Manage Your Diversity Strategically : A Call for Corporates

Jayshree Parmar (Commerce College, Gandinagar, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedebad)

Published in econo.philica.com

Abstract

A doable gone astray vinculum between how an association covenant with diversity and its impact on the underneath is a corporate diversity strategy that is put to death by means of a intended revolutionize approach to systemically manage diversity. The lack of a corporate diversity strategy is quite likely to hinder managing diversity from fetching systemic to an organization’s culture and its way of doing business, thus nurturing outlaw the potential benefits of diversity to be maximized. This piece of work recommend a skeleton for using a intended revolutionize approach for corporate diversity strategy to evolution the length of the “diversity gamut” preparatory with acknowledging to valuing, and eventually to managing diversity; and systemically managing diversity using a seven-step “managing diversity process”.

Article body

PROLOGUE
“India is such a diverse country whatever you say of it, the opposite is equally true”.

 From acquiescence to inclusion, the perception of workplace diversity is embryonic. Coming from an organizational stance, this piece of writing walk around the changing perception of workplace diversity, elements of an inclusive corporate culture, and HR's leadership role to maximize and accumulation of values which benefit a diverse workforce in a changing global business world. Given the escalating “war for talent” in today’s bloodthirsty business world, it is crucial that the execution and evaluation of a managing diversity strategy using  intended distorted approach to concede the  corporate with systemically controlling and inculcating diversity into an organization’s culture. This paper can contribute incalculably to an organization’s ability to use all of its human assets as a strategic wealth to achieve and uphold a competitive advantage in today’s dynamic, global marketplace. The sense of urgency resulted in recognising that diversity is a great phenomenon that has a wide array of affects within the workplace, and society in general .(Koonce, 2001; Stark, 2001; Williams and O’Reilly, 1997). And now It’s now not a choice but a requisite for any successful workforce strategy because of the competitive pressures on organisations to sustain and improve economic performance and the changing expectations and aspirations of society. Academicians, practitioners and organizational researchers have contributed a lot-  research projects , models, theories, framework to add value to this field. This paper investigates, how diversity can put attribute that happens to be relevant to an entity that makes him/her distinguish that he/she is diverse from another entity (Williams and O’Reilly, 1997). Diversity management developed as a philosophy in the late 1980s in North America with the publication of Workforce 2000, a report indicating changing labour market demographics. In the 1990s, the concept gained popularity as a new management approach in the UK and has continued to do so because of the prevailing social and economic climate. These pressures are forcing attention on the need to address contextual realities, which have traditionally been ignored. The people management implications of this are that an employee pool composed of white, able-bodied and others is now out of date as it doesn’t reflect the composition of the labour market. Labour market statistics show that the workforce of the twenty-first century is becoming more and more diverse in terms of factors such as race and ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, political and religious conviction, serviceable expertise, and epoch.
Definitions of diversity range from distributive concerns based on the traditional categories of race, ethnicity and gender to the inclusion of a vast array of differences in age, sexual orientation, disability, employment status, tenure, function, educational background, lifestyle, religion, values and beliefs in addition to race, ethnicity and gender.

In the CIPD report, Diversity: Stacking up the evidence (Anderson and Metcalf 2003), three different types of workforce diversity were identified:
•           Social category diversity relates to differences in demographic characteristics, such as age and race.
•           Informational diversity refers to diversity of background such as knowledge, education, experience, tenure and functional background.
•           Value diversity includes differences in personality and attitudes.
A review of diversity literature illustrate that sometimes escalating diversity is portrayed as a modus operandi that will automatically endow with employers with competitive advantage. Allard (2002 p13) observes the hoped-for advantages of diversity engineering. He explains that desired outcomes include such intangibles as fresh outlooks, higher morale, increased flexibility, multiple perspectives, increased problem-solving skills, increased creativity, reduction in intergroup tensions, and improved market opportunities.    Companies that flourish have the capacity to effectively adapting new situations and quickly capitalize on them. This aptitude can be deliberate by the range of talent, experience, knowledge, insight, and imagination available in their workforces. In recruiting employees, successful companies recognize conformity to the status quo as a distinct disadvantage. In addition to their job-specific abilities, employees are increasingly valued for the unique qualities and perspectives that they can also bring to the table. According to Dr. Santiago Rodriguez, Director of Diversity for Microsoft, true diversity is exemplified by companies that “hire people who are different – knowing and valuing that they will change the way you do business.” service economies, diversity issues will gain importance because in a service economy effective interactions and communications between people are essential to business success (Wentling and Palma-Rivas, 2000). As globalization is increasing, diversity will help organizations to enter the international arena (Cascio, 1998). Diversity enhances creativity and innovation (Adler, 1997; Jackson et al., 1992), and produces competitive advantages (Coleman, 2002; Jackson et al., 1992). Diverse teams make it possible to enhance flexibility (Fleury, 1999) and rapid response and adaptation to change (Adler, 1997; Jackson et al., 1992). Enrich an organizational human wealth; managing a diverse workforce entails a minimization of cloning that is preventing the production of an exact copy in selection and promotion. This leads to a wider range of ideas and abilities, offering greater scope for innovation and competitive performance in the future therefore enriching an organizations human capital.
Conversely, if diversity is not managed effectively, major losses to the organization embrace, at a minimum, breakdowns in communication, interpersonal conflict, and higher turnover (Cox, 1991). While there may not be much empirical evidence to substantiate claims that effectively managed diversity directly leads to underneath increases (Chatman et al., 1998; Richard, 2000; Stark, 2001), there is real-world evidence (e.g. Coca-Cola, Denny’s, Publix, and Texaco settlements) to suggest that not effectively managing gender and racioethnic diversity has been, and can be, detrimental to organizations and their underneath .  A disadvantage of diversity in the workplace results in increasing in conflicts.  Conflicts arise largely due to ignorance. Bigotry feelings or derogatory comments cause a lack of acceptance. “This can produce negative dynamics such as ethnocentrism, stereotyping and culture clashes” (White, 1999). Mismanagement of diversity in the form of denied access or unfavorable treatment can have negative consequences, such as inhibiting workers' abilities and motivation. This leads to lower job performance. Therefore, when an organization ignores the existence and importance of work force diversity, conflict can emerge and neither the corporation nor its employees will realize their potential (Goetz, 2001). Further Disadvantages include impasses in reaching agreements, miscommunication, confusion, ambiguity, fear, resistance and backlash from majority members, unrealistic expectations, high cost of litigation, and recruitment difficulties. These undermine organisational attachment and reduce effectiveness and workforce cohesion (Chevrier 2003, Wharton and Baron 1987; Tsui et al 1992; O’Reilly et Cox 1993, Nemetz and Christensen 1996, Robbins 2001). In their review of the literature on the effects of diversity, Milliken and Martins (1996 p408) found that diversity in gender, race or age may lead to higher turnover rates. Similarly, Jackson and colleagues (1995) noted that diversity may create discomfort for individual members of a workforce and result in lower organisational integration and attachment. Still others argue the possibility that, even if diversity fosters better performance, the costs of co-ordinating diverse workforces can impede its advantages (Ancona and Caldwell 1992; Murray 1989). Ancona and Caldwell (1992 p323) explain the negative effects of diversity: ‘The group literature points to the difficulty of merging different cognitive styles, attitudes and values, such  as those found in teams with diverse members. If not managed effectively, this diversity can create internal processes that slow decision making and keep members from concentrating on the task. Teams made up of individuals from different “thought-worlds” may find it difficult to develop a shared purpose and an effective group process.’
Cordero et al (1996 p206) conclude that ‘homogeneity in group composition creates positive outcomes because of the effects of the similarity–attraction effect, that is, that people are attracted to those who are similar to themselves.’ The diverse impact of diversity on individuals Studies analysing the impact of diversity on different groups of employees indicate that the effects of and Managing diversity reactions to workforce diversity may show variations among different groups of individuals. (Wharton and Baron 1987, Tsui et al 1992, Cordero et al 1996, DiTomaso and Hooijberg 1996).
Soni (2000) conducted case study research in large public sector organisations to examine the relationship between race/ethnic and gender identities, perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, interpersonal relationships, and attitudes toward workplace diversity and diversity management initiatives. The results of the study showed that women and ethnic-minority employees were more receptive to diversity management initiatives, perceived greater discrimination and reported less job satisfaction and less satisfying interpersonal relationships than their male colleagues. Similarly, Rubaii-Barrett and Beck (1993) examined the differences in work climate perceptions and levels of job satisfaction between different ethnic groups in a survey administered to 268 local government employees. The findings of this study suggested that attitudes towards diversity are moderated by the ethnic identities of employees. These conflicting research findings on the effects of diversity suggest that it’s not diversity per se that automatically leads to business success or failure. Two important general points can be made about the relationship between diversity and business success.
1          The effects of workforce diversity are conditioned by other organisational and contextual factors.
2          Diversity can’t be used as a competitive organisational strength unless it’s managed effectively.

Today, revolutionary research goes beyond the historical framework of workplace diversity. The emerging paradigm is integration and learning. That is, companies promote equal opportunity and value cultural differences, using the talents of all employees to gain diverse work perspectives. To achieve this level of diversity management, however, organizational leaders must have a clear understanding of how they define diversity as well as what exactly the organization does with the experiences of being a diverse workforce
VALUING DIVERSITY AS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: 
Over the last few decades, a myriad of articles have been written on the subjects of valuing diversity and managing diversity (Wanguri, 1996). In some cases, valuing diversity and managing diversity have been considered, and sometimes used, interchangeable when, in fact, they are two different phenomena (Jenner, 1994). Diversity represents a company's fundamental attitude that it not only respects and values the individuality of its employees but also understands how to tap the potentially significant contributions inherent in diversity." Valuing refers to the relative worth, importance, or significance of something, whereas managing refers to taking charge or coordinating and supervising situations. Valuing diversity should be considered a more passive phenomenon, where importance or significance is given to individuals’ differences, which does not automatically lead to visible actions or reactions on the part of the individuals valuing the diversity or differences. Managing diversity, on the other hand, should be considered an active phenomenon, which involves supervising or coordinating and directing the diversity or differences individuals bring to the organization to ensure the organization’s strategic goals are being fully and effectively met. In other words, it refers to successfully organizing the organizational inputs of individuals with diverse backgrounds. This definition is consistent with the managing diversity definition given by Thomas’ (1991): “a ‘way of thinking’ toward the objective of creating an environment that will enable all employees to reach their full potential in pursuit of organizational objectives”.
THE DIVERSITY GAMUT
As a result of the confusion in the literature between the two phenomena, valuing diversity and managing diversity, it is not difficult to understand why consensus does not exist on the claims of bottomline benefits as a result of the attempts organizations have made to value and/or manage diversity. In addition to the confusion, lack of consensus could also be a function of the complexity of the diversity concept in the organizational context. Given the complexity of diversity within an organizational setting, it is possible that perceiving it in terms of a set of three elements that delineates what to do with diversity may serve to simplify or clarify the confusion in the diversity literature. Therefore, a diversity continuum is offered to guide researchers and practitioners in moving from the more passive states of acknowledging diversity and valuing diversity, on through to the more active state of managing diversity. As individuals find themselves in situations with diverse individuals, they are likely to take one of two courses of action: avoid dealing with the diversity, or recognize that the diversity exists. In the case where individuals avoid diversity, they do not face the fact that diversity is an issue. It is likely that these individuals do not accept the idea that they are likely to be biased in their interactions with others that they perceive to be different from themselves. Although avoiding diversity is viewed as a possible response to diversity, it is not included in the diversity continuum. The diversity continuum is based on the assumption that individuals take the second course of action and recognize diversity. Once diversity is recognized, as previously stated, the diversity continuum serves as a framework to delineate the three potential states of dealing with diversity: acknowledging, valuing, and managing diversity. The three sequential components of the diversity continuum are:



·         Acknowledging Diversity;

·         Valuing Diversity;

·         Managing Diversity
Acknowledging diversity refers to recognizing the existence of diversity or the individual differences individuals bring with them to a particular setting. In order for individuals to truly acknowledge diversity, they must be exposed to it, experience it, acquire knowledge about it, and they must develop an understanding of diversity.
Valuing diversity refers to the significance or importance being given to the diversity or differences individuals bring with them to a particular setting. Having an appreciation for, as well as respect for, the differences that diverse individuals bring with them to the work setting can lead to the la st component.
Managing diversity refers to the planning, organizing, leading of individuals with differences or diversity in a particular setting, such that their inputs are used to accomplish the organization’s strategic goals. Even in racio ethnically homogeneous organizational settings, organizations make large investments to ensure an appropriate organizational culture is fostered.
The Lewin-Schein change model is offered as the conjectural skeleton to proactively and systemically assist the management of diversity in organizations. He offered planned change model which is based on the hypothesis that the organizational forces thrust change which must suppress the forces defying change for highly valuable change to occur. In this paper that the Lewin-Schein change model is a framework that can aid organizations and individuals in poignant through the chronological rudiments of the diversity gamut. This mock-up can be applicable at both the organizational and individual level for managing and more over valuing diversity. While Allen and Montgomery (2001) offered the Lewin-Schein change model as a framework for creating diversity. In the literature reviews of Dobbs, 1998, corporate diversity strategy deals with organization’s or individual’s present perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours toward diversity which highly required to be unfrozen. For that enough motivation within the organization or individual obligatory to change from its present state to the new desired state. Thus, in moving from one end of the diversity gamut to the other end, with managing diversity being the painstaking outcome, management must desire that its members move from just acknowledging and valuing diversity to managing diversity. He stated that managing diversity refers to systemically organizing and directing the contribution of all organizational members to guarantee the organization’s strategic goals is met. Equally, the individual must need to move from just acknowledging and valuing diversity to the concluding segment of managing diversity. At the individual level, this faction involves prevailing one’s actions toward diverse individuals in a way that consent to healthy, productive interaction with those diverse others. Therefore, to thaw out the organization’s culture and its members’ current state of psyche or mind toward diversity, a planned change-corporate diversity strategy should be formulate and aligned with the organization’s strategic pose to diminish the forces that are striving to maintain the status quo.
The corporate level strategy defines the organization’s purpose and the lines of businesses in which it plans to operate, thereby providing the overarching direction for the organization. If an organization only operates in one line of business, its corporate level strategy and business level strategy are effectively one in the same (David, 2001; Hill and Jones, 1998).
The business level strategy is the blueprint that should enable an organization to leverage its resources in order to differentiate itself from the competition within a particular line of business (David, 2001; Hill and Jones, 1998).
The functional-level strategies serve to support the organization’s business-level strategy by providing direction for the appropriate short-term activities required by each functional area to meet the goals established in the business-level strategy (David, 2001; Hill and Jones, 1998).
CONFIGURATION BETWEEN CORPORATE STRATEGY AND PLANNED CHANGE
Corporate diversity mission statement, vision, and goals must be formulated to articulate the purpose diversity initiatives will serve within the organization and the desired outcomes to be achieved from such initiatives. The delineated desired outcome should be designed to systemically manage diversity. Conducting internal and external assessments with SWOT analysis which are essential steps in devising corporate diversity strategy. Porter’s five force model will allow the diversity strategist to settle on how to spot diversity strategies and initiatives within the organization’s structure, and to align them with all of the organization’s policies, procedures, and systems. To gauge the external environment, the diversity strategist should use environmental scanning tools to extract best practices based on benchmarked diversity strategies and initiatives at other leading organizations. Through the internal assessment, the diversity strategist should become intimately familiar with the organization’s values, vision, mission, strategies, goals, and initiatives, all of which constitute a sound basis for understanding the organization’s culture, policies, procedures, systems, and overall strategic positioning.

Managing diversity process:
In an effort to truly manage diversity, a change in the attitudes and behaviours of individuals, and in organizations’ systemic and institutional ways of doing business is required. Therefore, it is posited that utilizing the doctrines of social learning theory can aid in the acquisition of the learning that is necessary for organizations to maximize the inputs of all of its diverse members. The move through the eight steps of the managing diversity process should be instituted to assist individuals and organizations in culturally reengineering. The seven sequential steps of the managing diversity process include:



·         Revelation;

·         Occurrence;

·         Awareness;

·         Perceptive;

·         Respect;

·         Mutate Attitudes

·         Healthy interface.


The acknowledging diversity component of the diversity gamut is composed Revelation, Occurrence, Awareness and Perceptive which they replicate the “concentration precept”. The valuing diversity component of the diversity gamut is comprised of step called Respect and Mutate Attitude while Healthy interface constitute the managing diversity component. Fitzpatrick, 1997 discussed on these seven steps comprising acknowledging diversity to managing diversity is a paradigm swing, in that it entails a change in the treatment of diverse individuals. The Revelation is exposure which reflect to the individual perception about laying down who you are, Divulging where you are and after the revelation phase they are receiving others culture and norms for bringing down the harmony to the corporate vision, mission and goals for successful achievement. Individuals provide public notice of where they are at that point. The occurrence rivets  gathering information through personal involvement, encountering, seeing first-hand, and living through events. In the third step of awareness, individuals become well informed, thus able to be conversant because they become familiar or acquainted with the culture of others. Knowledge serves as the basis for fourth phase called perceptive. Because of their grasp of cultural realities, individuals are able to comprehend (understanding) relevant cultural dynamics, which leads them to be sensitive, and enables them to share unique insights and perceptions. Respect, the fifth phase of process states individuals’ acceptance and respect for  the worth of a person’s culture. Values makes it easier for them to welcome and “justly” estimate diverse individuals. Successful movement through the first five steps, along with tolerance underpinning each step, should lead to modifications in individuals’ attitudes and behaviours toward diverse individuals, which is in the sixth phase which modify Mutate attitudes and behaviours. This change in attitudes and behaviours, again, along with tolerance should lead to Healthy Interaction in last and final seventh phase  with and amongst diverse individuals. The limitation of the process deals with only human perception and acceptance of the change model which clarifies the concept of managing and valuing diversity. Given that all individuals in today’s global business environment are likely to encounter others that are different from themselves on a frequent basis, the managing diversity process should be viewed as analogous to the open systems approach – it is a continuous process that maintains a constant reciprocal relationship with the environment.

Epilogue
In this piece of work, a legitimate endeavour been made on how designed, revolutionize and systemized  approach used to manage and value diversity, by developing and implementing corporate diversity strategy. Any organizations should put to death their cultural reengineering efforts to move individuals and the organizational culture along the diversity gamut from the states of acknowledging and valuing diversity to the desired state of managing diversity. Movement to the desired state of managing diversity can be achieved by using the managing diversity process. It must engage in suitably different recruiting, appraisal, development, and reward systems that systemically strengthen the cultural reengineering of moving to the state of managing diversity which try to inculcate into the organization’s culture, and its way of conducting business domestically and abroad. By adopting and executing the skeleton offered in this paper for systemically managing diversity through a strategic designed, revolutionize and systemized way, managers will have created an organizational environment where they will be able to enjoy healthy, innovative, and productive interactions amongst diverse members of the organization.  In conclusion, the upbeat management of diverse human resources will abet organizations in acquirement and nourishing a competitive advantage in today’s vibrant global marketplace.


Bibliography

Allen, R.S. and Montgomery, K.A. (2001), “Applying an organizational development approach to creating diversity”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 149-61.

Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Barney, J. (1997), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.

Black, J.S. and Mendenhall, M. (1989), “A practical but theory-based framework for selecting cross-cultural training methods”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 511-39.

Chatman, J.A., Polzer, J.T., Barsade, S.G. and Neale, M.A. (1998), “Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 749-51.

Cox, T. (1991), “The multicultural organization”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 34-47.

David, F. (2001), Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Dobbs, M.F. (1998), “Managing diversity: the Department of Energy initiative”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 161-74.

Fitzpatrick, B.A. (1997), “Make the business case for diversity”, HRMagazine, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 118-22.

Friedman, J. and DiTomaso, N. (1996), “Myths about diversity: what managers need to know about changes in the US labor force”, California Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 54-77.

Gilbert, J.A. and Ivancevich, J.M. (2000), “Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-105.

Grubb, D.J. (1995), “Respecting our differences”, Women in Business, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 36-8.

Harrison, J.K. (1994), “Developing successful expatriate managers: a framework for the structural design and strategic alignment of cross-cultural training programs”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 17-35.

Hemphill, H. and Haines, R. (1998), “Confronting discrimination in your workplace”, HR Focus, Vol. 75 No. 7, pp. S5-S6.

Hill, C.W. and Jones, G.R. (1998), Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Jenner, L. (1994), “Diversity management: what does it mean?”, HRFocus, Vol. 71 No. 1, p. 11.
Koonce, R. (2001), “Redefining diversity: it’s not just the right thing to do. It also makes good business sense”, Training & Development, Vol. 12 No. 12, pp. 22-32.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Miller, F.A. (1998), “Strategic culture change: the door to achieving high performance and inclusion”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 151-60.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Richard, O.C. (2000), “Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: a resource-based view”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 164-77.
Schein, E. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Stark, E. (2001), “Valuing diversity: strategic business imperative or HR agenda”, Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management Proceedings, pp. 34-9.
Steiner, G.A. (1997), Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, NY.
Thomas, R. (1991), “The concept of managing diversity”, The Bureaucrat, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 19-22.
Wanguri, D.M. (1996), “Diversity, perceptions of equity, and communicative openness in the workplace”, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 443-57.

Williams, K. and O’Reilly, C. (1997), “The complexity of diversity: a review of forty years of research”, in Gruenfeld, D. and Neale, M. (Eds), Research on Managing in Groups and Teams, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Wright, P., Ferris, S.P., Hiller, J.S. and Kroll, M. (1995), “Competitiveness through management of diversity: effects on stock price valuation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 272-87.