Utilizing a New Human Relations Framework to Leverage Workforce Diversity

Introduction

We live in a global society, ″a diverse social universe in which the unifying forces of modern production, markets, communications, and cultural and political modernization interact with many global, regional, national, and local segmentations and differentiations″ (Shaw, 2000, p. 11). As underlined by McGrew (1992), this global society is a ″shrinking world where relations, networks, activities and interconnections of all kinds″ (p. 64), especially socio-economic, environmental and political, extend beyond national boundaries. In this global society, leveraging people’s diversities (Jayne & Dupboye, 2004; Scott, 2010) is one of the major challenges facing organizations of any size in developed countries.

But what is ″diversity″? Academics have defined ″diversity″ in rather different ways (Carnevale & Stone, 1994; Cox, 1994; Kandola & Fullerton, 1998; Kossek & Lobel, 1996; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Thomas, 1991; Zanoni & Jassens, 2004). Here, by ″diversity″ is meant the multiplicity of differences and similarities that exist among people (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004) and which, combined together, create each person’s multiple and intersecting identities. These identities define a person’s uniqueness, which is expressed in how s/he lives with, sees, and relates to other people and to the world in general. Kossek and Lobel (1996) emphasize that ″each of these potentially overlapping identity group memberships can affect an employee’s attitudes and behaviors in the workplace, as well as influence his or her ability to work well with other organizational members″ (p. 2). According to Thomas’s idea that ″diversity is inherently neither good nor bad, but rather a reality″ (2004, p. 10), companies have to gain a sense of how to plan and implement ″organizational systems and practices to manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential disadvantages are minimized″ (Cox, 1993, p. 11). This induces organizations to shift from a management undifferentiated in terms of strategy, policy, solutions, and tools to a “conscious” diversity management. However, there is no generally accepted definition of “diversity management,” and academics and professionals too often use this concept without stating the meaning that they give to it, thus leaving one unsure as to what they are really talking about. Indeed, even though since the end of the 1980s professionals and academics have been engaged in animated debate on how to devise efficient, effective, and equitable ways to manage people’s diversities in organizations, they have produced neither a shared definition of diversity management nor a generally accepted assessment, be it positive or negative, of the outcomes that diversity management can deliver to organizations and persons (Curtis & Dreachslin, 2008; Kirton & Greene, 2005; Shen, Chanda, D’Netto, & Monga, 2009; Zanoni & Jassens, 2004). Academics are divided into two main groups: those who support diversity management on the basis of the business case, and those who adopt a more critical approach to the issue. Despite this division, it is possible to identify general agreement on certain features regarded as distinctive of the diversity management approach, namely:

• •

  People are considered key assets for organizational success, moreover they are diverse, and their diversities should be managed by the organization

• •

  Diversity management is a contextual issue, that is to say, there is no “best” diversity strategy or a “one-size-fits-all” solution

• •

  Diversity management is a long-term approach that requires the commitment of the organization’s board and managers

• •

  Diversity management requires organizations to carry out changes in both cultural and organizational terms.