Many organisations
have a diverse workforce but are not necessarily benefiting as much as they
would expect from that diversity. On the one hand, there might be tensions
which appear to hinder performance; and on the other hand there may be many
opportunities lost. How to make the most of differences rather than just having diversity? One solution is to be
found in an article by Thomas et al.
“Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity”, HBR, 1996.
The authors describe two main paradigms that organizations appear to pass
through as they develop their diversity and propose a third which will help organizations
to “reap the real and full benefits of a diverse workforce”.
The three
paradigms are considered in turn followed by further implications (“et alors”).
A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity
Discrimination
and Fairness
All about
equal opportunity, fair treatment, recruitment and compliance with legislation,
the main objective is to restructure the makeup of the organization to reflect
that of society.
Progress in
diversity is measured by how well the company achieves it recruitment and
retention objectives; little or no attention is paid to leveraging diversity per se.
Fair
treatment improves; however the company becomes “blind” to diversity and the
diversification of the workforce does not influence the way of working.
Access
and Legitimacy
All about
accepting and celebrating differences, the underlying motivation is “legitimacy”
for customers and other stakeholders: not just about being “fair”; it makes
business sense.
Progress in
diversity is measured by how well the company is capturing (or retaining)
market share of “diverse” markets; however diversity can become “regionalized”.
Market
motivation gives good focus; however internal tensions can increase since the company
emphasizes cultural differences without being fully aware of the implications.
Learning
and Effectiveness
All about
incorporating all employees’ perspectives to improve the work processes, the
main objective is to work together with
differences, not despite them.
Progress in
diversity is measured with reference to the consequences of learning and
effectiveness e.g. innovation and overall performance compared to peer groups.
Whilst
promoting equal opportunities and acknowledging cultural differences, the
company grows and learns because of the differences which are integrated
internally.
Et alors?
This last
“new” paradigm appears to offer organizations the possibility of enhanced
performance for free! Given this “free” option and that most organizations are
already well advanced with the first “fairness” paradigm, why is it that so
many of them have not yet moved to this third paradigm? There are a number of
potential reasons. Firstly, an organization cannot advance through the
paradigms without having built a solid foundation in the preceding paradigm. If
for example, organizations have moved too quickly to the second paradigm of “legitimacy”
without having fully addressed the challenge of “fairness” then it will be very
difficult to advance even further to “learning”. This would be typical of a
corporation where the “legitimacy” of diversity is already being sold
externally but internally, glass ceilings are still very much in evidence
hindering the promotion and decreasing the retention of any diversity. Even
though it might appear that they are not far from the new paradigm, organizations
might find it difficult to move to a “learning” paradigm from such a starting
point.
Second, some
corporate cultures might “freeze” the organization in the first paradigm. The “blind”
notion that everyone is not only the same but aspires to be the same can lead
to any behavioral or ideological diversity being overlooked, ignored or even
argued away in an attempt to not only maintain but strengthen the sense of a
unified corporate culture. Operating globally and seeing the business
opportunities for “legitimate” diversity can propel organizations out of this first
paradigm but then certain corporate cultures might still “trap” themselves in the
second paradigm. For example, organizations which are very centralized with very
strong hierarchies are unlikely to encourage differences of opinion between the
ranks. No matter what the person at the top says about diversity and all its
potential to improve creativity and innovation, that same person might not
tolerate direct or open discourse during a meeting in their presence. The more
formal and role-based the organization, the less likely it will be comfortable in
moving to the third paradigm.
Finally,
the challenge of moving to the third paradigm is, by the authors’ own account, not
an easy challenge; however they also state that unless attempts are made to move
to this new paradigm, “any diversity initiative will fall short of fulfilling
its rich promise.” A further interpretation of this is that without striving
for the new paradigm, the company will ultimately revert to the “fairness”
paradigm. The shift requires “high-level commitment to learning more about the
environment, structure and tasks of one’s organization, and giving
improvement-generating change greater priority than the security of what is
familiar.” This is indeed a big challenge for many large companies; however
some of them have managed to achieve it and the authors’ theory has been proven
by the recent McKinsey study – there is a correlation between greater diversity
and enhanced corporate performance!
No comments:
Post a Comment