Managing Diversity and Equality - Essay Example

Table of Contents Part One: The Management of Diversity 2 Introduction 2 2 Research Approach 4 3 Diversity Management 4 3 Implementation of Diversity Management 8 3.2 Benefits of Diversity Management 15 4 Conclusion 18 Part Two: Reflective Essay 19 Bibliography 24 Part One: The Management of Diversity 1 Introduction The British labour market is a highly diverse one and, according to available statistics, is continually moving towards greater diversity. According to 2005 data released by the Office of National Statistics, 5.4% of the current labour force is foreign, with EU and former Commonwealth migration statistics, among other non-British sources of labour inflow, indicating a continual increase. The previous year, 2005, was witness to the largest ever influx of foreign workers to Britain, totalling approximately 400,000 (Salt and Miller, 2006). In addition to that, diversity statistics indicate that ethnic minority groups comprise approximately 8% of the current workforce; 25% are non-Christian; and around 12% are disabled. Statistics pertaining to gays and lesbians are indeterminate, largely because of a lack of national surveys but, are estimated to stand between 5-7%. The implication here is that the British workforce is, incontrovertibly diverse; a fact which poses challenges to organizational management. Over the past thirty years, legislature has effectively acknowledged the reality of the nation’s existent and, ever-increasing, gender, ethnic, racial, religious and cultural diversity and has sought its positive address. From 2003 to 2006, Employment Equality regulations addressed the issues of all of age, religion/belief and sexual orientation, effectively establishing the legal and regulatory framework for both the prevention of direct and indirect discrimination against minority group employees while, at the same time, outlining the imperatives of equity. Prior to that, all of the Equal Pay Act (1970), the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), the Race Relations Act (1976) and the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), among others, sought to ensure against both direct and indirect discrimination in the provision of goods and services and within the workplace. Consequently, from the legal and regulatory perspective, Britain has taken the requisite steps to ensure that its minority groups are extended the necessary opportunities for integration and assimilation. While the legal and regulatory framework provides against both direct and indirect discrimination in the workplace, the fact remains that it did so largely because it outlawed the aforementioned. It imposed a toleration of differences upon employees and co-workers but, does not establish the mechanism for directing either to look beyond the differences or, indeed, to accept, rather than simply tolerate them. From the perspective of the management sciences, the aforementioned can function to inhibit efficient and effective operation; can stand as an obstacle towards the articulation, let alone realisation, of strategic objectives; and can offset the design and subsequent dissemination of a unifying organizational culture. Of equal importance is the potentially negative effect it can have upon teamwork. At the same time, if managed efficiently, the benefits of a diversified workforce can reflect upon both financial and non-financial performance indicators. The concept of diversity management arose from within this context. It aims, not only to achieve more than toleration for differences but, the realisation of the benefits of workforce diversity for the organisations in question. 2 Research Approach Focusing on Thompson’s (2003, p. 2004) claim that diversity management does more than “tolerate differences,’ the research shall critically define and analyse the concept of diversity management in order to establish the stated. In order to prove the validity of Thompson’s approach, the concept of diversity management, as defined and discussed in relevant academic literature will be reviewed, after which the research shall compare the outcomes of diversity management to other management paradigms within the context of heterogonous organisational settings. In other words, the fact that diversity management achieves more than a toleration of differences shall be established through an analytical review and discursive analysis of both theoretical precepts and empirical evidence. 3 Diversity Management The concept of diversity is an all-inclusive one and, refers to the collectivity of human differences and similarities along a given dimension (Cox, 1993). As pertains to a workforce, Caudron and Hayes (1997) maintain that both dimensions and measures of diversity include socioeconomic and psychographic characteristics, race, cultural and ethnic heritage, religion and belief systems, gender and sexual preferences and, age. Other significant dimensions and measures of diversity, although lesser appreciated and researched in relation to intra-organisational relations and dynamics, are political affiliations and socioeconomic and functional backgrounds. All of the aforementioned categories function as diversity measures whose primary aim is the capture of a perception of similarities and differences between organisational members. Measurements of diversity are the cornerstone of organisation-specific diversity management programmes whose primary aims are the negation of the potentially adverse effects of differences and the capitalisation upon both differences and similarities for the specific realisation of a more creative, cohesive, coherent and efficient organisation (Caudron and Hayes, 1997). While the definition presented in the preceding paragraph has largely met with consensus, some have challenged it for normative reasons. Squires (2005) and Polzer, Milton and Swann (2002) maintain that the term should be strictly confined in use to disadvantaged groups, further asserting that its popular use has reduced it to a catch phrase for all perceptions of likenesses and differences between people, effectively diverting attention away from those minority groups who, because of inherent differences with the majority, are denied equality in the workplace. Accordingly, arguing the earlier presented definition to be unjustifiably expansive, some researchers have called for a more precise focus on a particular set of diversity dimensions and measures. These are race, culture, gender, religion, and ethnicity. Indeed, by expanding the parameters of diversity to include age and sexual preferences, attention has been deflected from the more seminal of the diversity categories, chief amongst which are race and ethnicity (Cox, Lobel and McLeod, 1991). Just as there is disagreement over the diversity measures, the concept of managing for diversity is, itself, a subject of slight controversy. Some OD scholars and organisations perceive of the concept as one which guides towards the constructive exploitation of a diverse human resource for the purposes of increased creativity, efficiency and effectiveness. As Carrell and Mann (1995) explain, the majority of OD scholars and practitioners define diversity management as a holistic management approach which, within the context of a diverse organisation, incorporates diversity into the organisational culture and structure as a strategy for the promotion of workforce to organisation affinity and loyalty, on the one hand, and intra-workforce cooperation and harmony, on the other. Quite simply stated, this interpretation of diversity management holds that the integration of diversity into the organisational structure and culture substantially enhances organisational performance (Carrell and Mann, 1995). The fact, however, is that a significant number of organisations do not interpret the concept of diversity management in this same way and, indeed, understand it only in terms of its being an “affirmative action programme” which is largely instigated by the fact of its political correctness (Carrell and Mann, 1995). Businesses which have adopted a diversity management paradigm, or a managing-for-diversity approach, believe that the model in question will endow them with a competitive advantage which, in turn, will substantially enhance their bottom-line performance. This group of organisations, as empirical studies indicate, tend to connect diversity management with contemporary management practices, emphasising both team and group-based work (Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002). The underlying assumption here is that diversity management when integrated with those paradigms which highlight group and team work, tend to produce positive results. Among these results, whether assumed or proven through empirical studies, are increased creativity and enhanced cross-organisational collaboration and inter-departmental cooperation (Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002). Theory maintains that the integration of diversity management into contemporary management paradigms which highlight team and group work produces constructive results because members of heterogeneous groups are in a position to draw upon diverse social and professional experiences for problem solving on the one hand, and greater creativity on the other (Ely and Thomas, 2001). Theory also maintains that if diversity management has not been optimally integrated into the organisational culture and if that culture has not been thoroughly assimilated by organisational members, leading to acceptance rather than toleration of differences, interpersonal attitudes relevant to diversity may negatively impinge upon group cohesion, communication and, thus, performance (Ely and Thomas, 2001). The aforementioned can only be offset were management for diversity implemented in such a way that it actively disseminates diversity information, enhances awareness of the `other’ and, importantly, does not lead to toleration of differences but to acceptance. The supposed result of the stated is heightened group commitment, organisational loyalty and cohesion and, employee satisfaction (Gordon, 1995). Ideally, diversity management is not limited to setting quotas for the employment of minorities or the avoidance of discrimination and bias. As Gardenswartz et al. (2003) explain, diversity management differs in fundamental aspects from both affirmative action and valuing differences management paradigms. It differs to the extent that its aim is not the toleration or the celebration of differences but their acceptance, on the basis of understanding, for the purposes of achieving positive outcomes from the interaction between individual members of a heterogeneous work forces (Gordon, 1995). In other words, the aim of diversity management is the positive and constructive exploitation of diversity. Proceeding from the above overview on the conceptual and theoretical implications of diversity management, the real question which confronts one at this point concerns the implementation of diversity management paradigms. In the following section, this question shall be explored. 3.1 Implementation of Diversity Management Polzer, Milton and Swann (2002) state that organisational development and management literature and theory is in general agreement over the benefits of implementing diversity management paradigms. Diversity management does not simply offset the possibilities of confrontation and tension between diverse groups in an organisational setting but allows the organisation to capitalise upon, and benefit from, workforce diversity. In other words, rather than simply instigate an atmosphere of tolerance for differences as would ensure against intra-organisational conflict, diversity management places organisations in a position where they can effectively benefit from the diverse ethic, religious and cultural composition of its workforce (Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002). Nevertheless, the fact that organisations can accrue the stated benefits from the implementation of diversity management does not necessarily mean that they do. Ultimately, whether or not organisations attain more than just a toleration of differences through the implementation of diversity management, depends on their approach to the design ad implementation of diversity management paradigms. While diversity management is essential for organisations with a diverse workforce, the fact is that only a minority of the organisations which implement diversity management successfully realise its benefits. That many of the organisations, arguably the majority, who implement diversity management only succeed in achieving a toleration for differences but not much more else, is a direct outcome of the general tendency towards the blind adoption of diversity management models, as Arrendondo (2004) claims. Upon deciding to implement a diversity management model, organisations generally implement pre-existing models even though organisational development scholars have repeatedly emphasised the imperatives of designing organisational-specific models which draw from the entity’s unique characteristics (Arrendondo, 2004). In other words, and drawing from both theoretical precepts and empirical evidence, OD scholars contend that the full potential of diversity management to maximise organisational performance can only be achieved if organisations invest the requisite time and resources into the design of models which address their own unique needs and formulate an implementation paradigm which ensures the successful assimilation and operationalisation of the aforementioned (Arrendondo, 2004). In order to better explain this, it is necessary to briefly overview the argument forwarded by OD scholars. Ocon (2006), an OD scholar who specialises in the design of diversity management models and implementation paradigms, quite rightly defines each organisation as a unique entity, which draws its character from the characteristics of both its internal and external environments. Proceeding from this, should an organisation decide to implement a diversity management paradigm, it cannot simply do so through the blind adoption of existing models or simply by integrating diversity management concepts into its current management framework. Instead, in order to ensure that the organisation benefit from diversity as opposed to reaching a state wherein diversity and differences are just tolerated, the organisation’s internal and external environments have to be carefully studied and their defining features identified and analysed. In addition to that, the precise nature of the organisation’s diversity has to be identified, with top management, or those responsible for the design and implementation of the diversity management programme, asking such questions as pertain to the extent of the organisation’s diversity and whether, within the context and nature of that diversity, there is the potential for clash (Ocon, 2006). Once the relevant data has been collected, Ocon (2006) identifies the first step towards the design of an organisation-specific diversity management paradigm as the formulation, dissemination and assimilation of an organisational culture which fuses or, at least, reflects, the similarities between the diverse cultures represented within. Concurring, Polzer, Milton and Swann (2002) point out that as different as cultures may be, one from the other, they invariably share points of similarity. To focus upon and highlight these similarities is the best strategy for the avoidance of conflict. Accordingly, following the articulation of the various cultures within, organisations need to adjust or redesign their culture to reflect those points of similarity, both to avoid conflict between its diverse workforce and to engender affiliation towards the organisation from that workforce (Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002; Ocon, 2006). In other words, the organisational culture, itself has to be reformulated towards a coherent representation of a diverse, yet universalistic ethos, as which would engender feelings of affiliation and belonging among organisational members and enable them to see, and understand that, despite the diverse nature of the workplace, diversity does not necessarily imply differences and conflict but are ultimately founded upon fundamental similarities. That organisational culture should play such a fundamental role in the design and implementation of diversity management models and paradigms has further been emphasised by Gordon (1995). As Gordon explains, the design of an organisational culture which selectively embraces variously cultural precepts, as represented by its own workforce, allows organisational members, not just the opportunity to feel genuine identification with the organisational culture but, a deeper sense of understanding of other cultures (Gordon, 1995). Quite simply stated, organisational culture is emphasised within the context of diversity management because it is ultimately definable as the medium through which an organisation’s diverse workforce will acquire, not just an understanding of other cultures but will come to embrace particular aspects of other cultures as their own. Hence, from this perspective, it is apparent that diversity management provides the foundations for, not just the toleration of differences but the movement beyond toleration to understanding and affiliation, based the recognition of fundamental similarities. While the design of a corporate culture which embraces and fuses between the various cultural/religious/ethnic/gender is a complex and time-consuming endeavour, organisations which engage in the aforementioned are, eventually able to ensure both the successful implementation of diversity management and the exploitation of diversity for the furtherance of organisational goals and objectives. As one may deduce from the previously argued, if organisations approach the design and implementation of diversity management paradigms from the perspective of organisational culture, they are effectively ensuring a fit between the variant cultures represented within the organisation (in its workforce) and the organisational culture and, as such, creating affinity, not just between employees and the organisation but between co-workers. As Gordon (1995) notes, should organisations successfully complete this step in the design and implementation of diversity management, they are not only bringing a diverse group together through a shared culture, nor are they simply giving a diverse workforce a common language for communication but, more importantly, and to the extent that the culture in question is all-inclusive and holistic, it gives individual employees a sense that they are speaking and behaving in a manner which correlates to their own socio-cultural precepts. It is precisely because of this, because of the fact that it engenders affiliation, that the culture in question enables the diverse members of an organisation to relate to one another, to step beyond their differences and recognise their similarities. Certainly, and as organisational development and management scholars have argued, the design of an organisational culture which reflects the workplace’s diversity is integral to the successful implementation of a diversity management paradigm but, the successful design and implementation of the aforementioned is dependant upon much more than that. Barak (2005) explains that the diverse composition of an organisation’s workforce is invariably reflective of the diversity which prevails within the extra-organisational environment, on the one hand, and the globalisation of business and economic activities, on the other. Diversity, in other words, is a state imposed upon organisations by the very nature of both their domestic and global environments with the implication being that the management of diversity does not simply operate on an intra-organisational level but on an extra-organisational one as well. In further explanation, or defence of the stated, Barak (2005) contends that an organisation’s performance, including both its ability to satisfy its objectives and retain, let alone expand, its existing market share, I ultimately predicated on the extent to which it is able to respond to extra-organisational forces and ever changing market demands. Given that these forces and demands emanate from a diverse consumer and market base, it is imperative that the organisation in question be similarly diverse in order that it may understand, let alone respond, to diversity within both the national and international markets which it serves (Barak, 2005). From this perspective, the embrace of diversity emerges as integral consequent to extra-organisational diversity and the integration of diversity management into existent paradigms becomes an essential strategy for the comprehension of, and subsequent response to, the stated extra-organisational diversity. Furthermore, and as Stockdale and Crosby (2003) note, given that extra-organisational environments are becoming increasingly diverse, the embrace of diversity management should be defined as an essential strategy for survival within an increasingly competitive business environment. Bearing the above arguments in mind, several points become clear. The first is that the embrace of diversity management is a complex undertaking which does not simply imply the adoption of existing diversity management paradigms. Indeed, in order to maximise the opportunities for the successful implementation of the stated, it is imperative that organisations design their own diversity management paradigms as which reflect their own unique characteristics. The second point is that organisational culture is both the foundations upon which diversity management rests upon and a primary determinant of successful implementation. The third, and final point, is that within the context of an ever-increasing extra-organisational environment of diversity, business entities need to embrace diversity management both as a strategy for fit and flexibility. It is a “fit” strategy insofar as it ensures that the organisation is, in a way, a microcosmic reflection of the market it serves, thereby ensuring greater levels of communication efficiency between the internal and external organisational environments. It is a “flexible” strategy insofar as it ensures that the organisation in question is both in touch with, and fully cognizant of, the ever-changing, diversity-induced and influenced, market trends and demands (Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002; Stockdale and Crosby, 2003; Barak, 2005; Ocon, 2006). Consequently, the decision to implement a management for diversity paradigm as would achieve more than a toleration of differences, entails the design of an organisation-specific model, with particular focus on the redesign of the existent organisational culture. 3.2 Benefits of Diversity Management While the implementation of diversity management is complex and time-consuming, empirical evidence suggests that the accrued benefits ultimately exceed the costs involved. In order to understand this, it is necessary to emphasise a point made at the outset. Specifically stated, diversity management does not aim towards the creation of an intra-organisational environment which is tolerant of diversity but, its objective is the utilisation of diversity for the promotion of an organisation’s market standing and performance. As Kabanoff (1991) explains, through the adoption of a liberal universalistic culture, organisations can promote intra-organisational toleration of differences, thereby avoiding intra-environmental tensions and conflict. Organisations, in other words, do not need to adopt a diversity management paradigm in order to promote toleration of differences. However, and as Squires (2005) quite rightly emphasises, the transformation of diversity into an asset from which organisations can positively benefit, with the stated benefits reflecting upon both financial and non-financial indicators of performance, depends upon the adoption of a management for diversity model. In other words, management for diversity is not about toleration of differences but the realisation of actual benefits. Case studies and empirical evidence suggests that one of the leading benefits of management for diversity is the very nature of teamwork and group work which emerges consequent to the stated. In a study of 9 UK public and private sector organisations which have successfully implemented diversity management paradigms, Ely and Thomas (2001) found that teamwork efficiency and productivity significantly improved. The reason is that within the context of a management for diversity paradigm, members of work teams are selected, both for their specific qualifications and for the very nature of their diversity. In other words, work teams emerge as a microcosmic representation of the market the organisation serves with the consequence being the development of products, or the design of product/service ideas which resonate with the wider market itself insofar as they address the dominant needs/demands of an ethnically/culturally/racially//religiously diverse consumer/market base (Ely and Thomas, 2001). Indeed, according to the figures presented by Ely and Thomas (2001) projects/services which are formulated within the matrix of a diverse work group operating from within the parameters of an organisation which adheres to a management for diversity paradigm, perform at least 25-30% better than products/services which are not designed/developed according to the aforementioned framework. Besides the fact that it positively influences team work, management for diversity maximises organisational creativity levels. Mujtaba (2006), refereeing to empirical evidence and case studies in support of the aforementioned statement, notes that organisations whose work involves research and development, such as electronics and IT companies, have discovered that workforce diversity and diversity management are key competitive advantages. Quite simply stated, workforce diversity brings different and various ideas to the fore and creates a ‘thinking outside the box” culture, while managing for diversity provides a forum for the expression and consideration of these ideas (Mujtaba, 2006, p. 102). The implication here is, as supported by empirical studies, that diversity management motivates and encourages creativity. Blank and Slipp (1994) further identify another important benefit of managing for diversity as creative, efficient and effective problem solving. As they note, problems, both expected and unexpected, are a daily occurrence within the majority of organisations, thus, highlighting the importance of effective problem-solving strategies and mechanisms. Within the context of increasingly diverse organisations, the top-down approach to problem-solving, which were never really efficient in the first place, is increasingly ineffective. This is because, as per the stated approach, problems are perceived of from set angles and subsequently solved, not just in accordance with that limited angle but, according to a supposition of homogeneity. Within the context of diversity management, however, case studies indicate that problems are usually analyse from a wide array of perspectives, eventually arriving at a more thorough understanding of the problem and are solved with an understanding of the inherently heterogeneous nature of the organisation, thereby ensuring a more positive reception of the solution, on the one hand, and maximising the chances for the successful implementation of solutions, on the other (Blank and Slipp, 1994). Consequently, among the measurable benefits of management for diversity is both more thorough problem analysis, on the one hand and more effective problem-solving, on the other. 4 Conclusion Based upon the above discussion, it is evident that there is a distinction between managing for diversity and simply managing a diverse workforce towards toleration of differences. Managing for diversity does include, but is definitely not limited to, arrival at tolerance for differences. Instead, diversity management is fundamentally focused upon the transformation of diversity into a competitive advantage and into an asset. If this, however, is to be realised, organisations must invest the requisite time, effort and resources into the design and implementation of diversity management paradigms which reflect the organisation’s unique characteristics and not simply adopt a pre-existing model. Only by doing so can the diversity management paradigm realise more than a toleration of differences. Part Two: Reflective Essay Even though I am a full-time student and cannot implement what I’ve learnt in this course to my own work, at least for the time-being, the course fundamentally changed my views on management and the characteristics of the good/effective manager. Indeed, even though the course focused on diversity and diversity management within the United Kingdom and case studies were from British organisations, the fact is that, after a while, I was able to deduct their use and applicability to my native business environment, and market. Therefore, in this reflective essay, I would like to discuss what this course taught me about my own market and how, in the future, it will aid me in becoming a more efficient manager than I otherwise would have been. If the British workforce and labour market are fundamentally diverse, that of my country, the United Arab Emirates is infinitely more so. According to 2006 estimates released by the Government of Abu Dhabi, an estimated 90% of the manual labour market is comprised of foreign, expatriate workers and, at least 50% of the non-manual, executive-level employment force is foreign. Of the foreign labour and executive market, approximately half is Arab and the remainder Asian and Western (Khalaf and Alkobaisi, 1999). With very few exceptions, however, leadership is native. With the course background in mind, this allows me to make two observations. The first is that there is a cultural gap between top corporate leadership and the workforce, probably affecting, or adversely influencing, intra-organisational communication flows. The second is that private sector employees and workforce within the United Arab Emirates is extremely diverse, simultaneously reflecting the diverse nature of the country and its global/regional environment (Khalaf and Alkobaisi, 1999). Indeed, as mentioned in a Bank of Abu Dhabi publication (2006) the country’s business environment can be defined as a microcosmic representation of both the Arab and the international worlds since one would be hard put to find a nationality, culture or religion which is not represented in the private sector (Bank of Abu Dhabi, 2006). From a personal perspective, however, and based upon my own observations and readings, there is little understanding of diversity management in the UAE. Certainly, there is a trend towards the adoption of total quality management, encouraged by the central government which has established several Excellence Awards but there is no perceptible acknowledgement of the extent to which diversity management can contribute to the excellence which private sector organisations are striving towards. In brief and as some have observed, rather than adopt diversity management approaches, the UAE private sector does one of two things: (1) it internationalises its operations, as in implement foreign management paradigms which, in many cases, are alien to the majority of the organisation’s employees, or (2) it imposes its own patriarchal, authoritarian culture upon the organisation’s culture, hierarchy and management paradigm (Khalaf and Alkobaisi, 1999). In either cases, while the organisations in question benefit from the various professional talents and experiences they recruit from around the world, they do not benefit from the diversity which is the defining feature of the organisation itself, the country, the market it serves and the international/regional markets which they strive to penetrate. Again, and falling back on what I’ve learnt from the course, I can detect that the United Arab Emirates tolerates differences but does not capitalise upon them. Differences are tolerated because they are ignored and overlooked due to the recognition that foreign workers and employees are an intrinsic part of the national economy and one of the core determinants of recent progress and success. Differences, however, are not integrated into operative management paradigms as to allow for the realisation of the benefits discussed in the first essay. Not only that, but national policies and legislature only pay lip service to equality. In other words, while national legislature allows for gender and racial equality, it most decidedly does not allow for religious or ethnic equality. The result is not only a tremendous pay gap for equal work, with male European, American and native employees awarded marked preference but a highly visible glass ceiling is in place as regards the promotion of females to top leadership positions, not to mention Asian employees and workers (Pepper, 1992; Zahlan, 2006). The implication here is that national legislature has not promoted an understanding of the imperatives of moving beyond a toleration of differences. From my perspective, even if national legislature has not allowed more than a toleration of differences, that does not mean that company policy should not acknowledge the value of diversity through the implementation of diversity management. Indeed, given the very cosmopolitan character of UAE cities such as Dubai, and the fact that the majority of its native population has a fundamentally cosmopolitan worldview, consequent to the fact that the majority have either been educated in the West or have had close working contact with Western business executives, its private sector is uniquely positioned to comprehend and implement the recommended management paradigm. Importantly, doing so will positively affect private sector performance, as measured through both its financial and non-financial indicators. There is no doubt that the course has not only influenced my understanding of management theory but has given me a better grasp of some of the tools which the effective manager needs to utilise, or exploit. If, following graduation, I ever attain a management position in my country’s private sector, I will engage in the design and implementation of a diversity management approach even if on a departmental level, hopefully motivating a consideration for similar implementation on an organisational level. I will do so following the guidelines for design and implementation outlined in the preceding essay. My aim, quite simply stated, will be, apart from the already existent toleration of differences, is the accrual of diversity management’s benefits, whether more effective and innovative problem solving, more efficient and creative teamwork and, above all, more efficient and effective communication flows, both on the intra-departmental level and between the department and the external environment it serves (realistically assuming that I’ll eventually manage a department but not an organisation for a very long time to come). Thus, what I can affirm at this stage is that the course has motivated me to reconsider my earlier assumptions regarding effective management within the context of diversity. Bibliography Arredondo, P. M. (2004) Successful Diversity Management Initiatives: A Blueprint for Planning and Implementation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Bank of Abu Dhabi (2006) Annual Report. Dubai: Bank of Abu Dhabi. Barak, M.M. (2005) Managing Diversity: Towards A Globally Inclusive Workplace. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Blank, R. and Slipp, S. (1994) Voices of Diversity: Real People Talk About Problems and Solutions In A Workplace Where Everyone Is Not Alike. New York: American Management Association. Carrell, M., and Mann, E. (1995). `Defining workforce. diversity in public-sector organizations.’ Public Personnel Management 24(1): 99–111. Caudron, S. and Hayes, C. (1997) `Are diversity programs benefiting African Americans?’ Black Enterprise, 27(7), 121-127. Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A., and McLeod, P.L. (1991) `Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behaviour on a group task.’ Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 827-847. Cox, T.H. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organisations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001) `Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), pp. 229-273. Gardenswartz, L. et al. (2003) The Global Diversity Desk Reference: Managing An International Workforce. London: Pfeiffer. Gordon, A. (1995) `The work of corporate culture: Diversity management.’ Social Text, 44, pp. 3-30. Kabanoff, B. (1991) `Equity, equality, power and conflict.’ The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), pp. 416-441. Khalaf, S. and Alkobaisi , S. (1999) `Strategies of coping and patterns of accommodation in the oil-rich Gulf societies: Evidence from the UAE.’ British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 26(2), pp. 271-298. Kossek, E.E. and Zonia, S.C. (1993) `Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity.’ Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 14(1), pp. 61-81. Pepper, W.F. (1992) `Foreign capital investment in member states of the gulf Cooperation Council: Considerations, issues and concerns for investors.’ Journal of Arab Law Quarterly, 7(1), pp. 33-63. Mujtaba, B. (2006) Workforce Diversity Management: Challenges, Competencies and Strategies. NJ; Lumina press. Ocon, R. (2006) Issues of Gender and Diversity. NY: University Press of America. Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P. and Swann, W.B. (2002) `Capitalising on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 296-324. Squires, J. (2005) `Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorising mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation.’ Social Politics: International Studies in Gender in State and Society, 12(3), pp. 366-388. Stockdale, M.S. and Crosby, F.J. (2003) The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity. London: Blackwell. Zahlan, A.B. (2006) `Labour migration and economic integration in the Middle East.’ In Middle East Dilemma, Henderson, M.C. (ed). London: Tauris and Co. Ltd. Read More