diversity in organizations

multifariousness in presidencysIntroductionThis paper aims to show a deep examination of how mutation is interpreted and wrong wide-cuty applied in many organizations today. In this essay, I would explore and discuss the term variation, its interpretations, merits, demerits, its varied applications and if there is a cause and effect relationship between motley custody and organizational intensity level. This essay would also show why the term innovation is remotely satisfying and elaborate on the need for a red-hot epitome for understanding Diversity. My study supports the principles of the Diversity theory but not its varied applications which inhibit organizational effectiveness.DiversityThe term alteration has put up its built in bed in almost both HRM literature the front page. Jackson et al (1993), states that the term diversity has picayune history within the behavioural sciences and is not (yet) a scientific construct. Instead, it is an eachday term that sprang to life quite an recently, nourished by widespread media coverage of the managing diversity activities that organizations ar adopting in response to changing work-force demographics. Nevertheless, the torso of social science explore relevant to understanding the dynamics of diversity in organizations is not large, although it is widely dispersed across sub disciplines that cross write each separate nor prevail a common terminology (See Friedman, 199667). some other interesting definition is found in Ashkanasy et al (2002) which defines diversity as a concept that encompasses acceptance and respect. It means the understanding that each individual is unique and recognizing our individual differences. They arouse be a dour the dimensions of race, ethnicity, g residuumer, sexual orientation, socio economical status, age, physical abilities, spiritual beliefs, political beliefs and other ideologies and the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive and nurturing env ironment. Diversity is or so understanding each other and moving beyond simple allowance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individualAllen et al (2008) asserts that diversity is a challenge and that organizations have struggled to embrace and manage it successfully. Researchers have struggled to consider and study the term effectively. Theorists predict differing effects of Diversity that they will spark integrative insights, creativity and transmutation (e.g. Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996 Hoffman and Maier, 1961) or that they will provoke conflict, division and looseness (e.g. Chatman, 1991 Tajfel and Turner, 1979).Workforce Diversity (A Critical Analysis)Structural Diversity Vs Demographic DiversityThe demographics of the workforce are changing and will continue to change rapidly. Almost every organization looks different both in terms of whos employed and they positions they hold, than it did ten years ago (Sonnenschien, 1 9992). Jackson et al (1995) also asserts that the changing work-force demographics and red-hot organizational forms are increasing the diversity of work aggroups in general and decision making teams in feature. Given these environmental changes, work teams that are assorted in terms of sex, race, and ethnicity, national origin, area of expertise, organizational affiliation and many other personal characteristics are increasingly common. The changing demographics of todays crowd force, account for the increasing gender diversity, cultural diversity (including cultural differences due to race and ethnicity) and age diversity (See Kling, Hyde, Showers and Buswell, 1999 Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb and Corrigall, 2000 Roberson and Block, 2001).According to Ongari and Argolla (2007) Workforce diversity is a colonial phenomenon to manage in an organization. The focusing of workforce diversity as a tool to increase organizational effectiveness pilenot be underscored, especially with curre nt changes move across the globe. It is argued that organizations that take to be diversity will definitely cultivate success and have a future in this dynamic global crusade mart (Jain and Verma, 1996). Workforce diversity wariness has become an important issue for both governments and private organizations. Its importance has mainly been brought about by the free movement of labour due to globalization and the fight for human rights by certain minority classs who feel excluded from the employment sector. The workforce diversity emerged mainly to further the availability of allude opportunities in the work place. This equal opportunity philosophy is aimed at ensuring that organizational make the most out of the difference from a assorted workforce rather than losing talent which might assist the organization to be more efficient and effective. The increased mobility and fundamental interaction of wad from diverse backgrounds as a result of modify economic and political sys tems and the recognition of human rights by all nations has put most organizations under pressure to embrace diversity at the work place. Diversity brings with it the heterogeneity that needs to be nurtured, cultivated and appreciated as means of increasing organizational effectiveness.A more diverse workforce accord to Thomas and Ely (1996) will increase organizational effectiveness. It would lift morale, bring greater access to new segments of the market place and rear productivity. Yet if this is true, what then are the positive impacts of diversity? Numerous and varied initiatives to increase diversity in corporate organizations have been under way for over a decade (Sonnenschein, 199249). Rarely, however, have those efforts spurred organizational effectiveness, Instead, many attempts to increase diversity in the workplace have backfired, sometimes even heightening and hindering a companys action (Tsui and Gutek, 1999).As is commonly ascribed, Riodan (2000) asserts most peopl e assume that workforce diversity is about increasing racial, national, gender or class representation in other words, recruiting and retaining most people from traditionally underrepresented identity groups. Taking this commonly held supposition as a starting point, Thomas and Ely (1996) set out to investigate the affaire between diversity and organizational effectiveness and they found that thinking of diversity simply in terms of identifying group representations inhibited effectiveness. They also found that organizations usually follow two paths in managing diversity, In the name of empathy and fairness, the organizations encourage women and people of colour to blend in or they set them apart in jobs that relate specifically to their backgrounds, assigning them, for example to areas that require them to interface with clients and customers of the same identity group. In this kind of case, companies are operating on the conjecture that the main virtue identity groups have to o ffer is knowledge of their own people. This assumption is limited and detrimental to diversity efforts (See Elsass Graves, 1997 Finkelstein Hambrick, 1996 Jackson, May and Whitney, 1995 Milliken Martins, 1996 Reskin, McBrier Kmec, 1999 Shaw Barrett Power, 1998)A recent meta-analysis of the effects of task related (e.g. tenure) and non task related (e.g. ethnic and gender) diversity, by Weber Donahue (2001) revealed no dependable effects on organizational effectiveness, transaction or tackiness. Williams and OReilly (1998) assert that diversity goes beyond increasing the number of different identity groups affiliations in a company but that diversity should be seen and silent as the varied perspectives and surfacees to work that members of different identity groups bring.Another argument is by Cummings (2004) which says that effective work groups engage in international knowledge sharing- the exchange of information, know-how and feedback with customers, organizational expe rts and others outside the group. This paper argues that the survey of external knowledge sharing increases when work groups are structurally diverse. A structurally diverse work group is one in which the members, by virtue of their different organizational affiliations, roles or positions, can expose the group to unique sources of knowledge. It is hypothesized that if members of structurally diverse work groups engage in external knowledge sharing, their surgical process will improve because of this active exchange of knowledge through unique external sources.Cummings (2004) also assert that scholars examining diversity in work groups have primarily foc employ on the consequences of demographic diversity (e.g. member differences in sex, age, or tenure) for processes such as communication, conflict, or social integration ( See also Jehn et al, 1999, Pelled et al, 1999 and OReilly et al, 1989). The consistently negative effects of demographic diversity on group processes are prom ising the result of heightened member emphasis on social categories rather than project relevant information. Demographic diversity should not increase the value of intra-group knowledge sharing or external knowledge sharing unless it exposes members to unique sources of knowledge related to the work (for a go over see Williams and OReilly. 1998).Relatively, little attention has been given to member differences in organizational affiliations, roles or positions. With the rise in labour costs, global expansion and corporate mergers, workgroups are often used as a means for connecting members who are dispersed across different geographic locations, who represent different functions and report to different managers or who work in different business units (DeSanctis and Monge, 1999 Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999 Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000). This variation in features of the group structure is introduced here as structural diversity because of its potential to expose members to different sources of task information, know-how and feedback. quaternity types of structural diversity in work groups are mentioned below asGeographic locations (See Van den Bulte Moenaert, 1998), Functional assignments (See Bunderson Sutcliffe, 2002), Reporting managers (e.g. Burns, 1989) and in Business units (See Hansen, 2002)Another research done by Siciliano (1996) on 240 YMCA organizations, found no significant relationship between diversity and organizational effectiveness. Middleton (1987) also asserted that diversity in any form has no impact on the operating efficiencies of an organization and diversity does not appear to influence one way or another, an organizations tendency to perform its control function.Merits of Managing Workforce DiversityManaging diversity can create a competitive advantage. Potential benefits of diversity include emend decision making, higher creativity and understructure, greater success in marketing to foreign and domestic ethnic minority communitie s and a better distribution of economic opportunity (Cox, 1991 Cox Blake, 1991). According to one study (Watson et al, 1993) culturally diverse groups relative to homogenous groups are more effective both in the interaction process and job performance these benefits occur after a diverse group has been put together for a period of time. Mueller (1998) states that as all the segments of society have a stake in the development and prosperity of society as a whole, creating and managing a diverse workforce should be seen as a social and moral imperative. As globalisation 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). Diversity teams make it possible to enhance flexibility (Fleury, 1999) and rapid response and adaptation to change (Adler, 1997 Jackson et al, 1992).Organizational Challen gesCompanies can succeed at diversity if the initiative to create, manage and value the diverse workforce has the full support of the top management (Hayes, 1999 Jackson et al, 1992). Fiske, 1993 states that for increased effectiveness and adaptation of the diversity discourse, companies have to start thinking about diversity more holistically- as providing fresh and meaningful approaches to work and stop assuming that diversity relates simply to how a person looks or where they are from, only then would companies reap diversitys full rewards and Organizations with a diverse workforce can provide superior profits because they can better understand customers needs (Weitling Palma-Rivas, 2000). Hiring women, minorities, disabled, etc will help organizations to tap into these niche markets (Mueller, 1998) and diversified market segments (Fleury, 1999).Jackson et al (1995) state that the business economy has received much recent attention, with trade barriers are removed and competiti on intensifies, many companies are beginning to expand their operations in order to take advantage of foreign labour and consumer markets. For smaller companies, foreign activities may be limited to a single joint act or to offshore production or distribution systems that involve one or two other countries. For larger corporations, foreign offices may be in over one hundred different countries (See Fulkerson Schuler, 1992). The presence of international affiliations, although not inevitable, is likely to lead eventually to the formation of teams of people with diverse cultural backgrounds, including management teams, design teams, operation teams and marketing teams (Adler Ghadar, 1991 Kanter, 1991 Von Glinow Mohrman, 1990) of which engage in decision making activitiesTheories and techniques of diversity management have been developed and enthusiastically supported by a growing number of chief executives, training specialists, diversity consultants and academics (Saji, 2004)). Di versity can improve organizational effectiveness. Organizations that develop cognize in and reputations for managing diversity will likely attract the best personnel (Carrel et al, 2000). Diversity requires a type of organizational culture in which each employee can pursue his or her career aspirations without universe intimidated by gender, race, nationality, religion or other factors that are irrelevant to performance (Bryan. 1999). Managing diversity means enabling the diverse workforce to perform its full potential in an equitable work environment, where no one group has an advantage or disadvantage (Torres Bruxelles, 1992).Diversity in the workplace can be a competitive advantage because differing viewpoints can facilitate unique and creative approaches to problem-solving, thereby increasing creativity and innovation, which in turn leads to better organizational performance (Allen et al, 2004). For example, in Botswana, the society is becoming multicultural due to the increa sing migrant population and their descendants. For organizations, this means that their market share, efficiency. Human capital, international competitiveness and level of innovation will depend on their ability to effectively manage a diverse workforce both within and across organizational boundaries (Barker Hartel, 2004 Dass Parker, 1996 Kandola et al, 1995 Strauss Mang, 1999)ConclusionsJackson (2003) In todays business environment, work teams are becoming more common and more diverse, intensifying the importance of understanding the dynamics of work- team diversity. Of particular importance, is diversity within decision making teams. Organizations are rapidly restructuring to take advantage of the potential benefits of diverse decision making teams are worth the hazard (or can be successfully avoided). Many of the specific assets and liabilities of work teams arise directly out of diversity.Despite various intensive efforts to measure diversity and predict its outcomes, Jacks on (2003) asserts many literature offer few conclusive findings about the effects of diversity in the workplace. Lack of a common paradigm will make it difficult to accumulate comparable findings over time, while agreement around some issues could accelerate our ability to learn from previous stash away evidence. One useful element that could be suggested could be a common paradigm it would be for researchers to agree to a common theme or definition of diversity which would in turn lead to less confusion about this concept (See also Carroll Harrison, 1998 Bedeian Mossholder, 2000).Jackson (2003) affirms that Pettigrew (1998) used a very different approach to developing a blueprint for enabling organizational effectiveness. Based on a comprehensive review of a large body of research conducted in a variety of settings, Pettigrew identified the conditions needed to reduce intergroup bias and its negative consequence and described several processes that could be engaged to create the se conditions. To the extent an originations diversity initiatives support these processes, they would encourage the development of positive intergroup relations, employee commitment, improved productivity and increased organizational effectiveness (See also Gaertner et al, 2000) and they areLearning about the other group(s) was one nominate process identified by Pettigrew, Inaccurate stereotypes resist change for a variety of reasons but inaccurate stereotypes can be modified if people receive sufficient disconfirming evidence. Such learning is often the objective of diversity awareness training.Behavioural Change is the second key process that is needed to promote positive intergroup relations. Engaging repeatedly in positive behaviour with members of a work team can lead to long term attitudinal change towards members. Providing training in the behavioural competencies needed to work effectively in organizations characterized by diversity is one way to encourage people to engage in positive behaviour towards work group membersCreating positive emotions associated with the work group is the third key process. For example, mentoring programs may encourage the development of intergroup friendships. The value of personal friendships may help explain the apparent success of informal mentoring programs.In conclusion, it seems likely that active diversity management will be necessitate in order for organizations to comprehend the potential benefits locked up within their diverse work forces and as such organizations must put in place strategies to enhance workforce diversity. Research based principles for achieving these benefits and minimising potential losses have been offered. Some organizations are undoubtedly experimenting with practises that are consistent with these principles Jackson et al (1995). By the end of this decade, perhaps another review of diversity will yield useable suggestions for how to create a sustainable and effective organizational cond ition called for by Pettigrews analysis.ReferencesAllen, R.S., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K and White, C.S. (2008) Perceived Diversity and Organizational exertion Employee Relations, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 20-33.Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J. and Dass, C.S (2002) Diversity and Emotion The New Frontiers in Organizational Behaviour Research Journal of focussing, Vol. 28, pp. 307-338.Barker, S. and Hartel C.E.J (2004) Intercultural service encounter An exploratory study of customer experiences Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 11(1) pp. 3-14.Bedian, A.G and Mossholder, K.W (2000) On the use of the coefficient of variations as a measure of diversity Organizational research Methods, Vol. 3 285-297.Bryan J.H (1999) The diversity Imperative Executive Excellence, pp6Bunderson, J.S and Sutcliffe K.M (2002) Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams process and performance effects Academy of Management Journal, 45875-893Carroll, G.R and Harrison, J.R (1998) Organizational demography and culture insights from a former model and simulation Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 43637-667Cascio, W.F (1998) Managing Human imagerys Productivity, Quality of Work Life, pelf, McGraw Hill, Boston, MACox T Blake S. (1991) Managing Cultural Diversity Implications for Organizational Competitiveness The Academy of Management Executive, August.Cox T (1991) The multicultural organization the academy of management executive, MayCummings J (2004), Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization, Management Science, Vol. 50 pp.352 364.Cummings, J. N. Cross, R. (2003) Structural Properties of Work Groups and their Consequences for Performance Social Networks, Vol. 25 (3), 197-210.Dass, P Parker B (1999) Strategies for managing human resource diversity from resistance to learning Academy of Management Executive, vol. 13 68-80Elsass, P.M Graves L.M (1997) Demographic diversity in decision making groups Th e experiences of women and people of colour Academy of Management review, Vol 22 946-973Ely R.J Thomas D.A (2001) Cultural diversity at work The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes Administrative Science Quarterly, vol 46 229-273.Fiske, S. (1993) Social Cognition and Social Perception in Rozenwig M.R L.W Porter (Eds) Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 44155-194. Pato Alto, CA Annual Reviews Inc.Friedman, R.A (1996) Defining the scope and logic of minority and female network groups can separation enhance integration? Research in staff office and Human Resource Management, vol. 14 307-349Fleury, 1999Gaertner S.L, Dovidio, J.F, Banker B.S, Houlette, M, Johnson K.M and Mc Glynn, E.A (2000) Reducing intergroup conflict From super ordinate goals to categorization, recategorization and mutual differentiation Group dynamics scheme, Research and practise, Vol 4 98-114.Hayes, E. (1999) winsome at Diversity Executive Excellence pp.9Klein, K. J. Harrison, D. A. (2007) On the diversity of diversity Tidy logic, messier realities Academic of Management Perspectives, 21(4) 26-33.Jackson, B.W, La Fasto, F, Schultz, H.G, Kelly, D (1992) Diversity Human Resource Management, vol 31,pp.21-34Jackson, S.E, Joshi, A and Erhardt, N.L (2003) Recent Research in Team and Organizational Diversity SWOT analysis and Implications Journal of Management, vol. 29, No. 6, pp.801-830.Jackson, S.E, May, K.E Whitney, K. (1995) Under the dynamics of diversity in decision making teams in Guzzo, A Salas, E. (Eds) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, pp. 204-261. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.Jackson, S.E, Stone, V.K Alvarez, E.B (1993) Socialization amidst diversity impact of demographics on work team old timers and newcomers Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 15 45-111.Jehn, K.A, Northcraft, G.B Neale, M.A (1999) Why differences make a difference a field study in diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.44, pp. 741-763.Kandola, R, Fullerton, J and Ahmed, Y (1995) Managing diversity succeeding where equal opportunities have failed Equal Opportunities Review, 5931-36.Kling, K.C, Hyde J.S, Showers, C.J Buswell, B.N (1999) Gender differences in self admiration A Meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125470-500Konrad, A.M, Ritchie, J.E, Lieb, J.R Corrigall, E (2000) Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences A Meta-analysis Psychological bulletin, 126593-641Milliken, F.J Martins, L.L (1996) Searching for common threads understanding the armament effects of diversity in organizational groups Academy of management review, 21 402-433Ongori, H and Argolla, J.E (2007) Critical review of literature on Workforce Diversity African journal of Business Management, pp. 72-76Pelled, L.H, Eisenhardt, K .M Xin, K.R (1999) Exploring the black box An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance Administrative Science Quarterly, 441-28.Pettigre w, T.F (1998) Intergroup Contact Theory Annual Review of Psychology, 4965-85Reskin B.F, McBrier, M Kmec, J.A (1999) The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition Annual Review of sociology, Vol 25335-362Riordan, C.M (2000) Relational demography within groups ancient developments, contradictions and new directions Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol 19131-174Roberson, L, Kulik, C.T and Pepper, M.B (2001) Designing effective diversity training influence of group composition and trainee experience Journal of Organizational Behaviour , vol. 22 871-885Shaw, J.B Barrett-Power, E (1998) The effects of diversity on small work group processes and performance Human Relations, Vol 51 1307-1325.Strauss, P, Mang, J (1999) Culture shocks in inter-cultural service encounter? Journal of Services Marketing, vol 4, no 5 pp.329-346Sonnenschein, W. (1992) The diversity toolkit how you can build and benefit from a diverse workforce Contemporary Publishin g Company, USA.Thomas, D.A Ely, R.D (1996) Making differences matter A new paradigm for managing diversity Harvard Business Review. Sep/Oct 79-90Torres, C, Bruxelles, M (1992) capitalizing on global diversity HM Magazine, pp.30-33Tsui, A.S Gutek, B.A (1999) Demographic differences in organizations Lanham, MD Lexington BooksWatson, W.E, Kumar, K, Michaelsen, L (1993) Cultural diversitys impact on interaction process and performance comparing homogenous diverse task groups Academy of Management Journal, 36(3) pp.590-602.Webber, S.S Donahue L.M (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance A Meta-analysis Journal of management, vol 27 141-162.Wentling, R.M, Palma-Rivas, N (2000) Current status of diversity initiatives in selected multinational cooperations human resource Development Quarterly, 11(1) pp.35-60Willaims, K.Y OReilly, C.A (1998) Demography and Diversity in organizations A review of 40 years of research in BM Staw Cummings LL (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 20 77-140,www.springerlink.com/content/h2j1304710738k50/ accessed on 10.4.09www.adc-assoc.com/the%20Business%20Case%20for%20Diversity accessed on 30.04.09www.sns.se/forskning/valfard/migration/occpap86.pdf accessed on 24.04.09