Diversity and Human Resource Debate - Essay Example

Diversity and Human Resource Debate The following paper is а discussion about how diversity is no longer the sole province of human resource but should be part of а separate diversity function to embrace equality across an organizations workforce, products and services. (Morrison, 1992, 42-48) Diversity is an increasingly important factor in businesses around the world as Globalization begins to take hold of the world market. As major organizations Internationalize, the diversity of the markets in the world poses many challenges and many have begun to realize that the challenges of managing diversity is not only difficult but must also begin from within. The challenge to remain competitive in the current global markets has forced many organizations to change their views on managing the diversity of their workforce. Not only is the diversification of the workforce unavoidable but it has also become essential to tap into the competitive market of talent in the world today for any organization to remain competitive. (Cross, 1994, 110-114) Diversity as а Different Function? The main reason why diversity should be seen as а different function rather than а part of human resource is because The definition of diversity among people can be generally defined as the differences between people, physical and psychological. This includes all demographic and cultural differences like age, gender, race, culture, religion, ethnicity, disabilities, personal beliefs, family structure and lifestyle, paying little attention to work skills. (Morrison, 1992, 42-48) This is however not in any way comprehensive, as diversity among people is practically limitless and is constantly evolving with time and the global environment. Outstanding differences are obvious like race and age but some can be difficult to identify especially perceived differences, which vary based on experiences and relationships like lifestyle and personality. (Ellis, 1994, 79-110) Valuing diversity is an important element in organisations today and managing diversity is vital for success. Management of diversity can be defined as а managerial process for developing an environment that works for all employees (Morrison, 1992, 42-48) while encouraging and enabling them to employ their talents and skills to the fullest. Why is diversity becoming an important issue? Previously, the diversity of an organization's workforce has mainly been due to legal compliance as in many countries, there are laws against discrimination. However, globalization of the world markets including the employment market is causing а dramatic change in the way businesses are run. (Ellis, 1994, 79-110) Globalizations means new open markets with new customers which requires products or services that are suited for these markets. It also means а new type of employment market which is extremely diverse. Limiting factors like geography are becoming less an issue as technology advances in travel and communication makes the world increasingly accessible. Diversity is becoming an unavoidable issue that must be addressed if the organization is to successfully adapt to these changes. Organizational goals of diversity today include creation of а positive organizational culture and deriving economic value from diversity (Hellriegel 1999 ). In recent years, the field of Human Resource Management has moved to consider not only micro but also macro relationships. The micro focus, evolving from industrial psychology, emphasized human resource policies and their influence on individuals. This focus was concerned exclusively with such outcomes as job satisfaction and employee participation. The macro focus shifts the level of analysis from the individual to the organization. Diversity Orientation: А Configurational View Diversity becomes а significant organizational objective and diversity management becomes particularly salient because of the natural tendency toward homogeneity in organizations. Schneider's (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition hypothesis (ASA) suggests that organizations tend to attract, hire, and retain similar types of people. (Ellis, 1994, 79-110) Thus, а diversity orientation serves as such а mechanism and should lead to increased diversity. Diversity represents bringing different backgrounds, cultures, and generations into the same organization. This variety of perspectives can foster creativity. On the other hand, this variety of perspectives generates inefficiencies in that diverse groups lack а shared understanding, potentially making communication slow and laborious. Thus, we propose that environments and strategies that demand innovation and creative solutions will benefit more from diversity than those environments that require efficiency. (Ellis, 1994, 79-110) One reason that configurations remain crucial for fostering diversity is based upon а notion termed "social traps" or social dilemmas . These traps arise when an attempt to address а problem further exacerbates the problem through unintended consequences. For example, а work/family program designed to provide flexibility to employees could lead to potential negative performance evaluations for those employees who avail themselves of the program. Likewise, an affirmative action program may create а social trap through resentment from white males who feel procedural injustice (Thomas, 1990, 107-117). А diversity orientation mitigates the social trap problem by creating an environment where clear, unambiguous signals are sent regarding diversity. For example, organizations may avoid an affirmative action social trap by combining it with diversity training that incorporates strategies to fully integrate all employees into the organizational culture. Training can create an awareness of these traps and provide strategies for addressing the underlying issues. Compensation and work design issues may also help avoid social traps. The unequal distribution of work or rewards fosters an individual orientation and contributes to people working competitively rather than cooperatively. Thus, work design in support of diversity would tend towards symmetry in employee contributions and outcomes. Further, Barry and Bateman (1996) argue that dispersed control enhances the organization's ability to resolve social traps that hinder diversity advancement. Organizations with teams and work organization with dispersed decision making would tend to enhance diversity by distributing control and power throughout the organization. Thus, individual policies implemented in an identity-blind environment will more likely create social traps. А diversity orientation, on the other hand, will send а clear, unambiguous signal that all employees and their contributions are valued. Training and development, work design, staffing and compensation represent the major elements of а diversity orientation. However, these elements can operate individually at cross purposes or in concert. А firm may have little or no emphasis on diversity with respect to training and development and а high degree of diversity emphasis with respect to work design. Although many companies continue to use these four dimensions of diversity independently, we have argued that а configuration of these four practices will work together to enhance diversity. (Thomas, 1990, 107-117) Thus, а multiplicative relationship exists so that companies that have complementary configured training and development, work design, staffing and compensation interventions will have а meaningful diversity orientation. This relationship evolves from the fact that diversity is а complex phenomenon that needs constant reinforcement. Larkey (1996) characterizes an ideal diversity climate as encouraging pluralism and shared ideas. Barry and Bateman (1996) argue that diversity social traps are nested and involve locked-in behavior across levels of analysis. Thus, policies and practices that exist throughout the human resource system may have social trap attributes when viewed independently. However, а diversity orientation springs the trap by creating an organizational safety net to foster and encourage cultural diversity. For example, The UK Instruments has а diversity orientation (Thomas, 1990, 107-117). The company's Diversity Network of over twenty diversity initiatives includes such features as а diversity forums and coalitions. (Thomas, 1990, 107-117) The company also has business and corporate level diversity managers. The strategic leadership of the company incorporates diversity. Specific diversity initiatives include recruiting, training and development of protected class members and employee awards for achieving excellence in promoting diversity. The Diversity Network apparently serves as the key factor transforming individual diversity programs into а diversity orientation. The above discussion suggests that linkages between diversity policies and practices that lead to а diversity orientation are fragile. Management actions further reinforce redundancy among policies by conveying the spirit of the policy more than strict adherence to the letter of the policies. Doty et al. (1993), drawing on Mintzberg (1983), suggest that coordinating mechanisms, processes used to bind together activities throughout the organization, serve as the glue that holds а configuration together. Of these coordinating mechanisms, direct supervision and mutual adjustment (informal communication processes among employees) are particularly relevant to diversity configurations. The Diversity Network at The UK represents such а coordinating mechanism. The coordination of diversity configurations becomes problematic without supervisors and employee support. Further, Doty et al. (1993) suggest that the CEO and the top management team represent the organization's strategic apex that conveys organizational objectives and values. (Cox, 1993, 1-5) Thus, their support for diversity becomes critical to binding the configuration together. The procedural justice literature sheds further light on management's role by suggesting that employees have more organizational commitment (and presumably diversity) when they feel that the organization has fair procedures in place. Thus, justice judgements become particularly salient to diversity management that heightens bias concerns. Consequently, employees must perceive that the policies and procedures are fair before they will fully support diversity initiatives. (McKendall, 1994, 407-423) Thus, in sum, the linkages between diversity programs will be strengthened when multiple and redundant diversity programs exists, when management supports the spirit of these policies, and the policies follow fair and reasonable procedures. Nonetheless, creating genuine linkages, and at the same time avoiding social traps, becomes а delicate matter for management. As indicated by Nemetz and Christensen (1996), individuals choose their sources of influence and diversity programs represent only one source of influence for individuals. А number of studies have found diversity negatively affects organizational processes and performance. Group heterogeneity, for example, has been associated with stereotyping, in-group/out-group effects, affective conflict, and turnover. In addition, empirical research shows that in-group demographic preference exists in organizations. In-group preference involves favoring interaction with in-group (e.g., same race, same gender) over the out-group. Tsui et al.'s (1992) findings reveal that diversity leads (Cox, 1993, 1-5) to organizational detachment among white male employees. Thomas and Ely (1996) suggest that increasing demographic variation within firms did not in itself increase organizational performance. Williams and O'Reilly (1998) conclude that mismanaged diversity initiatives can negatively affect both process and outcomes. Therefore, I assert the following: Proposition: Holding all other factors constant, racial and gender diversity is negatively associated with organizational performance. Williams and O'Reilly (1998) note that negative consequences may diminish and positive effects magnify with intervention. As companies become more culturally diverse, they socialize newcomers to identify with the organization or sub-unit in terms of its positive, distinctive, and enduring characteristics. Identification enables the new employees to reify the organization, provide loyalty to it, and support it. Elsass and Graves (1997) argue that strong corporate directives for norms of equality should reduce unconcealed bias. (Cox, 1993, 1-5) When working on complex, nonroutine problems, groups composed of diverse individuals in terms of skills, knowledge, abilities, and perspectives may experience greater task conflict. Task or substantive conflict contributes to а more complete issue analysis, and consequently, improved decision making and performance. (McKendall, 1994, 407-423) More research is needed to examine the dynamics of employees' interaction in workforce samples of varying degrees of diversity. How would а british american male interact in а predominately American group, unit, office, or agency? How would а Hispanic male interact in а moderately heterogeneous work unit led by an Asian female? Does an employee's country of origin affect his or her interaction adjustment during growth-oriented economic periods or during reduction in size or cut back periods? Does the employees ability to make friends at work affect his or her job performance in а highly heterogeneous workforce, or vice versa? Which reward system is the most effective in а diverse workforce? These types of questions need to be studied as diversity continues to naturally occur within organizations. Finally, it is time to finally agree that diversity management is not affirmative action or quota systems. Diversity management is а corporate or managerially initiated strategy. It can be proactive and is based on operational reality to optimize the use and contributions of an increasingly diverse national workforce. Affirmative action is reactive and based on government law and moral imperatives. The improper or underutilization of а diverse workforce is not а legal issue, but it is а managerial and leadership issue. (Cross, 1994, 110-114) There is enough work available for researchers and administrators to take us well into the 21st century. Diversity management and its consequences are so important that а new agenda with an emphasis on civility, respect, compassion, theory building, research study, and practical application is necessary. (McKendall, 1994, 407-423) The elevation of diversity management strategies can occur because it is important to organizations and society. We now face the choice of continuing to not study, doing the same thing that has been done for years, or improving our efforts to bring together researchers and administrators to discuss, theorize, and research diversity management initiatives. I believe that those who resist high pressures for diversity risk public censure. Yet, there may be good reasons for operating outside the box. Becoming a champion may be appropriate for an organizational leader who foresees industry or demographic change, and resistance can be appropriate when pressures for a particular type of diversity are perceived to be transitory or to entail more costs than benefits. The important point is that the ideas presented in this article provide executives with a framework that can help them systematically consider approaches to managing diversity, choose appropriate ones, and establish priorities. A review of diversity initiatives throughout the organization should help executives organize and act on what may appear to be chaotic or disorganized behavior. Fragmented and freestanding diversity programs resulting from good intentions at different points in time represent a different challenge than fragmented programs that arose because leaders changed firm directions. Efforts and good intentions may become the glue for a revised, more cohesive set of diversity initiatives, but employees may be cynical and adept at resisting changes in the name of diversity. In either case, consistency between perspectives and action is certain to reduce employee confusion about roles they are expected to play in managing diversity. Conclusion Diversity orientation may not be valuable for all organizations. А diversity orientation requires а substantial commitment of resources and а willingness to experience inefficiencies for а time. The cost may be too high for firms striving for efficiency (defenders) and cost-reduction, and facing stability. (Cox, 1993, 1-5) Finally, if firms must deal with а diverse workforce, а diversity orientation may yield positive performance effects through the genuine integration and acceptance of diverse employee perspectives which leads to а reduction in turnover and absenteeism. (Cross, 1994, 110-114) The irony of the management of diversity is that it merely accentuates to importance of managing people in general. Diversity measures address issues long known to the business world, equality and justice. An image of diversity in an organisation projects an image of equality. (McKendall, 1994, 407-423) One of the most important aspects of management is to be fair and firm. Fairness breeds trust which in turn promotes loyalty. When people are treated fairly, they are satisfied with their workplace environment and therefore perform better. Firmness in turn breeds respect, which in turn strengthens authority. The company culture must support and nurture its workforce. In the end, it is the company culture that unifies and holds an organisation together. The core element of diversity is the perspective of thought. Managing diversity is actually the management of the diverseness of thought within the organisation's workforce. Managing diversity means bringing together this diverseness of thought and nurturing it to optimize its outputs. (Cox, 1993, 1-5) The most important element of thought is the environment in which it functions. It is the key factor which affects а person's actions and performance and this is where an organisation's role is most important. How an organisation fulfills this role will determine if workforce diversity will become an asset or а liability and if it can provide а competitive advantage or drag an organisation down. (Cross, 1994, 110-114) References T. Cox, Cultural Diversity In Organizations: Theory, Research, And Practice, (1993), San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1-5 M. McKendall, "А Course In Work-Force Diversity," Journal of Management Education, (1994), 18: 407-423. R.R. Thomas, "From Affirmative Action To Affirming Diversity," Harvard Business Review, (1990), 107-117. E.Y. Cross, J.H. Katz, F.А. Miller, & E.W. Seashore (eds.), The Promise of Diversity, (1994), Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin, 110-114 А. Morrison, "Developing Diversity In Organizations," Business Quarterly, (summer 1992), 42-48. C. Ellis, & J.А. Sonnenfeld, "Diverse Approaches To Managing Diversity," Human Resource Management, (1994), 33: 79-110. Read More