Managing Diversity and Equality - Assignment Example

Running head: MANAGING DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY Managing diversity and equality of the School 2006 Introduction Wys to mximize benefits of n incresingly diverse workforce nd client bse is continuing concern for orgniztionl ledership. The current processes for mnging diversity continue to be necessry but re not sufficient to result in effective outcomes in 21st century orgniztionl environments. Diversity trining remins the primry method used to fcilitte behvior chnge. However, existing diversity trining is perceived to hve filed, clling for new diversity ledership focus to improve diversity performnce. This pper proposes ppliction of the reserch supporting enacting aniti discrimination legislation in an era that I not currently covered. The pper emphsizes tht diversity in the work plce goes beyond rce nd gender. Brodly defined, diversity my refer to ny perceived difference mong people: ge, functionl specilty, profession, sexul preference, geogrphic origin, life style, tenure with the orgniztion, or position and that all these differences should be applied and managed by ani discrimination legislation. Overview of diversity in Great Britain If the term diversity is considered in very simplistic wy, then diversity cn be seen ll round us, by the crs we drive, the clothes we wer, the different dilects we spek etc. While this my be very generl wy of looking t the term diversity, there is considerble grin of truth to this sttement. Tht is, 21st century Britin is more culturlly rich nd homogenous society thn ever before. In the context of business, the orgnistionl mke-up of the workforce is chnging too. Britin now hs one of the most diverse workforces in the world, consisting of wide rnge of religions nd ethnic bckgrounds. However, diversity is not just cknowledged in these terms. It cn refer to politicl beliefs, ge, sexul orienttion, ntionlity, colour, etc. Therefore, it is bsolutely prmount tht diversity is mnged effectively in prllel with Britin' s rpidly chnging socil fbric. The need to mnge diversity is even greter fter the events of 9/11 s the world's societies hve become more politiclly chrged nd involved thn ever before. ttched to diversity is the concept of equlity from which ny contentious questions rise. One such issue is the extent to which UK orgnistions re fir when it comes to offering equlity of opportunity to minority groups in employment. There is wide rnge of elements involved in mnging diversity including legisltive considertions, the hndling of equl opportunity issues, s well s the ims of mking 'mnging diversity' work for orgnistions. The trditionl pproch hs focused on using the legisltion driven equl opportunities route in tcking issues of diversity, nd the brod ims of mnging diversity re similr to tht of equl opportunities, but mnging diversity hs more internl focus. Mny of these ims re bound up with the vrious legisltion tht outlws discrimintion on the grounds of sex, py, rce, disbility nd criminl record: ) Sex Discrimintion ct 1975 nd 1976 The 1975 nd 1976 Sex Discrimintion ct (SD) is typiclly thought of s n ct to prevent discrimintion ginst women, but, in fct, it pplies eqully to both sexes. The SD sttes tht it is 'unlwful to tret nyone, on the grounds of sex, less fvourbly thn person of the opposite sex is or would be treted in the sme circumstnces'. In the lw cse Jeremih V Ministry of Defence there ws found to be unlwful discrimintion becuse only the men hd to do unplesnt jobs. The ct covers discrimintion in different res of life. In employment, it is ginst the lw to discriminte on the grounds of sex nd mritl sttus. This includes recruitment nd selection, dvertisement of jobs, nd ccess to promotion nd trining fcilities. The ct pplies to both potentil nd present employees. The ct identifies both direct nd indirect discrimintion: Direct discrimintion - this involves treting womn less fvourbly thn mn becuse she is womn, for exmple for not considering women for mngement trining course. Indirect discrimintion - this occurs when condition is pplied eqully to men nd women but where women hve greter difficulty in fulfilling tht condition nd the condition cnnot be justified. For exmple, it ws djudged tht the ge condition pplied in the Civil Service for promotion to the Executive Officer grde resulted in indirect discrimintion. (Holter, 2005; pg 139). Individuls over the ge of 28 could not obtin promotion to this grde. This ws djudged to discriminte ginst women s they were often rising fmily in their twenties nd so would be less likely to be redy for promotion by this ge limit. Holter (2005; pg 139) sttes there is third ctegory of discrimintion - victimistion. Victimistion pplies where n employee suffers dversely becuse they hve mde complint under the discrimintion sttutes. The im is to prevent individuls from being penlised for using the legisltion. b) Rce Reltions ct 1976 (mended 2000) The first Rce Reltions ct ws implemented in 1968 nd ws consolidted nd extended in the Rce Reltions ct, 1976. The legisltion itself is very similr to the Sex Discrimintion ct, mking it bsic legl obligtion on employers to del eqully with pplicnts from different rcil bckgrounds. Rcil grounds re defined s including colour, rce, ntionlity (including citizenship) or ethnic or ntionl origins. s with the Sex Discrimintion ct, the Rce Reltions ct distinguishes between direct nd indirect discrimintion, nd lso mkes victimistion unlwful. gin, s with the Sex Discrimintion ct, the is some scope for positive ction, but not for positive, or reverse, discrimintion. The Rce Reltions (mendment) ct 2000 is set to strengthen the existing Rce Reltions ct 1976. Firstly it extends protection ginst rcil discrimintion by public uthorities nd secondly it plces positive duty on public uthorities to reduce rcil discrimintion. This mendment ws necessry becuse the Rce Reltions ct did not previously cover public functions. The impct of these mendments re not yet cler but the fct tht the new legisltion hs been introduced suggest tht there is politicl will to reduce rce discrimintion. c) Disbility Discrimintion ct 1995 This ct ims to prevent discrimintion ginst those who re disbled, defined s: 'physicl or mentl impirment which hs substntil nd long-term dverse effect on (the person's) bility to crry out norml dy-to-dy ctivities'. This legisltion ws needed becuse those registered s disbled were fr more likely to be unemployed or under-employed thn the generl popultion (Jenner, 1994). While this ct lso seeks to prevent discrimintion, unlike the sex nd rce discrimintion legisltion, it does llow the employer the defence of justifiction. So here discrimintory tretment is justified 'if, but only if, the reson for it is both mteril to the circumstnces of the prticulr cse nd substntil'. More positively though, the Disbility Discrimintion ct plces employers under duty to mke djustments to premises where these plce disbled person t substntil disdvntge. This my include mking djustments to premises, llocting some of the disbled person's duties to nother person, trnsferring them to fill n existing vcncy, ltering working hours, cquiring or modifying equipment nd modifying instructions or reference mnuls. Whether such djustments re 'resonble' depends on the costs nd the employers' resources. When the Disbility Discrimintion legisltion ws first introduced there ws not provision to set up commission to help monitor nd enforce the legisltion, like the Equl Opportunities Commission nd the Commission for Rcil Equlity. However, this ws rectified in 1999 when the Disbility Rights Commission ws estblished. study by Jckson et l 2000 found tht the willingness of employers to comply with the ct ws function of both their knowledge of the Disbility Discrimintion ct nd their ttitude towrds disbled persons. In prticulr, employers were less likely to mke djustments tht might mke it possible to employ disbled person where they hd little knowledge of the ct nd where they hd negtive ttitudes towrds disbled persons. Given significnt negtive ttitudes bout employing disbled persons this suggests tht the legisltion my hve little impct. d) The Impct of Legisltion Holter, (2005; pg 142) suggests tht despite this legisltion women, ethnic minority members, nd mny disbled people continue to dominte in specific jobs, nd to be represented t lower levels in orgnistion hierrchies. One of the resons for this hs been the lw itself. I hve outlined some of the lws in simple form for the purpose of this disserttion. However in relity they re highly complex. If women, rcil minority member or disbled person feels tht they hve been discriminted ginst they cn tke the cse first to the dvisory, Concilition nd rbitrtion Service (CS). If n greement cnnot be reched between the person bringing the cse nd the offending employer, the cse cn go on to n industril tribunl. Mny cses do not go to tribunl becuse they re settled before they rech this stge, lthough the number of cses reching the tribunl stge hs shown stedy increse over time. (CS website). CS stte tht for those cses tht rech n industril tribunl there hs been ceiling to tribunl wrds of 10,000. However Holter (2005; pg 142) sttes tht the Europen Court of Justice hs now ruled tht this limit on compenstion is in brech of Europen Lw. Compenstion wrds mde through industril tribunls hve therefore incresed. In 1998 the verge wrd mde to someone successfully winning disbility discrimintion cse ws 11,501, rce discrimintion cse 6,038 nd sex discrimintion cse 6,873 (Equl Opportunities Review 1999). Furthermore in 1993 industril tribunls were lso given the power to restrict press reporting of sexul hrssment cses. Holter (2005) sttes tht side from the problems of ctully enforcing the legisltion, there re lso more fundmentl resons for continued discrimintion in employment which mens tht the lw itself cnnot hope to chnge the sttus quo. Rel chnge demnds complete overhul of bsic ttitudes towrds mles nd femles of ll rces nd bckgrounds, s well s mjor innovtions in orgnistionl structures nd processes. There is other legisltion, which is linked to diversity such s the Equl Py ct 1983 nd Religion or Belief Regultions 2003. To keep to my ims nd objectives for disserttion I will focus on the three tht I hve previously mentioned. Managing diversity Mnging Diversity is bout mnging people who re not like you, nd do not necessrily spire to be like you. It is bout hving the mngement skill to llow their different perspectives nd views to improve the qulity of your decisions. Diversity is bout improving performnce by cpturing the vlue tht difference nd vriety cn offer, for exmple vi better innovtion, cretivity nd ccess to mrkets. Tht mens being proctive nd seeking out the opportunities. ccording to Roosevelt Thoms, (Thoms, 2001) Executive Director of the Institute For Mnging Diversity in tlnt Georgi, "mnging diversity is comprehensive mngeril process for developing n environment tht works for ll employees, including white mles." Morrison, however, indictes tht t the current time there is no greed upon definition for mnging diversity, nd the term is used to describe interventions from ffirmtive ction to the multiculturl perspective espoused by Thoms. These interventions fll into three bsic strtegies for implementing diversity: eduction, enforcement, nd exposure (Morrison, 2002) The eduction strtegy involves developing non trditionl persons for success in orgniztions nd developing trditionl mngers to overcome prejudices in interctions with people who re different. The exposure component involves interctions mong people with different bckgrounds nd chrcteristics. Vluing diversity interventions imed towrd developing wreness, cceptnce, nd pprecition of differences mong people is n exmple of this strtegy. The enforcement strtegy is implemented vi requiring ccountbility in orgniztionl systems, policies, nd procedures. Mnging Diversity is plnned chnge process using the knowledge nd skills of orgniztionl development. generlized orgniztionl development process consists of dignosing the stte of the orgniztion or problem res, implementing ctions or interventions to ddress the issues, evluting the effects of the ctions nd designing new ctions s needed on the bsis of the results ( French nd Bell, 1998 ). To mnge diversity effectively humn resource mngers must become dept t mnging chnge. Chnge gents hve knowledge of the plnned chnge process nd ssume responsibility for fcilitting the process in collbortion with top mngement. To develop diversity in n orgniztion Morrison (Morrison, 2002) suggests the following steps: * Collecting informtion to set priorities for diversity efforts. * Strengthening top mngement commitment. * Choosing solutions to fit blnced strtegy. * Demnding results nd revisiting gols. * Building on successes to mintin momentum. The progress of the mnging diversity effort must be continuously monitored nd evluted to ensure tht the desired results re being ttined, nd ctions should be tken to ensure the institutionliztion of chnges s n ongoing, vlued prt of orgniztionl prctices. Only when mnging diversity becomes top priority, visibly significnt component of plnning nd mngement nd n ongoing policy with commitment t the highest executive levels, will diversity inititive be truly effective nd significnt chnge will occur. So why should orgnistions mke the most of employee diversity Well, s mentioned previously, the mke-up of our society is chnging, nd businesses must reflect this chnge. Rubery (2000) highlights three importnt trends tht exist nd re continuing to develop further. Firstly, the UK popultion is geing fst. In 2000, there were 1.5M fewer 16-25 yer olds entering employment thn in 1987. Secondly, ethnic minority groups mde up 5.5% of the totl UK popultion t the time of the 1991 census. Newell 2002 pg 144 sttes tht just over three million people from ethnic minorities live in Britin. Over hlf of this ethnic minority popultion ws born in Britin nd bout three qurters re British citizens. In Britin, there re no lws (e.g. prtheid), which discriminte ginst people on the bsis of their rce, colour or ethnic origin. Theoreticlly, therefore, members of ll rces should enjoy equl ccess to housing, employment, eduction. However, the relity hs been nd remins very different, with members of rcil minority groups being disdvntged in most spects of life. Thirdly, women now re lrge nd significnt proportion of the UK workforce. Generlly, the mngement of equl opportunity issues involves socil responsibility on the prt of the individul orgnistion, objective considertion when tking selection decisions, develop reputtion for mnging diversity, creting more helthy business environment including high stff morle. Mnging diversity lso holds huge significnce for business growth. Mnging diversity lso entils issues of orgnistionl culture tht refer to n orgnistion's norms, vlues nd beliefs. diverse orgnistion in which there is brod mix of people will dd to the socil dimension of the orgnistion nd help to reduce the under-representtion experienced by minority groups. Mnging diversity is n internlly driven proctive mechnism tht cknowledges the interests of these groups. Moreover, t strtegic level, mnging diversity involves: - Bord level prticiption, responsibility nd ccountbility on diversity issues; - Links to ll business plns nd benefits t ll levels; - Employee ownership of diversity objectives; - Commitment of resources for trining nd reserch; - proctive diversity pproch to recruitment, mrketing nd supplier selection; - The building of diversity issues into recruitment, performnce nd rewrd systems. (Rubery, 2002). Shepprd (2002) suggests the openness tht is key to culture for diversity is most esy to describe in terms of how it feels nd the sort of behviours we should find within it. For exmple I hve worked in n orgnistion where n open culture hs been creted nd would describe its tmosphere in comprison with most other orgnistions s more live, friendly, spontneous nd fun. People lughed more nd were in generl more prepred to rise questions; more redy to ddress problem issues nd less restrined bout thoughts or feelings. Unplesnt issues still hd to be delt with. Disciplinry mtters nd performnce problems were s likely to rise s in ny orgnistion. People were still sometimes dismissed nd jobs becme redundnt. However, the pproch to deling with such mtters ws in itself more honest nd involving thn is the norm in mny orgnistions. Mnging diversity focuses on the individul s opposed to Equl Opportunity (EO) tht focuses on treting individuls s groups. Mnging diversity (MD) goes beyond the EO perspective. It cknowledges differences in more positive light. It does this by intending to proliferte stff performnce, generting greter flexibility in the workforce nd working prctices s well s mking orgnistions more equitble. It endevours to use the differences to the benefit of the orgnistion. Whilst EO is leglly driven, nd subject to the chievement of the performnce trget, MD seeks to ccommodte diverse interests. MD will lso enble orgnistions to become good corporte citizen, by ensuring tht the workforce reflects the (locl) popultion. Moreover, hving diverse workforce will help orgnistions explore new mrkets or client groups s MD dds to the socil dimension of the orgnistion. This is prticulrly relevnt fter the events of 9/11, which require good understnding of rce nd culturl issues. In business sense, it is importnt to hve workforce tht understnds diverse culturl bckgrounds, especilly s businesses become more interntionlised. MD provides more trnsprent nd proctive method of deling with employee diversity. This involves fundmentl trnsformtion of the orgnistion's working prctices, mking it more stff-friendly, re-consider the mngement structure nd introduce more firer recruitment nd retention procedures. MD elimintes brriers to opportunity by recognising differences of individuls s positive strengths tht cn be used to develop culture of diversity. ccording to Kndol nd Fullerton (2004) "the bsic concept of mnging diversity ccepts tht the workforce consists of diverse popultion of people. The diversity consists of visible nd non-visible differences, which would include sex, ge, bckground, rce, disbility, personlity nd work style. It is founded on the premise tht hrnessing these differences will crete productive environment in which everybody feels vlued, where their tlents re being fully utilised nd in which orgnistionl gols re met". In more simple terms, diversity is "the presence of differences mong members of socil unit" (Thoms, 2001). Conclusion Diversity mngement is very ctul issue nowdys. The resons for tht re the chnges in the workforce composition, globlistion nd need of orgnistions to develop in order to sty competitive. Despite much effort in promoting equl opportunity nd diversity, results from the present study clerly showed n tmosphere tht is not conducive to the fostering of effective work reltionships without appling to anti discrimination law. Minority groups are denied the opportunity to become members of committees nd hd smll or mrginl role in the decision-mking process. Senior mngers seldom consult them, nd their volunteered informtion ws rejected frequently. With few positive comments nd miniml support from mngers nd collegues, women nd minority groups suffer in creer dvncement. Consequently, the orgniztion is oftentimes deprived of the contribution tht diverse workforce cn mke to its effectiveness. There is no difference in number of promotions sought (times pplied for promotion) between mles nd femles nd mong different ethnic groups, but there is significnt difference in the success rte of gender nd ethnic groups in their bids for promotion. Mny in the minority ethnic groups expressed disppointment with the internl promotion system. They considered it wste of time nd believed it would never reflect their sense of entitlement to higher py nd dvncement opportunities. In the end, applying anti discrimination legislation is an important tool in managing diversity and equality. If I were to lobby current legislation, I would be concerned of that present laws were taken into consideration in the companies over the United Kingdom. Bibliography: 1. Holter, O.G. (2005) 'Socil theories for reserching men nd msculinities: direct gender hierrchy nd structurl inequlity'. In M.S. Kimmel, J. Hern & R.W. Connell (eds) Hndbook of Studies on Men nd Msculinities, Thousnd Oks, Sge. 2. Jenner L (1994) "Diversity mngement: wht does it men", HR Focus, Jn 1994 v71 n1 p11(1) 3. Thoms, R. R., Jr., (2001) Beyond rce nd gender. New York: mericn Mngement ssocition. 4. Morrison, nn (2002) New leders: guidelines on ledership diversity in meric. New York. Jossey-Bss. 5. French, W. L. nd Bell, Jr. C. H. (1998), Orgniztionl development Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hll, Inc 6. Rubery, Jill. (2002). Py equity, minimum wge nd equlity t work. DECLRTION Working Pper No. 19. Genev, ILO. 7. Shepprd, Colleen (2002). Socil nd structurl sources of inequlity t work: Insights from the Cndin experience. Bckground pper prepred for Time for Equlity t work (ILO, 2003). Genev, ILO. 8. Kndol R nd Fullerton J (2004) Mnging the mosic diversity in ction, IPD (1994), p19 Read More