Analysis of Easy to Say, Difficult to Do: Diversity Management in Retail Paper by Carley Foster and Lynette Harris - Coursework Example

Running Head: Critical Review Critical Review [Institute’s Critical Review Easy to say, difficult to do: Diversity Management in Retail In this paper we have discussed the paper written by Carley Foster and Lynette Harris, named ‘Easy to say, difficult to do: Diversity management in retail’. We’ll be critically reviewing the concept, the research methods used by the writers, the findings, and how the issue is implied in the practical world. The paper discusses how operational managers interpret the concept of diversity management and how it is applied in the practical world. For the sake of simplicity, throughout the paper, one long-established British retailing company has been used as an example. The concept of diversity management is by far very appealing for the employers but line managers are finding it hard as the concept is not well-defined. Managers are not clear about what diversity management is and what should be done to implement it such that the anti-discrimination legal framework is not violated. According to some managers, recognition and responsiveness to individual differences is more probable to result in unequal treatment at the work place and unfairness as well. It has been discussed that initiating implementation of organizational diversity is not an easy task. How managers interpret the concept and their perceptions about the fairness in treatment as per the operational context is very critical. Employers need to realize this and train the line managers accordingly. Foster and Lynette have discussed a lot of literature regarding the need to address the issue of diversity management and different approaches for handling it. Jamieson and O’Mora (1991) are of the view that diverse workforce in combination with their increased purchasing power for the ‘minority’ consumer markets and labour shortages, has forced the UK’s businesses to work on diversity management. Robinson and Dechant (1997) view it as a chance to make profits by attracting diverse cultures, make optimum use of the talent available to them, and creation of business opportunities. According to Cox and Blake (1991) diversified workforce helps in creating the business’ image as an ‘employer of choice’. More skilled and talented workers can be fired in this way. The employee commitment offsets the costs associated with absenteeism and staff turnover. Foster and Lynette also showed the other side of the coin by mentioning Taylor (2002) and Noon and Ogbonna (2001:1) who say that diversified workforce brings fresh challenges with it. Applying the diversity management is a matter of concern for the line managers and HR managers; however, Foster and Lynette maintain that not sufficient literature is available on the issue. The absence of a universally acknowledge definition of ‘diversity management’ allows managers to mould it in accordance with their prevailing setup, however, lack of clarity results in dominance of expediency and inconsistent policies. Kersten (2000) has defined diversity management as “an approach to fair treatment that encourages employers to harness and value a wide range of visible differences in their employees.” Foster and Lynette chose to follow this definition in this paper. focus has shifted to procedural justice from distributive justice, providing ‘sameness of treatment’ (Thibaut and Walker, 1975: 78). Jewson and Mason (1986: 312) refer to this as ‘liberal perspective’. The existing trend advocates addressing social injustices by encouraging and maintaining diversity. According to Elmuti (1993), Liff (1997), and Gagnon and Cornelius (2000), this theory violates the conventional equal opportunities policies (EOPs) as it focuses on recognition and valuing of individual differences. The theory also has its roots in the business case rationale instead of legal compliance. Webb (1997), Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and Dickens (1999), hold different perspectives about the issue and see it as an expansion of the equal opportunities approach. Foster and Lynette have also highlighted the literature about insufficient training. Fullerton and Kandola’s survey (1998) and the CIPD’s 2004 annual survey, are both indicative of how little importance is given to the issue. Foster and Lynette conducted qualitative research in order to assess the perceptions regarding the issue. UK’s major high-street retailer, who wanted to diversify its customer base, was chosen for the purpose of this survey. The retailer also runs an online business and a US retailing chain. The HR specialists, managers, and employees were interviewed in-depth. Foster and Lynette chose to follow the case study approach and conducted 40 semi-structured interviews in a period of one year. The interviewees were mainly people in a managerial post and some were HR specialists who designed procedure and policies. Foster and Lynette tried to have a sample with diversified visible characteristics but their preference was constrained because of the population composition of the sample. The sample constituted of 70% females and 30% males, aged between mid-20s to late-50s. The UK sample had one person with a physical ability and one non-white. Snowball sampling was used by Foster and Lynette. It is a form of convenience sampling that is often used in research into very sensitive areas such as health problems or criminal activities, where a researcher makes contact with a small group, gains their confidence and uses that to make further contacts and enlarge the sample. This technique is questionable and may also be biased because of dependency on the interviewees for recommending other people for interview. In order to minimize the ‘margin of error’ and make the research more authentic, Foster and Lynette matched the interviewees’ HR functions with the documents before and after the interview. The sample was interviewed about their perceptions regarding ‘diversity management’ in general and in particular relation with their company. They were also questioned about their responsibilities, work experiences, job role, and the work environment. Different scenarios were presented to the sample and they were to choose either the ‘equal opportunities approach’ or the ‘managing diversity approach’. They were asked to tell how they would react in those circumstances and any critical incidents they had faced in their career relating to the issue of diversity management. The UK’s operational units are provided with a manual that covers different policies relating to diversity management. Managers referred to this manual very frequently. Line managers were observed to be more focused on the legal implications regarding the issue. Furthermore, complementary qualitative research was also undertaken through recording and observation of day-to-day occurrences at work place. These included trainings, recruitments, and interactions between the staff. Analysis of documents, policies, job advertisements, annual reports, and recruitments procedures was also done to further explore the issue. It is important to note that this research paper is based on UK’s legal and national context’s only. The results indicate that people had varying perceptions about the concept of ‘diversity management’. People who were directly responsible for workers took it as management of worker’s personalities. This stems from the view of individual differences, inclusive of visible and non-visible traits. Managers thought of diversity management as a way of managing the workers such that the ‘best’ is attained from them. A very small proportion of the sample saw diversity management and equal opportunities approach as the same. To sum it up, the ‘diversity management’ concept was found to be ill-defined and subject to many interpretations, even though company manuals and other documents include some explanations. The general differences in the understanding result in problems and also allow managers to interpret however they want to. Implementing these policies is relies heavily on several variable factors which can not be ignored. HR policies and procedures, managerial capabilities, and anxieties regarding discrimination claims or employment rights are examples of such factors. Read More