CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY
2.3 TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT 53
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.
to assume that increasing diversity and exposure to minority employees will result in improved individual and organisational performance. It is also assumed that little or no change needs to be made in organisational systems in order for minority employees to perform up to their potential. In addition, Kossek, Markel and McHugh (2003:330) maintain that diversity enlargement hiring strategies are viewed by some employers as being coerced by labour market demands and popular, „politically correct‟ state of the art management sentiment, instead of being initiated voluntarily.
2.3.2 Diversity Sensitivity
Diversity sensitivity approaches acknowledge the existence of cultural distance and attempt to teach individual members about cultural differences via training (Ferdman 1989:171). Often training sessions are held to help sensitise employees to stereotyped differences of various employee racio-ethnic and gender groups. The goal is to promote communication and understanding, and to build relationships among members of different backgrounds (Kossek, Markel &
McHugh 2003:341). Yet accentuating dissimilarity will not necessarily enhance performance, and, when conducted in isolation, may even promote stereotyping and tokenism (Kossek, Markel & McHugh 2003:343). Zander and Zander (2000:113) are of the opinion that diversity training efforts have often failed by trying to raise consciousness without making any concomitant changes in the culture or relevant human resource systems such as reward and performance practices, and consequently, many employees are likely to be cynical when they attend training sessions that have no clear link to business objectives and are neither supported by other human resource system changes, nor by the new behavioural expectations of colleagues and managers.
2.3.3 Cultural Audit
The cultural audit generally tries to determine what is blocking the progress of non-traditional employees. A consultant collects data via focus groups or surveys. These data are analysed to assess various demographic groups‟
identification of the major obstacles they face in the current culture (Zander &
Zander 2000:115). Members of diverse group backgrounds may be asked to talk about how the current culture, which generally is viewed as favouring white males, hurts the performance of white women, blacks and other racial minorities.
For example, Cox (1993:126) suggests that an increasing cadre of employees is no longer willing to suppress important cultural differences and those that do risk the potential costs of added stress and lower performance.
While it can be concurred that it is appropriate to assess the current culture‟s effectiveness in allowing all employees to contribute to their fullest potential, it is believed that conducting cultural assessments as an isolated strategy is likely to fail. The managers rarely focus on the redesign of human resource systems and practice, such as pay and promotion systems, which give clear messages about what behaviours in the culture are valued (Cox 1993:127). The audits may leave the impression that the white male culture in the organisation is the problem, so the change must predominantly come from white men (Kossek & Lobel 1996:117). Clearly, managing diversity is a mutual process and the new culture must be designed to be inclusive to allow all members to contribute to their fullest potential. Cultural audits not only need to focus on the differences between groups, but should also identify the similarities between groups that the culture and supportive human resource systems can reinforce to achieve organisational objectives. Finally, Dalglish (2009:61) maintains that cultural audits tend to largely rely on cross-sectional data. Even when longitudinal data are collected, rarely are pre- and post-data able to be matched to a specific respondent, and therefore it is impossible to know whether change has truly occurred, although human resource system modifications may have been made.
To summarise, there are several factors common to the three traditional diversity approaches, that is, diversity enlargement, diversity sensitivity and cultural audits, which prevent organisations from realising the potential benefits to be gained from increased diversity in the workplace. First, these methods do not reinforce culture change. Second, they have the limitation of often being introduced as isolated strategies without being linked to other relevant human resource subsystems. Third, they all assume in-group homogeneity. That is, it is presumed that all members of a minority group, be it women, racio-ethnic minorities or the differentially-abled, have the same human resource needs.