CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY
2.2 HISTORY AND THEORY OF DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT 47
Managing diversity is fast becoming the watchword of public institutions, not because institutions are becoming kinder and gentler towards culturally diverse groups but because they want to survive (George & Jones 2006:114). In order to survive a growing number of public institutions will have to recruit, train and promote culturally diverse employees. The importance of social equity in the conduct of government and the distribution of public services has been advanced by a number of contemporary scholars. For instance, Cross et al (1994:xxii) view diversity as focussing on issues of racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination at the individual, identity group, and system levels. Cox (1993:5) focuses on cultural diversity, which he defines as
“the representation, in a social system, of people with distinctly different group affiliations of cultural significance”. Thomas (1991:10) states that diversity extends to age, personal and corporate background, education, function and personality, and it also includes lifestyle, sexual preferences, geographic origin, tenure with the organisation, exempt or non-exempt status, and management or non-management.
The composition of the public service workforce determines whether the members of the public have equal access to the benefits and rewards. Both government employment practices and public policies contribute to the level of economic equality in society. In this case both government employment practices and public policies that distribute wealth and other resources may represent compensatory strategies (Frederickson 1980:151). The relevant managerial skills for effective management of diversity are cultural awareness, cultural sensitivity, and flexibility to accommodate diversity. Jacob (2003:20) maintains that within the corporate context diversity managers, regardless of their cultural background, tend to exhibit homogenous managerial values and competencies. According to Jacob (2003:21), this management practice is usually concerned with profit and
does not recognise the importance of soft skills that are required to implement diversity management initiatives.
Governments pursue compensatory policies when they attempt to provide equal opportunities for those who have been disadvantaged as a result of discrimination within the labour market or through pre-market circumstances that produce unequal investments in human capital (Crous 2004:574). Managing these new economic and political pressures is therefore precisely about balancing the responsiveness and dynamism of the market mechanism with the developmental responsibilities of the state. Indeed, the international lessons learnt from world further education and training systems have shown that economic success is premised on the blending of enterprise-based initiatives in training with effective state coordination of the larger institutional and governance environments (Kraak & Hall 1999:47). It can therefore be said that managing diversity requires a dual response. On the one hand, it entails ensuring South Africa‟s successful incorporation within the global economy, and on the other hand, it requires the development of marginalised sectors through conscious state intervention. In the absence of such state initiatives, some sectors like the FET college sector, will slide into even far greater social and economic impoverishment.
With respect to the intrinsic rewards obtained from public sector employment, there are also significant and often unique benefits of government employment.
Rawls (1993:107) argues that the execution of responsibilities in government employment provides an individual with an opportunity for self-realisation, and for that reason he links the principle of open positions to his concept of justice.
Similarly, Hall (1996:20), suggests that certain individual motives for work are primarily attached to public service opportunities and fulfilment of individual needs related to these work values is largely dependent upon access to public service employment. With respect to participation in public bureaucracy, theories of equal representation involve both passive and active methods for giving the
preferences of different social groups fair opportunities to be heard. Passive or demographic representation in the bureaucracy conveys the idea that the political systems are open and responsive to the people regardless of their social standing or personal characteristics (Frederickson 1980:152). In the consensus model of democratic representation, the membership is expected to take a passive role, relying on those in leadership positions to pursue their interests.
The linkage between passive and active representation is disputed in literature but at best it appears that passive representation has a very limited capacity for assuring political responsiveness (Frederickson 1980:153).
Active or substantive representation, in contrast, posits that the members of the bureaucracy must assume responsibility for democratic outcomes. Taylor and Bain (1999:39) maintains that expanding access to leadership positions in the bureaucracy advances the opportunity for diverse preferences to be considered in efforts to determine what constitutes the public interest and how it can best be addressed. Equity is not served when others attempt to represent the interests of those who are excluded from power, regardless of how effective they might be (Rawls 1993:149). The act of participation in government in itself is the vehicle for empowerment.
Support for the idea of joint participation, involving public servants in the responsibility for government outputs, has a long history in American public administration. In advancing a public service model, Campbell (1998:389) argues that the members of both the public and career services must take active responsibility to promote the public interest. Similarly, Henry‟s (1985:91) model of interactive democracy places full burden on managers in an organisation to facilitate the exchange ideas and opinions between memberships of different groups in order to develop a potential for attaining public spirit. According to Frederickson (1980:154) public spirit entails a responsibility for the community and a commitment to the political system as a whole and the development of a
sense of public spirit, rather than the attainment of preference consensus, is the goal of the interactive model.
A desire to serve the public interest and a sense of loyalty to government serve as a motivational basis for public service. The values distinguish public service from other occupations. Moreover, Ramaite (2001:19), argues that the essential ingredients for responsiveness in the public bureaucracy are the attitudes and values of the people who form the public service. The principles of social equity provide public administrators with a code of conduct and an ethic for balancing conditions between the advantaged and the disadvantaged members of society (Ramaite 2001:20). Principles of social equity in the allocation of public goods are also relevant to the way governments distribute the rewards of public service.
Equal access to the material and intrinsic benefits of public service is a critical linkage to democratic rule in an administrative state, not only because it fosters individual opportunities for equality, but also because it advances collective opportunities for equal representation.
A key question in assessing equity within government is the extent to which management positions are equally distributed among members of different groups. When the lower ranks of the civil service are made up of members of one race and the upper levels of the bureaucracy are dominated by another, equal opportunity to influence the outcomes of government is undermined (Lynn 2001:156). Public servants in élitist positions have a greater chance to influence policies and programme outputs and, therefore, upper-level civil servants may play a key role in the development of public policy as members of advisory committees, which are the main policy-making bodies in South African public offices (Frederickson 1980:157).
There are some theoretical areas which influence current understandings of diverse identities in organisations but there is also a lack of specificity of the concept. Clegg, Hardy and Nord (2003:88) maintain that diversity is
underdeveloped as a scientific construct, and that it has largely drawn its present meaning from the work of organisational practitioners. This might be the reason why current definitions of diversity range from narrow to very broad, expansive conceptualisations. The narrow definitions emphasise race, ethnicity and gender whereas a broadened view of diversity would include values, age, disabilities, and education. The following paragraphs review the proposed theoretical diversity frameworks.
2.2.1 Social Identity Theory
One of the most prominent intergroup theories informing us about group identity effects on human behaviour has been social identity theory (SIT). Social identity theory is defined by Clegg, Hardy and Nord (2003:89) as a cognitive theory which holds that individuals tend to classify themselves and others into social categories which have a significant effect on human interactions. According to Jackson, Stone and Alvarez (1993:53), one of the most important contributions of social identity theory to the field of diversity research is the notion that people within social groups differ in the relative importance that any particular social identity has in their self-concept hence, one of the implications of SIT is that group identity should ideally be operationalised for research as a continuous scale measure. Clegg, Hardy and Nord (2003:92) are of the opinion that, to the extent that identities with sub-groups take precedence over the common organisational identity, the ability of people to work together in teams composed of members from different group identities may be hampered by the consequences of group identification.
2.2.2 Embedded Intergroup Relations Theory
Alderfer and Smith (1982) have developed a theory of embedded intergroup relations specifically for organisations, which explicitly integrates identity group membership and group membership resulting from organisational categorisation.
Their theory posits that identity groups and organisation groups are two types of groups which exist within organisations. Alderfer and Smith (1982:56) defines an identity group as a group whose members share some common biological characteristics such as sex, have participated in equivalent historical experiences, are currently subjected to similar social forces, and as a result have consonant world views. Alderfer and Smith (1982:60) further describes an organisational group as one in which members share common organisational positions, participate in equivalent work experiences, and as a consequence, have consonant worldviews. Certain organisational groups tend to be populated by members of particular identity groups, for example, positions in upper management in organisations in the United States tend to be concentrated with older white males (Martin 1992:136). According to embedded intergroup theory, individuals and organisations are constantly attempting to manage potential conflicts arising from the interface between identity groups and organisational group membership (Alderfer & Smith 1982:47).
The significance of embedded intergroup theory for understanding identity is its attention to the effects of diverse identities within a larger organisational context (Alderfer & Smith 1982:48). The identity of individuals in organisations is said to be determined not only by organisational categorisation but also by identity group membership (Alderfer & Smith 1982:53). Alderfer and Smith (1982:54) further state that embedded intergroup theory recognises that individuals do not leave their racial, gender, or ethnic identities at the door when they enter an organisation. Embedded intergroup theory also suggests that identity group categorisation will always be relevant in an organisational context.
2.2.3 Ethnology
Another part of the foundation of research on diversity is ethnology. Clegg, Hardy and Nord (2003:95) define ethnology as the branch of anthropology which deals with the social and cultural characteristics of different tribal groupings of people.
Ethnology, therefore, represents work which identifies cultural similarities and differences between identity groups, as well as analysis of cultural phenomena such as cultural distance and culture clash (Davidson 1993:298). Davidson (1993:298) determines that specific cultural differences can become barriers to communication and understanding between people, making it probable for those already in the in-group to exclude newcomers without overtly rejecting them. This insight may be applicable to the often cited problem of unequal accessibility across identity groups to informal networks in organisations. Finally, Tsui, Egen and Xin (1995:60) maintain that because of the possibility of culture clash, ethnology theory suggests that mixing people of different group identities in one social system may lead to a variety of dysfunctional outcomes unless steps are taken to overcome this problem.