Responses To Post Of Students - Essay Example

Response to post Kevin Gillin Kevin makes a wonderful commentary about bringing people together with food. It appears that the tradition of “breaking bread” with people is a powerful means of bonding together, sharing sustenance and at the same time sharing conversation and interaction. This is quite a natural way to break down barriers and advance inclusion among a group of diverse employees. This answers the question about methods for increasing effectiveness of diversity and inclusion purposes. However, it appears that the principal objective of the assignment is more on the measures and the methods of evaluating the effectiveness of D&I efforts may be measured. The opening question is said to be affirmatively answered by most organizations without providing a sound basis or justification for saying so. The point being made by the question is salient: diversity and inclusion are by nature so subjective that organizations can get by in claiming that they effectively apply them, although the claims are supported by evidence so obtuse or ambiguous that they provide formal, but not substantial, justification. On the outside, lip service is paid to the merits or diversity and inclusion, when actually the opposite is what is truly taking place. A few weeks ago, one of our assignments was to find news articles of actual cases of discrimination filed by employees against their employers. Each member of this class found several such cases, and despite the number reported, it is easy to surmise that these are just the tip of the iceberg. It is easy to imagine that most employees would feel intimidated about pursuing a case in court, for fear of incurring the ire of their employer and losing their job entirely (Schneid, 2011, Rothwell 2012). Certainly, the cost (both financially and emotionally) involved in going to court is also a deterrent, so one can only imagine how many employers are truly in violation of D&I policies but claim to be in compliance with them. References: Rothwell, W. J. (2012) Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management, Key Topics and Issues. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons Schneid, T. D. (2011) Legal Liabilities in Safety and Loss Prevention, 2nd edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning Response to post of Student 2: Brandon Beaver Brandon’s post provides concrete examples of methods for evaluating the effectiveness of D&I application in organizations. Holding managers at all levels accountable for diversity and inclusion results ensures that the mandate from the top becomes palpable for those whose task it is to actually implement personnel policies and ensure performance. For real pressure to be felt and real effect created, strategies relating to D&I must be supported by measurable targets. Providing strategic directions may remain vague and arbitrary, until the strategy is broken down to tactical and operational goals by which managers may measure their performance. Accountability is not going to be enforceable if the “account” to which the managers are held, both in terms of quantity and quality, is not clear and precise (Koenig, 1994). Furthermore, for managers to agree to be held accountable to these targets, they must be clarified on the reasonableness and necessity of complying with the targets, so that their commitment may be secured. They also must be provided with sufficient powers and logistics, because without the means to attain the target, any number of factors could be blamed for failure to meet the target. The post likewise makes a compelling case for the adoption of diversity metrics, and how these could be arrived at with the creation of an evaluation team with the backing of senior management and comprised of experts in measurement and legal counsel (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). A fourth class of members in this team, identified by the post as business process owners of the diversity initiative, is more difficult to qualify, however. Are these employees within the organization who comprise the typically underrepresented or minority members, or are these outsiders to the organization, e.g. members of the community, who champion diversity and inclusion? If the latter, then what qualifies them to be business process owners? This category must be more clearly qualified. References: Koenig, D.T. (1994) Manufacturing Engineering: Principles for Optimization. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis Jayne, M., & Dipboye, R. (2004). “Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations.” Human Resource Management, 43, 409-424 Response to post of Student 3: Brandon Burton I must agree outright with Brandon’s opening statements, which highlights the disconnection between the enthusiastic claims made by literature on the effective contribution of D&I to business, and the dearth of conclusive and credible evidence to support these claims. The post bewails the lack of a stronger link between the firm’s performance measures and the implementation of diversity and inclusion programs. I further agree with the post’s statement that “We have failed to understand where the true benefits of diversity are found.” I do not agree, however, with the statement that D&I initiatives are supposed to create “the biggest bang for our buck.” Diversity and inclusion has long been so unpopular until recently, when the concepts of social responsibility and corporate citizenship have become more or less accepted. The reason is that D&I is not crucial to a firm’s profitability, nor do any of its advantages directly lead to it. Many successful global firms from Japan, China and now also Korea, have surpassed Western corporate growth rates, without corresponding D&I programs. Their work forces continue to be largely racially homogeneous, even as they welcome Western methods and technology (Messick & Kimura, 1996; Trentmann, 2012). In the context of their largely homogeneous societies, D&I is not relevant, at least not yet. D&I effectiveness does not mean increased profitability (i.e., “biggest bang for our buck”). In the U.S., D&I is necessary because of its multiracial, multicultural society. Economic progress can only be sustained if progress is equitably distributed throughout the broad expanse of society, to ensure firms of expanding demand, a sustainably capable and competent work force, and a decent standard of living. A market economy can only be successful if the growth in demand and supply is founded on a strong economic base. This must be the context in which D&I must be viewed if its effectiveness is to be measured in terms of growth in general corporate value. References: Messick, R.E. & Kimura, K. (1996) World Survey of Economic Freedom 1995-1996: A Freedom House Study. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, Rutgers Trentmann, F. (2012) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Consumption. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Response to post of Student 4: Meghan Clark The post of Meghan identifies several metrics currently used to tie in diversity and inclusion efforts with business outcomes. These include minority retention being correlated with costs of employee turnover, or increase in litigation costs due to discrimination or sexual harassment. A pragmatic appraisal of these correlations and their implications on diversity and inclusion shows that the rational link between them and D&I is far from robust. Minority retention, or employee retention for that matter, does not solely pertain to successful D&I implementation or the lack of it. Working conditions may simply be poor as to cause job dissatisfaction and increase turnover. It is difficult to directly relate minority retention with any significant rise in the cost of employee turnover; in fact, in a company that does not practice D&I at all, the absence of minorities or their underrepresentation would have zero effect on employee turnover. Jayne and Dipboye (2004) observed that increased diversity efforts are likely to create expanding demotivation and lack of commitment – and, one would surmise, loss of employee engagement, leading to an increase in employee turnover. Increase in litigation likewise cannot be directly related to poor D&I, unless the practice complained of was a legally actionable act. For instance, if the discrimination did not come from a person in authority but from peers or even subordinates (as in the case wherein the manager is the minority member), then there is no legal basis upon which to file suit against the company, because people acting in their own capacity have the freedom to do so. At best, the aggrieved employee could file for damages against the individual, but such does not involve the company outright. Better measurements have to be found than these, which relate to diversity and inclusion substantially and not just incidentally. References: Jayne, M., & Dipboye, R. (2004). “Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations.” Human Resource Management, 43, 409-424. Response to post of Student 5: Katoya Carter Katoya’s discussion of methods for determining effectiveness is brief but practical. It is true that the use of surveys and questionnaires may prove to be an unreliable and superficial means of gathering information in itself (De Vaus, 2002). Even if the questions are well formulated, where D&I fails in an organization, the people who should provide the most relevant information, those minority members most affected by discrimination, would not be expected to candidly divulge their true sentiments or reactions in the survey or interview. There is a compulsion to outwardly conform to the majority expectation in order to keep one’s job, although what they feel and think is contrary to what they express. Only when D&I is effective and the underrepresented can feel free to express their honest opinions can such a survey be considered reliable. The situation therefore yields a reverse outcome that follows a convoluted logic – that is, where the results show negative comments on D&I effectiveness can it be said that D&I has actually been effective. The post further mentions that baseline readings are important prior to the implementation of D&I to establish a basis of comparison in order to determine progress. The post does not say, however, what these baseline measures pertain to – whether it refers to increase in job satisfaction, added productivity, reduced operating cost, and so forth. The selection of appropriate measurements becomes more challenging when one considers that most of these attributes are normally and more significantly influenced by factors other than diversity and inclusion. For instance, increased manpower cost is typically related to rising salaries and wages. Reduction in revenues may be due to poor market conditions. Much of the elements in diversity and inclusion efforts defy quantification, because of difficulty of isolating the impact of specific measures, and the complete absence of a measurable component (Linkage & Novations, 2009). References De Vaus, D.A. (2002) Surveys in Social Research, 5th edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Linkage & Novations Group (2009) The Changing Face of Diversity and Inclusion: Then, Now and Tomorrow. Boston, MA: Novations Group Inc. Read More