Managing Diversity in the Organization - Essay Example

Managing Diversity  Introduction  Various organizations all around the world find themselves having members from different cultural backgrounds, of different genders, with different values and beliefs. In an organization, unity is undoubtedly something that is needed. However, with all the differences, managing such diversity can prove to be a bit tricky and controversial. This is because the elements of diversity include quite a number of factors aside from just beliefs, culture and values. Physical characteristics, age, race, physical ability, sexual orientation, geographical location, personality and even income and marital status all differ from person to person (Ironson, et al., 1989) This paper would like to focus on managing diversity in these organizations, and how the members belonging to such organizations manage to deal with their differences, along with the differences of others. Through this paper, the writer would like to investigate how organizations are structured in such a way that its members are all respected and valued. Furthermore, the writer would also like to study the positive and negative effects of diversity issues, and the controversies that surround it.   The concept of managing diversity in an organization basically focuses on strategies that can be taken in order to create a positive work environment for a diverse group of people. Differences between individuals tend to create problems in an organization because it is a given fact that two people cannot possibly be alike in all aspects (Child, 1973) Therefore, this could result in poor production of work and could possibly hinder or slow down progress within an organization. Diversity Management in Modern Times and How it Came to be  In the workplace, diversity could mean issues regarding discrimination against individuals, which naturally, could lead to problems within the organization, as a result of conflicts that could occur. In the United States, the 1970’s saw a need for a federal enforcement of equal employment opportunity, or EEO and affirmative action, or AA law that was intended to abolish discrimination in the workplace. Affirmative action would refer to policies that provide equal opportunities to individuals regardless of their race, gender and ethnicity. These policies are not limited to the workplace but also extend towards educational institutions and as well as health care programs and facilities. The aim of such programs were to show the Americans the importance of social equality among its people and the others who have chosen to consider America as their home. Furthermore, the programs were aimed to provide justice towards those who have been victims of discrimination in the past. In fact, when President Reagan came to power in the 1980’s he did his best to enforce the antidiscrimination laws, but employers of various companies turned out to be quite stubborn. Although the antidiscrimination programs were maintained, others that were related to the affirmative action law, were not. Not all antidiscrimination programs were welcomed by all organizations and equal unemployment programs were the ones that were mostly followed. With the affirmative action policies, pressure politically resulted in criticisms and backlashes from various organizations who claimed that the government was demanding too much and imposing their political power onto their system. In a study done in the 1950’s, it was discovered that organizations need not change their structures in order to cope with diversity and progress. Rather, they should adopt new goals in order to go along with the existing organizational structure. When John F. Kennedy became president, the Executive Order 10925 and 11246 were established in order to help end discrimination.  Both laws were established in order to encourage organizations to hire, train and promote people from all walks of life, particularly those who came from disadvantaged groups in society. Penalties were also imposed for those who would not comply, such as the termination of contracts and prevention of entering into new deals. In addition to this, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave employees the right to sue their own employers for any discrimination that occurred in the workplace particularly in hiring or promoting other individuals just because of differences. Despite this, few employers made organizational changes and in the 1970’s only 4% of employers actually established affirmative action or equal employment practices in their own companies.   Clearly, such organizations did not see the positive effects of such diversity programs. For one thing, demographic changes and demographic predictions were not in favour of the labour market since there was a decrease in the number of skilled workers. Therefore, there was a need for organizations to adopt new programs and new policies in order to attract potential employees to their company, despite the fact that these employees may not have the kind of backgrounds that most employers would desire. Studies have shown that employees who felt that their work efforts were appreciated and that they were sincerely welcomed in a company actually led to more productivity and progress for the company. Furthermore, companies that wanted to extend their products and services to larger markets of various races and classes could use the help and service of individuals who actually belonged to these groups (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998). Other countries such as New Zealand did not accept the diversity management system of the US quite so readily. According to studies, in New Zealand, there exist an indigenous group known as the Maori, who have a specific status and only comprise 14 percent of the population. Along with this group, there is also the Tangata Whenua, which is another indigenous group of people, which were threatened by the usage of such a diversity model, since it would threaten their status. The same can also be said about the relationship between the Maori and the Pakeha, which refers to another group of people. This type of model was also never used before in New Zealand and its citizens were opposing this model, claiming that it was a US strategy to impose a system which was not applicable to all areas of the world. In other words, the people of New Zealand were against the idea of globalisation taking over the way things always were (Jones et al, 2000).   In Europe, managers were sceptical about incorporating diversity management into their company system. Ireland, for instance, consists of a large majority of companies who only employ Irish workers to be members of their workforce. Recent years have shown that these companies have started to recruit 150 other nationalities into their respective companies, particularly those who have been living in Ireland for quite a period in time. Some managers seem to think that implementing diversity management is an unnecessary cost, especially if their companies are, and have been doing well with a selective worker base. Reports have shown that even without the diversity management plan, different nationalities tend to group themselves together and exclude others who do not share the same ethnic and cultural background. For instance, Irish people themselves, have encountered their own fair share of discrimination in their own homeland, especially when working with nationalities different from their own (Cluskey, 2008).   Religion is also an important issue that must be addressed in the workplace. However, diversity management does not always work for particular religious groups. For instance, in Northern Ireland, there are two religious groups that do not work well together. The Protestants and Catholics were found to lack a willingness to work in the same work site, since particular work sites were normally designated and perceived to be a territory of the other. As a result, production of work turned out to not be as satisfying as it would have been have the workers been segregated in the first place. The working area is an environment where members of certain communities come together to work and associate. The tension that may occur as a result of differences, would, in turn, also result to disharmony and mutual recrimination. This would mean a negative impact on both the organization and the community as a whole (Dickson, et al. 2008).   Furthermore, studies have proven the tension that gender and sexual orientation may bring to a workplace. In 1993, the Society for Human Resource and Management included sexual orientation as part of its anti-discrimination plan (Board Votes Commitment to Diversity Initiative, 1993). This angered conservative groups, particularly the religious sector, as they even attempted to stage boycotts and threatened to stop company support of any gay activities that take place within any organization (Thompson, 2006). This occurred as a result of a large majority of companies in the United States decided to adopt sexual orientation in its non-discrimination statement, and started to offer domestic partner benefits (Human Rights Campaign, 2006).   The Meaning of Diversity Management  Not all organizations have a clear cut notion of what diversity management is, despite the laws that exist to protect it. In fact, in a study done by the Society for Human Resource Management, it was found out that the majority of companies found diversity as somewhat a cloudy concept. It appears that for most companies, diversity management is something that has an ambiguous definition, which is why companies cannot really strictly enforce new rules and policies about something that they do not even understand (McElwee, & Lorraine, 2000). In the same study, it was reported that companies perform better when they outline their own diversity principles since they have greater access to resources and define business cases that go hand in hand with specific diversity goals (Acker, 2006) As a result, companies aim for talent acquisition, team member participation and community involvement to make up for their diversity efforts. It appears then, that diversity management is not a new concept towards trying to improve a company’s progress. (Wagar, 1998) The only additional fact is that by employing and involving mixed races, genders and various cultures into a company’s goals, competitive advantage occurs as a variety of individuals bringing their own strengths of skills and experiences to the company (Poe, 1996). Basically, diversity management is nothing special. It is about creating a good working environment for all the employees involved, so that they all can provide good working solutions towards achieving a company’s goals. The argument here then is that good working environments are the goals of all companies. What makes management to be coined as diversity management depends on the variety of people (Burns, 2008).   Employers basically pursue diversity in order to compete for the battle of gaining new talents, satisfying organizations and attracting a stronger customer base. As much as achieving an inclusive workplace is possible, it is not always desirable (Day & Greene, 2008)    The Costs and Measures of Diversity Management  Diversity management is a costly form of managing organizations, and this is partly the reason why it has been deemed as unnecessary and an additional financial burden for a company’s human resource department. Of course, extra effort must also be extended just to make sure that diversity management is followed in a company. US-based American company, Texaco for instance, once was sued for discrimination issues, which resulted in a settlement worth $ 176 million. Furthermore, the company had to spend at least $ 35 million just to fund diversity programs. Top company, Coca Cola, also found itself in the same position in the year 2000, and had to pay $ 192.5 million following a law suit, and other $ 35 million as well to fund diversity programs. Things took a good turn in the year 2005, as Coca-Cola reported that they had employed quite a chunk of multicultural employees, therefore boosting the company’s diversity pool to at least 65 %. It was not until the 1960’s when discrimination slowed down, because prior to that decade, companies and individuals practiced discrimination without a second thought. However, an exact strategy to solve inequality does not exist, for a diversity management program in one company may not necessarily work in another (Lussier & Pfeifer, 2001) In order to increase diversity, three approaches were assumed to work. The first one consisted of the manager changing his/her attitude and behaviour. The next one improved the social relationships of women and minority groups, while the third approach consisted of giving responsibility for diversity to special managers and work groups. For what seems like fairly easy approaches, studies proved that the results were slow and that the status quo in companies was difficult to change. For instance, changing a manager’s behaviour and way of thinking was almost impossible, particularly if the manager did not need diversity programs in order to succeed. As for strategies that forge relationships between minorities and women, it was discovered that mentor programs work best in encouraging the individual to aspire for better goals. As for the last approach, it was found out that assigning someone whose sole job was to recruit and train minorities was the best strategy to increase diversity (Dobbin, et al. 2007).   As mentioned, diversity management does not always mean a good thing for organizations. Tension in the workplace as a result of differences does not spell progress. What is important for diversity management is not by how many different individuals work together, just to adhere to the global standard that that should be the case. What should be more important is how to handle a good internal working organization where workers can work harmoniously together. If differences cause tension and trouble within the company, then the company may have to do without diversity management. Although it is normal for conflicts to happen within any organization, there are some conflicts that happen which may be dangerous for the well-being of the community. For instance, confrontations may lead to overt and sustained violence. There have been cases where individuals were murdered because of being ‘forced’ to work together (Dickson, et al. 2008).   It appears then, that equal employment opportunities and affirmative action do not work well for countries outside the United States. According to Burns and Schapper (2008), such proposals may work for areas such as the US, because theirs is a region that lack homogeneity. Otherwise, the implementation of such proposals display a denial of the sort of injustice that may occur as a result of diversity programs.     Conclusion  At the surface, diversity management is undoubtedly aiming towards a good cause, that of achieving peace within an organization and the entire community as whole. However, there are instances that exist when diversity programs just do not work. These cases stem from sexism, racism, or homophobia, all of which need to be solved first (Thornton, 2001). For one thing, the state of mind of an individual that has existed since his/her childhood is not an easy feat to change. In other words, diversity programs, particularly with the focus on affirmative action, tend to be intemperate. Certain groups of people tend to be polarised and feel a discomfort having to associate themselves they do not want to associate themselves with in the first place (Jones, et al. 2005).   Individuals tend to make their own judgments, and select characteristics of what they deem to be acceptable and what is unacceptable to them. In other words, ‘individuals play out roles, impose constraints, hold attitudes, and thus cause harm.’ (Calhoun, 1989). The writer thinks then, that for diversity management to actually take place, it is the behaviours and attitudes of people that should change, and that they too, should be open to change, what with the changing era of globalization. Diversity management should not then, be about companies who invest vast amounts of money training people from various backgrounds to be able to work for them. Rather, they should simply focus on achieving a good working environment where their workers can work harmoniously together.     References 1. Jones, D., J. Pringle, et al. (2000). "Managing Diversity meets Aotearoa/New Zealand." Personnel Review 29(3): 364-380 2. Kelly, E. and F. Dobbin (1998). "How affirmative action became diversity management." The American Behavioral Scientist 41(7): 960-984 3. Dickson, D., Hargie, O., Wilson, N. (May 2008) Communication, relationships and religious difference in the Northern Ireland workplace: a study of private and public sector organizations; Journal of Applied Communication Research; Vol. 36, No. 2; pgs. 128-160.  4. Cluskey, P. (October 10 2008) Workplace diversity yields individuals; Irish Times; pg. 14. 5. Dobbin, F. Kalev, A. Kelly, E. (2007) Diversity management in corporate America; Retrieved on December 21 2008 from http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:G8q0I3UlmFAJ:www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dobbin/cv/articles/2007_Contexts_Dobbin_Kalev_Kelly.pdf+diversity+management&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ph&client=firefox-a 6. Burns, R. (December 2008) What does diversity mean for employees? Black Enterprise, ABI/INFORM Global; pg. 69. 7. Dickson, D. Hargie, O. Wilson, N. (May 1 2008) Communication, relationships, and religious difference in the Northern Ireland Workplace: a study of private and public sector organizations; Journal of Applied Communication Research; Vol. 36, No. 2; pgs. 128-160. 8. Burns, P. Schapper, J. (2008) The ethical case for affirmative action; Journal of Business Ethics; pgs. 1-12. 9. Thornton, M. (2001) EEO in a neo-liberal climate; Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 6; pgs. 77–104. 10. Jones, C., M. Parker and R. Ten Bos (2005) For Business Ethics; pgs. 36-57. 11. Calhoun, C. (1989) Responsibility and Reproach; Ethics 99; pgs. 389-406. 12. Board votes commitment to diversity initiative. (June 1993) Society for Human Resource Management; HRNews; Chap12, pg. 6. 13. Thompson, S. (May 1 2006) Kraft stands fast behind; Gay Games. Advertising Age; pg. 77 14. Human Rights Campaign. (2006) The state of the workplace for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans 2005–2006; Retrieved December 21 2008 from http://www.hrc.org/workplace 15. Day, N. & Greene, P. (2008) A case for sexual orientation diversity management in small and large organizations; Wiley Periodicals; pgs. 638- 654. 16. Wagar, T. H. (1998). Determinants of human resource management practices in small firms: Some evidence from Atlantic Canada. Journal of Small Business Management; Chap 36, pgs.13–24. 17. Poe, R. (June 1996). One for all: Meeting all your employees’ benefits needs is both a challenge and an Opportunity; Credit Union Magazine; pgs. 19-35. 18. McElwee, G., & Lorraine, W. (2000). The relationship between total quality management and human resource management in small and medium-sized enterprises; Strategic Change; pgs. 427–435. 19. Lussier, R. N., & Pfeifer, S. (2001). A cross-national prediction model for business success. Journal of Small Business Management; pgs. 228–239. 20. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W.M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology; pgs.193–200. 21. Child, J. (1973). Strategies of control and organizational behaviour; Administrative Science Quarterly; pgs. 1–55 22. Acker, J. (2006), Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations; Gender & Society; Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-64 Read More