Diversity and Equal Opportunities - Case Study Example

Table of Contents Introduction 2 Numerical Composition or Inclusive Behaviour? 2 Impact of Legislation in Workplace Diversity 4 Dilemmas 7 Conclusion 9 References 11 Managing Diversity and Equal Opportunities Introduction As globalisation seeps in virtually all organisations, rapid changes have been occurring in the workplace to suit the needs of the changing business environment and workforce. As we all are aware, the workplace is hardly a domain of freedom, equality, or democracy. Most people have little choice about whether to work and, once on the job, little choice about with whom they work on a daily basis. Interaction among co-workers is often compelled by managers; it is constrained by rules and job duties and the threat of discipline or discharge; and it all takes place within a context of economic power and necessity if not coercion. Moreover, the workplace is subject to a staggering array of governmental regulations governing many aspects of the composition, organization, and treatment of the workforce. Before these changes, the workforce is historically divided homogeneously in organisational sub-groups (blue-collar, white-collar, unskilled workers, ethnic sub-groups). However, as the globalisation of the business arena has spawned, labour market discrimination (segmentation) had become a wall that could hamper employees to work effectively. Globalisation has brought about the transformation of demographic patterns. As organisations are becoming the microcosm of society, the government and other sectors have pushed organisations to follow some guidelines in hiring people. Ultimately, globalisation means the internationalisation of the business environment. Multi National Corporations (MNC), therefore, are increasingly taking note of their sinister practices of discrimination and considering the possible advantages of a diversified workforce. Numerical Composition or Inclusive Behaviour? According to Beamish, et al. (2003), diversity can refer to many things. However, when it comes to workforce management, it commonly has two meanings, one having to do with numerical composition and one having to do with inclusive behaviour. Most frequently, workforce diversity is thought of in terms of numerical composition. A “diverse workforce” is one that reflects the many different kinds of people in the community or society, usually meaning men and women of different ethnic origins, educational experiences, professional backgrounds, and so forth. When a firm says it must increase its workforce diversity, it usually means hiring more women and ethnic minorities, or citizens of different countries, and promoting them more fully into all levels of the company. In the UK, Clements (2006) revealed that a recent survey of private sector employment equality practices in Scotland found the following: Around 60 per cent of respondents initiated equal opportunity programmes because their competitors had already implemented equality programmes. Over 80 per cent of respondents initiated programmes because of the prospect of being involved in an industrial tribunal. Approximately 90 per cent of respondents felt that it was quite or very important to be seen to be forward looking. Almost 60 per cent expressed the desire to be demonstrating good practice. Why is diverse composition of the workforce important? One reason has to do with legal compliance. In some countries, workforce diversity is mandated by law. Another reason is a sense of fairness—to many managers, it seems equitable and just to compose a workforce broadly. Liff (1997) informed that the legal framework of Equal Opportunities (EO) approaches in the UK is the one that stresses the importance of treating people equally irrespective of their sex or ethnic origin. Its objective is that individuals should be appointed, rewarded, or whatever, on the basis of job-related criteria. Their sex or ethnic origin should not be considered to be a relevant criterion in their favour or to their disadvantage. On the other hand, diversity means more than just numerical composition—it also has to do with behavior. It suggests an attitude that respects individual differences, that values all employees, and that fosters an environment where all employees can succeed. A workplace that respects diverse behavior may bring the best out of each individual. But the benefits don’t stop there. The combination of people from different backgrounds and with different ideas can lead to better overall performance. Groups consisting of people with different world views and experiences can share ideas and perspectives, inspiring new solutions to problems. To some observers, the greatest benefit to diversity has to do with sharing ideas and increasing organizational effectiveness. According to this view, capturing the full benefit of diversity means creating a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Impact of Legislation in Workplace Diversity The need for organizations to tackle diversity issues is highlighted by the extensive legislation, such as the Race Relations Act (1976 and 2000), the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) and the legal requirement for government organizations to take affirmative action in a number of areas (disabled, lesbians/gays and differently-abled sectors). The Race Relations Act gave the British people an opportunity to look beyond the legislation itself, celebrating the great cultural and ethnic diversity of modern Britain, acknowledging the important contributions made by those from ethnic minorities to our society, and making some attempt to anticipate the future. At each stage in the twentieth century British race relations have been influenced by Britain’s relations with other parts of the world. With Britain’s heavy dependence upon the United States, and the increase of US influence on many aspects of British life in the cold war period, anti-racists in Britain looked to the example of American civil rights from the 1960s onwards, while US styles of racism became more familiar (Dummett, 1998, p. 204). On the other hand, the rise of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975 was hailed by both the government and the media as a sign of British policy-makers’ increasing willingness to reform away gender inequalities at work (Beloff 1976, p. iii). However, equal opportunities legislation was introduced reluctantly and was severely restricted in scope, while at the same time other government employment and family policies made it more difficult for women to compete with men in the paid workforce. This was partly obscured by fluctuations in the implementation of equal opportunities during the first twenty years after 1975. Equal opportunities legislation initially came to Britain at a time when economic recession, coupled with policies of reduced government intervention and the pursuit of 'flexibility' in the labour market, created a cold climate for any initiative to improve women's position in paid employment (Briar, 1997, p. 115). However, Rubery (1995) revealed that these developments in legislation presented a challenge to gender pay equity, given the association of this objective with job evaluated grading structures. This association has been strengthened by the adoption of a Memorandum on Equal Value by the European Commission, shortly to be followed by a Code of Practice on how to evaluate jobs. Even where job evaluation is still used, the trend is towards broader grade structures (Ingram and Lindop 1991, as cited by Rubery 1995) and more overlap in pay levels associated with performance-related bonuses or increment Similarly, Collings and Dickens (1998) deemed that the viability of these anti-discriminatory legislations should not be overstated. They cited Davies and Freedland (1993) by saying that the minimalist approach to compliance with Europe has been the norm (p. 583) with the required improvements often being coupled with new deregulatory measures, and there has been some levelling down for equality (for example in relation to protective legislation). The continual refusal of Conservative governments of re­quests from the Equality Commissions to act to overcome well documented inadequacies in the existing Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts and opposed European measures likely to produce outcomes positive for equality, including the Directive on Parental Leave and proposals relating to atypical workers (predominantly women in the UK) (Jeffery, 1995 as cited in Collings and Dickens, 1998). In addition to that, the underpinning for equal opportunities has been weakened none the less by other deregulation measures despite the equality law framework was maintained (Dickens 1992, 132-4 as cited in Collings and Dickens, 1998). Adverse labour law measures included the narrowing of access to employ­ment protection rights; the abolition of wages councils which provided a floor to earnings in certain feminized sectors of employment, and the removal of the Fair Wages Resolution which protected public-sector workers from private-sector undercutting. Thus, Collings and Dickens (1998) analyzed that the framework of anti-discrimination and equal pay law and associated measures, such as maternity rights, became a “Euro-protected island in a sea of deregulation detrimental to women’s position in the labour market and unlikely to provide any positive pressures for equality bargaining”. Dilemmas Liff and Dickens (2000) elaborated the dilemma of reconciling the distinction between managing diversity and equality and of orienting the ethical approach along either social justice or more utilitarian “business case” rationales. At an individual or organisational level, ethical standpoints can range from ethical egoism (to pursue ones own best interests), to Kantian rights-based ethics (to pursue some universal ethical principle). At a societal level, the distinction is between deontological (rights-based) and teleological (outcome based) arguments (Winstanley and Woodall, 2000). Taken together, these different standpoints provide main ethical bases for Government policy action in the field of employment relations. Translating these arguments into the work-life balance issue, it may be argued that the social justice case for work-life balance is concerned with redressing the discrimination women face in the workplace – whether this relates to women not being treated equally or whether it relates to women not having their different circumstances taken into account. Liff and Dickens (2000) concluded that: The social justice case therefore revolves around advocating a policy on the basis that it is “the right thing to do”, while the business case relies more on persuading potential opponents of the likely benefits of not opposing. In practice, these bases of advocacy tend to manifest themselves via the advocacy of legal intervention (absolute rights) and the advocacy of a voluntary best practice approach that emphasises cultural change (business case). Another dilemma has been linked to age discrimination. Snape and Redman (2003) identified that Anti-Discrimination Directive (2000), although it had a provision requiring member states to introduce anti-ageism legislation by 2006, but the UK government has “preferred a voluntary approach”. Although the code empowered employers how to enhance equality of opportunity by eliminating the use of age as an employment criterion in decisions on recruitment, selection, promotion, training, redundancy and retirement, early indications reflected that it made little impact on discriminatory practice. Snape and Redman (2003) cited a survey by the Employers’ Forum on Age showed that a third of employers voiced out that they were unaware of the code and two-thirds claimed that it would make no difference to their practices (from EFA, 1999). Similarly, research commissioned by the DfEE (2001) reported some improvement in employer awareness of the code, especially among larger organisations and the public sector, but under two per cent of organisations report changing policy or practice as a direct result of the code and few plan to do so in the future. Indeed, systematic differences exist between individuals within the organisation. Changing one’s own, or another employee’s, attitude is seldom easy, yet there are constant political, economic, social, and technical pressures on people and organizations to change. More and more employees will encounter both subtle and substantial cultural differences among their work colleagues as the workforce becomes more diverse (Milliken and Martens, 1996). The recognition of these changes provides a powerful cultural force to which employers must adapt. If they actively manage diversity, there is a high likelihood that they will gain a competitive advantage — their workforce quality will be enriched, market sensitivity will increase, and both individual and group performance will improve. Through the years, the relevant concepts of diversity management like internationalisation, social awareness and legal pressures have been integrated in the business environment. However, the possible consequences of deviance, resistance and politics still stood as challenges that hamper the organisation to widen their diversity clause. Looking upon these difficulties, Liff (1996) suggested that dissolving differences and valuing differences by accepting group-related identities could help organisations face the dilemmas in diversity management. Conclusion Dickens (1998) described that flexibility is a central concept in facilitating organisational responsiveness and adaptation to rapidly changing environments. As well as flexibility relating to organisational design, organisations are expected to seek flexibility through the (re)design of jobs and use of 'non-standard', or flexible, labour contracts. Programs and legislation aimed at managing and valuing diversity build from a key premise: Prejudicial stereotypes develop from unfounded assumptions about others and from their overlooked qualities. Differences need to be recognized, acknowledged, appreciated, and used to collective advantage. The workforce of the future (whether in the United States, the European Union, or elsewhere) will contain a rich blend of people representing diverse cultural and social conditions. All participants — males and females, members of differing racial groups, people of all ages, working parents, dual-career couples — will need to explore their differences, learn from others around them, and use that information to build a stronger organization. Hollinshead, Nichols and Tailby (2003) identified the key attributes that compared equal opportunities approach to diversity management (see Table 1). Table 1: The key attributes and differences between the equal opportunities and diversity management approaches Equal opportunities approach Diversity management approach Externally driven Operational Equality costs money Group-focused Process-focused Ethical, moral and social case Internally driven Strategic Diversity pays Individual-focused Outcome-focused Business case Source: Hollinshead, Nichols and Tailby, 2003. Thus, concept of diversity management in organisations and its relationship to equal opportunities are vital components that need to be integrated in the organisational culture. It is concerned with the role managers play in the management of diversity initiatives, why this involvement often fails to deliver permanent change in organisational culture, systems and structures and how managers might work in an integrated 'partnership' within their organisations to implement diversity successfully. Good diversity management is likely to be underpinned by good equal opportunities practice which monitors the movement of those from traditionally disadvantaged groups into and within an organisation, with desired behaviour reinforced through codes of conduct. The business’ aims to diversify are likely to succeed, and this success goes beyond the usual boundaries and extends to the entire supply chain. This creates more opportunities for embedding diversity management into a broader range of business strategies and objectives. This is because at the heart of the development of such approaches is organisational learning, and it is through a diversity of approaches to the acquisition, dissemination and sharing of formal and tacit knowledge in relation to equal opportunities and diversity management that its acceptance is nurtured and improved. References Beamish, P.W., Morrison, A.J., Inkpen, A., & Rosenzweig, P. (1998). International Management: Text and Cases, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Beloff M. J. (1976) Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Butterworths Annotated Legislation Service, Vol. 237, London: Butterworths. Briar, C. (1997). Working for Women? Gendered Work and Welfare Policies in Twentieth-Century Britain. London: UCL Press. Clements, P.E. (2006). Diversity Training Handbook: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Changing Attitudes. London: Kogan Page, Limited. Colling, T. & Dickens, L. (1998) Selling the Case for Gender Equality: Deregulation and Equality Bargaining. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36(3): 389-411. Davies, P., & Freedland, M. (1993). Labour Legislation and Public Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DfEE (2001). Age Diversity, London: Department for Education and Employment. Dickens, L. (1992). Anti-Discrimination Legislation: Exploring and Explaining the Impact on Women’s Employment. In W. McCarthy (ed.), Legal Intervention in Industrial Relations. Oxford: Blackwell. Dickens, L. (1998). What HRM Means for Gender Equality. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(1): 23-40. Dummett, A. (1998). 11 British Race Relations in a European Context. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, Blackstone, T., Parekh, B., & Sanders, P. (Eds.) (pp. 204-220). London: Routledge. EFA (1999). Employer Awareness of the Code of Practice on Age Diversity, London: Employers’ Forum on Age. Hollinshead, G., Nicholls, P., & Tailby, S. (2003). Employee Relations, 2nd ed. London: Prentice Hall. Ingram, P., & Lindop, E. (1991). Pay classification in the United Kingdom. Paper prepared for the ILO. Jeffery, M. (1995). The Commission Proposals Drawing Board - Again. Industrial Law Journal, 2(4): 296-299. Liff, S. (1996) Managing Diversity: New Opportunities for Women? Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, 57. Liff, S. (1997) Two Routes to Managing Diversity: Individual Differences or Social Group Characteristics. Employee Relations, 19(1): 11-26. Liff, S., Dickens, L. (2000). Ethics and Equality: Reconciling False Dilemmas, in Winstanley, D. & Woodhall, D. (Eds), Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Management, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp.85–101. Milliken, F.J. & Martens, L.L. (1996, April). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups, Academy of Management Review, pp. 402–33. Rubery, J. (1995). Performance-related Pay and the Prospects for Gender Pay Equity. Journal of Management Studies, 32(5): 637-653. Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2003). Too Old or Too Young? The Impact of Perceived Age Discrimination. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(1): 78-89. Read More