Multiculturalism in Human Resource Management - Essay Example

?Response for the post Suresh Sandararajan) The answer to the first question introduces a new sense to the understanding of “diversity”and “inclusion”. The comment mentions diversity in the context of “interaction [that] connects three continents”, implying that the diversity existed among three continents taken collectively, but not within each singular location. I believe that the essence of diversity, cultural or otherwise, is the co-existence of different attributes within a single social environment. For instance, if there are different cultures involved, but each culture is encountered within the context of its own social milieu, then there is multiculturalism but no diversity, because the employees are not members of a minority culture subjected to a dominant culture. On the other hand, if the variety of cultures were encountered within the United States, then one might say that cultural diversity existed. The essence of “diversity” is pluralism within a single context, “diversity in the creation of a common society” (McGraw & Formicola, 2005, p. 14). Therefore, if the multiculturalism involved a multinational hiring individuals of different races or cultures in different overseas subsidiaries only because a particular race or culture is prevalent in that particular host country, then diversity did not exist as plurality because the cultures were dominant in their own locales. The answer to the third question affirms that diversity and inclusion are important in the business environment, but is not clear on why diversity is important. The example given is that diversity draws world customers closer to the organization rather than alienates them. However, culture-sensitive marketing strategy changes consumer perception of the firm, without necessarily transforming the parent corporation into a diverse and inclusive entity (Van Mesdag, 1999). A devolved management approach that employs cultural adaptation in its marketing efforts does not necessarily result in a diverse work force, although a diverse work force may draw customers of different attributes and backgrounds, within the parent company’s environment, closer to it. Response for the post of Student 2 (Brandon Burton) The post points out an important challenge to diversity, that is, how the ideals and theoretical principles of diversity are actualized so that one may say, “Our corporation has achieved diversity”. The difficulty in arriving at a cogent description of diversity is underscored by Brandon’s questions: Is it hiring more minorities? Is it seeking minorities who think differently? While these ambiguities are well illustrated, there appears to be something missing in the definition that is arrived at. Diversity in this post is defined in terms of possessing different ideas, personal as well as business experiences, and culture (in what sense is uncertain – culture related to nationality or ethnicity, or culture related to personal upbringing and orientation?). It appears that this definition defeats the concept behind “diversity and inclusion” because it ignores the sense behind “inclusion.” “It is generally accepted that ‘Inclusion’ means inviting those who have been historically locked out to ‘come in’.” (Asante, n.d.). The post is correct in stressing that the person with the right qualifications must be hired, but the implicit premise here is that diversity will compel the business to hire one who is not qualified. Diversity and inclusion are specific in that they are initiatives which aim to set straight the historical prejudices that relegated people of certain races, creeds, cultures, and other attributes to cycles of poverty and exclusion. Diversity is “a moral imperative to ensure justice and fair treatment of all members of society…The comprehensive proactive organization focuses not only on the business case for diversity, but also actively on the social justice case and what is ‘the right thing to do’, moving beyond discrimination” (Groschi, 2011, p. 32). This organization monitors the outcome of its efforts, and is the source of best practices in diversity and inclusion. Response for the post of Student 3 (Soosai Xavier) This post perceptively points out that the concept of diversity may vary depending upon the level of economic development. Soosai is right in stating that developed and developing countries have not arrived at their definition of diversity in their own social contexts; however, I believe that the reason is that diversity is not an issue in many of these less-developed countries. The need for diversity is rooted in historical injustices on the basis of color, creed, culture, etc., and the need to restore the balance of social justice in an increasingly pluralistic society (Ryan, 2012). Such a situation has simply not developed in most underdeveloped countries. Many of the less-developed countries have not undergone the same historical developments where a dominant culture discriminated against minority cultures. In many underdeveloped countries such as those in Asia and in the African continent, the dominant (i.e. powerful) culture was that of the colonizers, and thus represented the minority rather than the majority. The prejudice of the privileged class was against the majority, not the minority, thus after liberation, the natives of these countries were used to regarding members of the dominant minority as superior or equal to them, not inferior. Furthermore, most developing countries are rather racially and culturally homogeneous, having few immigrants who would form the minority groups. As for using diversity and inclusion as a primary strategy to penetrate global markets, I still believe that D&I is only secondary to an intense and focused international marketing research policy. Hiring people at home who are second- or third-generation nationals of other countries will be of little help in understanding a foreign culture, because such descendants, despite the color of their skin or the sound of their name, would not understand all the same the tastes and preferences of a country they had not grown up in or probably even been to. Response for the post of Student 4 (Travis Rosenbach) The post’s opening statement provides a well-considered definition of diversity in its practical sense (i.e., as an act, process, and the result thereof). However, it mentions nothing of the transformational character of diversity in the social or ethical sense, which I believe is the essence of diversity and inclusion. The same point is missed by the post when it cited that the requirement of almost 60 per cent of institutions surveyed for students to take one course on diversity, as evidence that more people are getting the necessary orientation in diversity. The article on “Changing the Culture Through Education” (Anderson & Billings-Harris, 2010) points to the fact that general training or orientation courses in diversity do not necessarily produce the desired results, unless the training focuses specifically on processes and functions and illustrates how diversity and inclusion may be served at that juncture. The authors state that “Diversity ‘training’ simply does not work,” (p. 101) thereby calling into question the effectiveness of requiring one generalized course in academic institutions. There is, furthermore, some doubt to the observation that failure to define diversity is a hindrance to achieving a diverse organization. Diversity is anchored in social justice, which resides in the sphere of what legal jurists would call natural or universal law – a pattern of moral behavior that comes from the use of reason (Cherry, 2004, p. 120). A categorical definition is not necessary for a businessman to have a diverse organization; it is possible that by hiring within a pluralistic environment on the basis of ability or potential, without discrimination as to race, creed, culture, gender, and so forth, the business may be diverse without aiming at diversity. However, for a firm to be compliant with the legal requirements for diversity (if a law existed), the business must abide by the definitions and standards set forth in the law, of which the businessman may not claim ignorance (since ignorance of the law excuses no one). Response for the post of Student 5 (Kevin Gillin) The post’s writer appears to have confused “challenges in defining diversity” with “challenges to implementing diversity.” The post lists activities which are undertaken in pursuit of diversity, but do not necessarily cite the difficulties in constructing the meaning of diversity. That being said, the writer shows an awareness of why the implementation of diversity policies has proven difficult, but lacks in the appreciation of their depth and importance. The problems the post identified pertain to employees’ attitudes and biases, which amount to little more than a human resources problem. Diversity and inclusion issues, however, are much more profound than may be addressed by seminars and workshops; they involve collective deep-seated discriminations culturally ingrained in the social psyche (Bernstein, Clarke-Stewart & Penner, 2007, p. 688). As with other posts, including my own, the post emphasizes on the cultural diversity factor as a source of strategic advantage, particularly in international operations. The problem with this concept as the principal rationale is that it excludes the other attributes for which diversity is likewise sought – gender, age, race, religion, physical disabilities, sexual orientation. For instance, there is little international strategic advantage, and maybe even a strategic disadvantage, in hiring openly non-heterosexual individuals in some countries where the culture and religion are more stringent. The justification of diversity as business strategy therefore fails. While multiculturalism is valued in nearly all global markets, the full import of diversity and inclusion can be realized in pluralist democracies such as the United States and other developed nations – those countries which have occupied positions of power and authority vis-a-vis other nations (Jacobsohn, Dunn & College, 1996). It is in these environments where diversity and inclusion derive their true and full significance. References: Anderson, R., & Billings-Harris, L. (2010). Trailblazers: How top business leaders are accelerating results through inclusion and diversity. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN: 978-0-470-59347-9 Assante, S. (n.d.) “What is Inclusion?” Inclusion Network. Toronto, ON: Inclusion Press International & the Marsha Forest Centre Bernstein, D; Clarke-Stewart, A; & Penner, L A (2008) Psychology, 8th edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Cherry, M.J. (2004) Natural Law and the Possibility of a Global Ethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Groschi, S (2011) Diversity in the Workplace: Multi-Disciplinary and International Perspectives. Farnham, Surrey: Gower Publishing Ltd. Jacobsohn, G J; & Dunn, S (1996) Diversity and Citizenship: Rediscovering American Nationhood. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. McGraw, B A & Formicola, J R (2005) Taking Religious Pluralism Seriously: Spiritual Politics on America’s Sacred Ground. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press Ryan, J. (2012) Struggling for Inclusion: Educational Leadership in a Neoliberal World. Information Age Publishing, Inc. Van Mesdag, M (1999) “Culture-sensitive adaptation or global standardization – the duration-of-usage hypothesis.” International Marketing Review, 17(1), 74-84. Read More