CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL
3.6 MANAGING DIVERSITY IN AN ORGANISATION 135
3.6.4 Theoretical bases of diversity management 145
The current knowledge base for diversity work includes many models to guide efforts at the individual, group, and organisational levels. A few of these models are well-developed and sufficient to provide more than nominal guidance. The models are powerful in part because they present specific states or stages through which individuals, groups and organisations move as they grow and become more effective. Russel and Hayles (1997:21) maintain that the concept of developmental stages, fundamental to the study of human growth, is inherent in these models, and embodies three basic principles.
First, human beings all develop by moving through predictable stages that can be reliably described. Second, if the work required at a given stage is not completed, further development will be hindered and regression to an earlier stage is likely.
Third, the stage of behaviour visible to the outside world varies across, but the progression of development regarding each issue remains predictable (Russel &
Hayles 1997:21). It is this consistency and predictability that allows diversity professionals to design work and tasks that efficiently stimulate advancement from one stage to the next. This paragraph cites and highlights two of the excellent and available individual and group development models.
3.6.4.1 Individual development model
Bennet (1993:22) introduced a development model known as „Developing Intercultural Sensitivity‟. This model is widely recognised for individual development, as shown in Figure 3.2 below
Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Integration
Ethnocentric Stages
Ethnorelative Stages
Figure 3.2 Development model known as “Developing Intercultural Sensitivity”
Source Bennet 1993:22.
Even though the label for this model says „Intercultural Sensitivity‟, the basic concepts are applicable to many other ways in which people differ. Its application to a wide range of differences is described in the following paragraphs by Russel and Hayles (1997:22) using the ethnocentric and ethnorelative states.
(i) Ethnocentric States
Stage 1 Denial of Difference
Russel and Hayles (1997:22) maintan that in the ethnocentric state, there is no recognition of cultural or other differences. They state that primarily because of isolation or intentional separation, the individual does not have sufficient categories to notice differences but he or she attributes intelligence or personality to deficiency or culturally deviant behaviour and there is a tendency to show extreme prejudice and to dehumanise people seen as outsiders.
Stage 2 Defense against Difference
Russel and Hayles (1997:23) state that people at this level recognise differences and evaluate them negatively, and the greater the differences, the more negative the evaluation. They also state that people at this level often behave as if threatened and differences are denigrated, and negative stereotyping occurs.
Reversal also occurs at this level and this is a tendency to see another culture as superior while negatively evaluating one‟s own.
Stage 3 Minimization of Difference
Russel and Hayles (1997:26) indicate that people at this level recognise and accept superficial differences, such as physical appearance or eating customs, while holding that all human beings are essentially the same and the emphasis at this level is on the similarity of people and the commonality of basic values, that is, „„Everyone is essentially like us‟‟. The person at this stage is unable to accept someone as being different and simultaneously „„equal‟‟ or at least as good as oneself.
(ii) Ethnorelative States
Stage 4 Acceptance of Difference
Russel and Hayles (1997:26) indicate that this level is characterised by recognition and appreciation of differences in behaviour and values and these differences are accepted as viable alternative ways to organise human existence and function successfully in the world.
Stage 5 Adaptation of Difference
Russel and Hayles (1997:28) state that at this level, individuals are developing communication skills that enable effective communication among people who are different and adaptations include the effective use of empathy and shifting one‟s frame of reference in order to understand and be understood.
Stage 6 Integration of Difference
Russel and Hayles (1997:30) maintain that this level is characterised by the internalisation of bicultural or multicultural frames of reference. Individuals at this level maintain a definition of identity that is marginal to any particular culture or group.
Russel and Hayles (1997:31) are of the opinion that, while the Bennet Model was designed for thinking about intercultural issues, it is generally applicable to the broader diversity initiatives. It is useful in helping individuals to develop their human interaction abilities as it has used examples that go beyond cultural differences.
3.6.4.2 Group Development Model
There are a few basic strategies for group level work, but this paragraph focuses on the best known model which is often called the Contact Hypothesis. This approach involves the completion of a thorough needs analysis, identifying specific issues and determining goals with respect to each developmental level. If the goal is the reduction of prejudice, there is a small and cogent body of literature to guide the work. Wheelan (1994:29) states that group development model aims to reduce prejudice by creating ideal contacts among individuals within the group. Most of these conditions can be created in education and training settings. Many can also be created in work and social environments.
According to Russel and Hayles (1997:27), ideal contact conditions for reducing prejudice include
Equal status within the group.
The group has or is experiencing a positive perception of another group.
Other majority group members are involved.
The group is or will be engaging in an activity requiring inter-group co- operation.
The situation entails interdependence or superordinate goals.
Contact is more intimate than casual.
Authority and/ or the social climate promote inter-group contact.
Contact is pleasant and rewarding.
While Russel and Hayles‟s (1997) hypothesis was developed within the context of work on race and ethnicity, it is clearly applicable to other differences. Groups, teams, and work units play a vital role in furthering an organisation‟s diversity initiative. Honamura (1996:39) argues that by presenting positive models, testing new ideas, and formulating strategies that include rather than exclude, groups, teams and work units move the organisation forward in a way that is often impossible for individuals working independently.