Managing Diversity

A book required of EOU’s BA-347, “Workplace Diversity”, course.

Definitions

IBoHR : International Bill of Human Rights

Discrimination : “discriminating categorically, rather than individually”

Chapter 1

• Wealthy countries stop having as many children (birth happens later, fewer overall kids).
• Children live longer now, so there’s less pressure to make it up in numbers.
• Unwealthy countries see population growth b/c children live longer there too.
• Wealthy countries need to bring in new immigrants to make up the workforce given they’re below replacement rates.

Notable:

• Africa contains more than 1/4th of the world’s children.

The text defines an “inclusive workplace” as one that:

1. values and uses individual and intergroup differences within its workforce
2. cooperates with and contributes to its surrounding community
3. alleviates the needs of disadvantaged groups in its wider environment
4. collaborates with individuals, groups and organizations across national and cultural boundaries
5. engages in protecting the natural environment and enhancing environmental justice through sustainability initiatives

Chapter 2, Diversity Legislation

The push for anti-discrimination began with the UN’s 1948 universal declaration of human rights.

Article 2 (of 30)

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

There are other documents which came later that deal in economic, social and cultural rights (1966) and civil and political rights (also 1966).

Just because a document was signed by the UN doesn’t mean people follow it, so legislation needed to happen in member countries as well. Given the cultural issues at play in the respective countries, not all of the provisions are easily applied.

Downsides to not following the anti-discrimination laws? A big one is you get sued.

Chapter 3, Discrimination, Equality, and Fairness in Employment

IBoHR and laws around it discourage behavior. Tactics like affirmitive action exist to encourage behavior. ~25% of countries have some form of this in higher education.

In employment context, they use this definition for discrimination:

Discrimination in employment occurs when (a) individuals, instituitions of governments treat people differently because of personal characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation rather than their ability to perform their jobs and (b) these actions have a negative impact on access to jobs, promotions, or compensation (Mor Barak, 2017)

Discrimination can be categorized across these boundaries:

• overt vs covert
• individual vs institutional
• intentional vs unintentional

Affimitive action exists to correct for historical exclusion of groups. There are at least two perspectives on how to deal with this historical exclusion:

1. neoclassical economists say “excluding people is bad for business, so it’ll eventually work itself out”
2. equal opportunists say “disadvantaged people lack access, so it won’t correct itself”

Some examples from different countries:

• NORWAY—Public Limited Companies Act, 2003: Requires the boards of public limited companies to have each sex make up at least 40% of representatives on the board. (gender)
• FRANCE—Law in Favor of Disabled Workers 1987 (Act 87- 517) (1987): Public and private establishments or enterprises with 20 or more employees are obliged to employ workers with disabilities at a level of 6% of the total number of staff employed. (Persons with disabilities)
• AUSTRIA—Employment of Persons with Disabilities Act (No. 22/1970): Requires organization employing 25 or more employees to have at least one disabled person employed per every 25 employees. (persons with disabilities)

Commonalities between affirmative action programs include:

• intervention measures
• operate across sectors
• aim to reverse discrimination against specific groups
• intended to be temporary once the situation is rectified

They tend to operate through:

• placing requierments on the composition of the public workforce
• encouraging private businesses to recruit/promote employees from designated groups

For failing to comply with affirmative action, the punishment is usually a fine.

Although in most countries women are the focus of any gender- related affirmative action, in July 1998, Norway enacted the Ordinance (No. 622 of 1998) Respecting Special Treatment of Men. This legislation creates special provisions for men in certain occupations, like childcare and education, in which they are not well represented (Hodges-Aeberhard, 1999; ILO, n.d.; Teigen, 2011).

Pro affirmative action people say:

• we need to right past wrongs
• the wealth of the country should be distributed equally
• everyone in society has something to contribute (and it’s good for everyone if they do)

Anti folks say:

• reverse discrimination is an unfair practice that is still discrimination
• it interferes with the free-market economy
• the “best people” aren’t being given the job, so the result is worse products
• preferential treatment to the protected groups breeds resentment from the unprotected groups.

Chapter 4, Global demographic trends & the impact on workforce diversity

Echos many sentiments in chapter 1: Rich countries have fewer kids and later. Poor countries have kids that live to adulthood now.

This affects the workforce’s supply/demand. This, plus economic mobility and remote work will increase the mix of diverse working groups (e.g. as poor countries work for/with rich countries).

Unlike the past, not only are workers moving for work.. companies are emigrating to where the workers are.

Due to the presence of young people, Africa represents 25% of the young work force entrants for this and the next decade. Currently, the center of working adults is Asia, but is expected to transition to Africa in the coming decades.

I dislike the way the author frames people as machines of the economy:

Notably, in sub-Saharan Africa, where fertility rates tend to be the world’s highest, births per woman declined from 6.3 in 1990 to 4.6 in 2019. This rate is still high relative to the rest of the world, so Africa may be the last frontier of “excess” labor available for low-wage competition in their home countries.

An Oxford study, “Determinants of International Migration”, disproved the “push-pull theory” which states that pvoerty is the main driver of international migration. Instead, middle-income folks are more likely to emigrate (they have the means).

In 2019, fully 12% of the population in more-developed countries had been born in another country, compared to less than 2% in less-developed countries (United Nations, 2019b).

In 1960, 84% of US emigrants were European/Canadian. Current estimates put 38% of US immigrants as Asian in 2065 (vs 31% Hispanic).

As less advantaged immigrants make their way to more developed countries, they put strain on the social systems in that country (including social welfare programs).

Refugees are becoming a larger component of migration.

• displaced people (e.g. war)
• environmental-related (e.g. persistent drought)

“Reverse Mentorship” is the notion that young people have something to teach the older set.

One surprising way that immigration causes the racial makeup to change is that the fertility rate of immigrants can be higher relative to the established residents.

“majority- minority” is confusing. It means “mostly minorities”.

The US population under 15yo (as of 2018) is mostly minorities.

Chapter 5, Socioeconomic transitions

In the English context, the immigrant workers saw themselves as exploited, whereas in Bangladesh, the workers found the same jobs a significant improvement over alternatives. In short, the context matters: Jobs that are low-paying and low status in an industrialized country can be relatively attractive in developing countries.

Low paying jobs tend to be filled with immigrants b/c they’re more desparate. Nordic countries just made them pay more.

The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 laid bare the conflict between some voters’ desires to limit immigration, on the one hand, and the need for migrant workers, especially to fill essential jobs.

new word: propinquity, “kinship” or “nearness”

Migrants, excluding refugees, tend to go to places that they have ties to (e.g. former colonies)

Most of the migrants in developing countries (which is like 1% migrants or something) come from other developing countries, especially in Africa.

Migrants tend to work in low-pay, low-status jobs. Though there is a big need for well educated, high-skill workers (India fills this need well) As folks on the fringe of society, they suffer more during economic disturbances

Because the borders closed during the pandemic, some folks had to return home. This highlighted migrant work in lower skill positions.

Employers are moving too, especially to drive down labor costs. Employers are incentivized through “FDI” aka Foreign Direct Investment. This investment type is managed in the global north and currently targets the global south or south/south investments. As FDI takes on the form of merges/aquisitions, it can increase overall workplace diversity.

There was a gas explosion in Bhopal, India (1984). The saftey standards were far off from their US equivalent, calling into question concerns of explotitation. It was settled for a paltry sum.

As migration happens, you’re also importing people’s worldview, which may clash with other diversity plans (e.g. gender segregation from the middle-east).

Generally, people are getting more educated. This isn’t evenly spread across gender (which way that goes, depends on location). This comes with the risk of overqualification.

Chapter 6, defining diveristy in a global context

There are multiple “distinction categories” depending on region. The US looks at race, gender, ethnicity but china looks at urban/rural vs india’s caste system.

Stereotype: “Oh, I know about him, he’s a <distinction category> so that means he <belief>” Prejudice: ”.. and that’s bad”

At the extreme, prejudice becomes dehumanization, which can lead to slavery and/or genocide.

TIL: diversity doesn’t translate well. In Mexico, it means biological diversity for an ecosystem. Discrimination applies more(?) heavily at the top of the funnel.

Chapter 7, theoretical perspectivews on diveristy

Inclusion & exclusion exist on a continuum. Can take the form of decision making (formal) or social gatherings (informal) Exclusion is harder to catch because it takes the form of missed opportunities or being left out of conversations. Social Identity Theory (SIT): people self-categorize into groups and natural us-vs-them dynamics may lead to inclusion.

Theories for why we might exclude:

1. racism is systemic & is aligned with other oppression (critical race theory)
2. people who are marginalized in multiple ways have compounded exclusion (intersectionality)
3. people compare themselves to others which can lead to feeling excluded when there are disparities (social comparison theory)

^^ makes people feel bad and people who feel bad don’t do well at work.

Chapter 8, Culture and Communication in the Global Workplace

Being aware of and sensitive to cultural differences is important for managing diverse groups of people. People communicate differently in both verbal and non-verbal ways.

Hofstede describes culture as “collective programming of the mind”. He defines it across multiple dimensions:

1. Power distance :: High power distance societies accept hierarchy rather than egalitarianism
2. Individualism vs collectivism :: Collectivist societies value loyalty & group cohesion; Individualistic cultures prioritize autonomy and personal achievment
3. Masc vs Fem :: Masc cultures emphasize assertiveness / competition; Fem prioritize relationships & quality of life
4. Uncertainty avoidance :: High UA cultures enforce stability through rules; Low UA tolerate ambiguity
5. Long term vs short term orientation :: long term emphasize persistence and thrift; short term focus on tradition & immediate outcomes
6. Indulgence vs restraint :: Indulgent -> free gratification of desires; restraint -> impose social restrictions

^^ Some folks don’t like this b/c western bias, too simplistic & limited methodology

GLOBE study was a cross-cultural study to identify nine cultural dimensions. Evaluates leadership effectiveness across societal / org cultures.

Measured:

1. performance orientation: societal push towards excellence
2. assertiveness
3. future orientation : degree of emphasis on planning / delayed gratification
4. Humane orientation : fairness,altrusim, kindness
5. institutional collectivism : encouragement of collective action / collective distribution of resources
6. in-group collectivism : loyalty / cohesion w/i orgs & families
7. gender egalitarianism
8. power distance
9. uncertainty avoidance

This resulted in these “universal” (universal, but the specifics are culturally dependent) leadership dimensions:

1. charismatic/value-based leadership: integrity, vision, performance-oriented
2. team-oriented leadership: team building & shared purpose
3. self-protective leadership: safety & saving face
4. participative leadership: involving others in the decision-making process
5. humane-oriented leadership: compassion & support
6. autonomous leadership: individualism & independent decision making

Chapter 9, interpersonal relationships in a global work context

Cultural relational styles:

• Differentiated separates work and social life
• Combined … you know.. combines them.

Lots of generalizations of cultures:

• some places (US + some europe) emphasize individualism
• some places (latin america) expect deference to authority; scandanavia is the opposite
• Latin American sociceties prefer conflict avoidance
• Some places like direct communication (US) vs implicit (China, Japan, Latin countries)

Chapter 10, diversity management

Human resources is such a bummer of a job family. Such a capitalist hellscape. Diversity management is to ”… ensure that variation in human capital on some given dimension(s) does not hinder the achievement of organizational objectives …” How dehumanizing.

Equal rights laws -> affirmative action -> diversity management

comes in two forms

• intranational: within a nation
• cross-national: across nations

Intended to be:

• proactive, not reactive
• focusing on how it makes the business better
• voluntary
• inclusive in it’s approach to “diversity ”

Should be implemented because:

• it’s the reality of modern workforce
• it’s moral/ethical
• it’s good for business (talent attraction, risk reduction, competitive advantage, etc)

Downsides

• may fall away during economic downturns
• may be too diffuse a focus on the very marginalized
• it’s hard (to keep going & measure)

Two paradigms discussed:

HR paradigm

• Changing culsture through who works somewhere
• improve comms & reduce bias
• identifying obstacles of diverse folks
• linking diversity to business goals

Multicultural org paradigm comes in 3 flavors:

• Monolithic: Same demographics, limited diversity, “be the same”
• Plural: separate groups, conflict between groups, complies w/ laws
• Multicultural: Integrated groups, minimal conflict/bias, celebrates differences

Models:

• strategic uses 3 strategies
  • localized: specific to local context
  • universal: one way
  • transversal: bottom up approach w/ common principals
• process: models a sequence of inputs (leadership & org culture), activities (hr practices) and outputs (reputation, vibes)
• contextual: systems approach; Multiple layers of influence (individual, org, national, etc)
• intervention: information (i.e. training) , structural (fix broken process) & cultural (fix cognative biases)
• house: layered approach from foundations. recruitment -> comms -> talent/leadership
• communication: 2x2 matrix across rhetoric (comm re: diversity) vs actions (actual change) in 4 types: walk the talk, empty rhetoric, just do it, low priority

Chapter 11, Inclusive Leadership

components:

• cognitive/knowledge
• emotional
• behavioral

Diversity Paradox:

• embrace diversity = risk of conflicts
• avoid diversity = everyone is too single-minded

“transformational leadership” (the 4 i’s)

• Individualized considersation: focus on each employees needs/talents/potential
• Intellectual stimulation: encourage folks to think creatively/challenge assumptions
• Idealized behavior: model the standards/values for others to emulate
• Inspirational motivation: articulate a compelling vision, connected to meaningful goals

Inclusive leadership: celebrate differences & promote belonging via decision-making, info networks & participation in informal groups

adhoc leadership (“leadership emergence”) doesn’t make for inclusive leaders & often favors the dominant groups

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory Stages:

1. Role taking: supervisor expectations dominate
2. Role making: supervisor & report influence each other. Trust beginning to form
3. Role routinization: mutual obligation between supervisor & report; predictable

Chapter 12, Overview of the Inclusive Workplace Model

An inclusive workplace:

• Values individual and intergroup differences
• Extends beyond organizational boundaries
• Has strong value base across multiple system levels
• Actively participates in community and global initiatives
• Engages in environmental sustainability

Level 1 focuses on the internal org

5 areas of D&I initiatives

1. Management leadership (eg sr mgmt leads diversity projects)
2. Education/training (seminars/workshops)
3. Performance/accountability (hold managers accountable; link to comp)
4. Work/Life balance (flexible work arrangements)
5. Career development/planning (target underrepresented groups)

Barriers:

1. overt/covert discrimination
2. cross-cultural misunderstanding
3. lack of support w/ career planning
4. marginalization of non-traditional employees
5. social isolation in management
6. resistance to change

Benefits of implementation: business growth & productity,cost savings,and corporate image/market value

Success metrics:

• Employee satisfaction and retention
• Performance improvements
• Financial returns
• Corporate reputation scores
• Customer satisfaction
• Market share in diverse communities

Chapter 13: Inclusive workplace model: Levels 2 & 3

Level 2 focuses on how the corporation relates to it’s community, including economic and non-economic impacts.

Corporate Social Performance (CSP) says the company’s responsibilities are to more than just shareholders (i.e. community impact) Coprorate Social Responsibility (CSR) says the company voluntarily benefits the company in excess of legal requirements for a strategic business benefit

Tangible benefits:

• easier to recruit
• loyalty from employees
• increased consumer goodwill
• stronger corporate image
• positive financial performance

Intangible:

• community trust
• improved standing w/ stakeholders
• better access to capital
• protection during social unrest

Barriers:

• short-term profit pressure
• difficut to justify long-term social investment
• lack of champions in leadership
• limited corporate vision

Level 3 focuses on stat/national collabs

• inclusion of disadvantaged groups
• partners w/ gov’t programs
• addresses systemic issues

Target groups: people on welfare, domestic violence survivors, youth in distress, folks w/ disabilities, long-term unemployed, ex-offenders, etc.

Benefits for orgs:

• untapped talent pool
• employee loyalty
• low turnover
• enhanced corporate image
• more customers

Benefits for individuals:

• better employment prospects
• higher wages
• improved benefits
• career advancement
• breaking the cycle of poverty

Barriers:

• limited corporate vision
• discrimination / stereotypes (incl in mgmt)
• short-term focus
• resource constraints

Implementation:

• job training programs
• education support
• transportation help
• childcare support
• healthcare access
• housing assistance
• mentorship

Chapter 14: Inclusive workplace model: Levels 4 & 5

Level 4: International collab

• Fair cross-border exchange
• respectful cross-cultural communication
• collab over competition

Pluralistic: values local cultural perspective & customs; hires local management; gives them autonomy Fair practices: fair wages, ethical treatment of workers, respect for local communities & cultural sensitivity

For orgs, this is nice for the same reason as all diversity stuff: expanded markets, wider talent pool, increased reputation For people, it’s good b/c job opporunities exist and you can make money. More choice = better conditions.

Level 5: Environmental justice / sustainability

Environmental protection: prevent pollution, conserve resources, clean production, reduced waste Social justice: protect local communities, fair treatment, equal access to clean env

—

Reasons it will be hard:

1. Short term economic focus
2. It’s hard to implement (requires resources, monitoring challenges, cultural barriers, people don’t like change)

Will be successful with:

1. long-term vision
2. leadership commitment
3. stakeholder engagement
4. metrics/accountability
5. integrated into the way of working