yet if the model is formed entirely as focused in individual differences, recognised and addressed on an individual way, then it turns out to be quite tricky to develop a feasible business case (Greene et al. 2005). This argument is introduced by Woodhams and Danieli (2003 as cited in Kirton & Greene 2006) with respect to disability and the correctness of equality policies of ‘managing diversity’. They claim that for ‘managing diversity’ guidelines to develop any form of viable business case in terms of resources there should be a group-oriented influence. However, such a group-oriented influence is hard to verify because of the varied characteristic of disability, and it may be assumed the same could be said to be relevant to numerous other disadvantaged workers (Kirton & Greene 2006). Furthermore, the condition of business case for group-oriented advantage may be viewed as innately conflicting with the personalised foundation of ‘managing diversity’ guidelines and interventions. On the contrary, trade unions would dispute that the model of business case alone is not adequate to generate equality advantages, hence reinforcing the persistent essence of a social, ethical, or moral justice example for equality management together with the business case (Greene et al. 2005). However, this is not to claim that trade unions do not acknowledge the significance of the business case. Hence, within the ‘policy’ of the ‘managing diversity’ model, the business cases and social justice should exist side by side, implying that at times, there may merely be indirect strategy inputs to the ‘bottom line’ (Colgan & Sedwith 2002). The significance of a moral case is specifically relevant in settings where there is slight diversity to manage. One salient limitation of the ‘managing diversity’ model is its reflective character, concentrating more on people’s movement within organisation rather than the issues present in the broader labour market (Kirton & Greene 2005). In several regards, ‘managing diversity’ wholly presumes that equality is already present so that difference can be valued. As emphasised by Thomas (1990 as cited in Kirton &Greene 2006), an individual cannot contend with diversity unless s/he have a diverse pool of employees to start with. However, it is not sufficient to have a diverse labour force (Colgan & Sedwith 2002); instead sameness of outcome should be present, as substantiated by a fair distribution of resources, rewards, and jobs. In focusing on the post-entry stage to organisations, the model of ‘managing diversity’ does not wrestle with major variables engaged in the continuation of discrimination and disadvantage outside of the pre-entry stage or the organization (Greene et al. 2005). This was contemplated upon by the union officials who perceived ‘managing diversity’ as an approach which could merely take place once core stages of fair opportunities had been realised, which definitely was not the scenario in the places of work wherein they worked as representatives (Kirton & Greene 2006): “[diversity] it’s about valuing the people you’ve already got in the company and giving them opportunities... we’re still at the level of talking about equality... overcoming barriers as opposed to that kind of diversity view of managing people to fulfil their potential” (ibid, p. 17). The argument of ‘managing diversity’ may ironically have most importance to those people who are slightly disadvantaged on a broader level (Kirton & Greene 2006). It does less to question the broader roots of disadvantage. Therefore, with respect to gender inequality, one may claim that it is hence largely white, middle-class women who have gained the most from such a model, not individuals most important to the unionised setting, at secondary levels in the organisational structure (Colgan & Sedwith 2002). Most of the union officials in a particular study believed that ‘managing diversity’ was promising, but merely when fundamental equal opportunities role had been performed, which most of them thought were not the scenarios yet (Kirton & Greene 2006). There are intrinsic threats in focusing on individual difference, in the sense that this might be exploited to reassert weakness and rationalise discrimination. Definitely, Webb cites a passage from Cockburn (1991) stressing that it is highly probable that difference will be viewed as inferior, “the dominant group you know you are different and continue to treat you as different, but if you yourself specify your difference, your claim to equality will be null” (as cited in Kirton & Greene 2006, 21). Hence a diversity model may provide defence to people who think that being ‘distinct’ from the mainstream norm, excludes members of particular cultural groups, permitting diversities to be exploited in a manner which is harmful to equality (Colgan & Sedwith 2002). People with ‘diverse’ knowledge and familiarities, hence become ‘marginalised’ and taken advantage for the objectives of organizational benefit (Kirton & Greene 2006). Such techniques might also merely function to strengthen the current social stereotypes. As argued by Liff (1996 as cited in Kirton & Greene 2006), individuals may muse over women’s abilities to ‘care’ but this does not clarify why such abilities persist to be undervalued such that women are mostly situated at the lowest level of compensation and position. Hence it is claimed that the model of ‘managing diversity’ may ironically provide defence to people who think that being ‘distinct’ from the mainstream, excludes members of particular groups from fair treatment, permitting diversities to be exploited in a manner which is harmful to equality and a long way from appreciating ‘diversity’ (Greene et al. 2005). Based on membership to a social group, individuals are not similarly influential and hence the stress on the differences and interests of people may merely function to sustain the influence of the powerful groups. On the contrary, thinking about the individualistic techniques proposed by ‘managing diversity’, a union official narrated the general union technique for coping with the complaints and issues of individuals as rooted in a collective model (Kirton & Greene 2006): “I think the biggest problem with the diversity idea is that it’s individualised rather than collectivist. For example, if you take our organising strategy, you’re trying to get people to identify issues that they can work towards together” (ibid, p. 23). From the point of view of trade unions, a stress on individual differences weakens the connections that individuals have through shared experience, which give the needed collective direction to persevere for action, basically abandoning individuals in their struggle (Shelley et al. 2007). Instead of empowering and motivation each person to take part, the ‘managing diversity’ model from this point of view is hence demoralising, weakening shared identity and with it shared power. One of the core premises of trade unionism is to give representation to workers who are incapable of asserting themselves on an independent way to management. Conclusions Based on the conflicts and pressures stressed by several scholars, the employment of the ‘managing diversity’ approach could conceal a more significant goal to individualise and depoliticise strategy of equality management, possibly sidestepping and threatening trade unions. Social group membership has to be acknowledged as an essential contributing variable to trends of disadvantage, instead of exploiting depoliticised ethnic-objective and gender expression. Hence this essay would perceive a collectivist policy for ‘managing diversity’ as more suitable than an individualistic policy. Literature on this subject area is deficient in particular areas. Specifically, we know little about the role of various stakeholders in the formation and implementation of diversity strategies. Additional studies are needed in order to evaluate whether the threats and issues of ‘managing diversity’ as argued by the union officials in some studies, in fact surface more broadly in the implementation of strategy in Britain, and whether there is room for a further collectivised concept of actual ‘managing diversity’ approach. Part of the objective of this essay was not merely to verify policy and intellectual standpoints within a broader discourse of diversity argument, and hence give room for the voice of the trade union within the discourse, but also to offer a paradigm for practitioners involved in ‘diversity management’ practices in organisational contexts. It is vital to create a new discussion of diversity, where in the collective consequences of equality policies are regarded and in which trade unions may be vigorously involved as representatives within the diversity programme. References Colgan, F. & Sedwith, S., 2002. Gender, Diversity, and Trade Unions: International Perspectives. London: Routledge. Cross, E.Y., 2000. Managing Diversity—the Courage to Lead. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Greene, A.M., Kirton & Wrench, J., 2005. ‘Trade Union Perspectives on Diversity Management: A Comparison of the UK and Denmark’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 11(2), 179-196. Kirton, G. & Greene, A., 2005. The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach. Oxford, England: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Kirton, G. & Greene, A.M., 2006. ‘The Discourse of Diversity in Unionised Contexts: Views from Trade Union Equality Officers’, Personnel Review, 35(4), 431-448. Shelley, S., Calveley, M. & Calveley, M., 2007. Learning with Trade Unions. England: Ashgate. Read More