Questions

Maged

Lecture14HRM30142018.ppt

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Questions

HRM 3014: Contemporary Issues in Managing a Workforce

Lecture 14:
Policy Approaches to Diversity

Learning objectives for today

To identify the main theoretical approaches to equality and diversity:

The ‘liberal’ approach to equal opportunities

The ‘radical’ approach to equal opportunities

‘Diversity management’

To analyse the similarities and differences between ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘diversity management’ policy and practice

To ask questions regarding what equality means, and how employees should be treated

To identify some common problems re: student performance on the essay

The liberal approach

Philosophy of sameness

Minimise differences; focus on individual merit

The ‘neutral individual’

Aim: Equality of opportunity

‘Positive action’ to remove obstacles to merit-based competition

Level playing field

Reading list: See Verbeek (2011): “equal treatment”

HR: Positive action in training

Permissible for under-represented groups in organisation

Unlawful: prioritising individuals for general training on the basis of membership in a protected group

Lawful: specific training exclusively for protected groups

Lawful: specific training for individuals returning to workforce after a break for caregiving

Lawful: encouraging members of protected groups to apply for training, promotion, or transfer opportunities

London Borough of Ealing’s equality and diversity statement

The council recognises and values the diversity of all people and communities in the borough and in our workforce, and is committed to meeting the needs of all of our residents and our employees.

This commitment to supporting and celebrating equality and diversity is important because the council recognises and believes that:

Ealing’s diversity is a tremendous asset we want to strengthen and promote
unlawful discrimination is unacceptable
providing the same service to everyone does not always guarantee equal access to services
exclusion from opportunities not only disadvantages those who experience discrimination and harassment but also deprives the wider community of the full contribution of their talents and energies
we have statutory duties to implement equality legislation

London Borough of Ealing’s equality and diversity statement (continued)

We recognise that to achieve our vision we need to provide services that are tailored to people's actual needs, including by treating people differently where necessary to ensure fairness.

The council also recognises, respects and values diversity within its workforce as an asset and key resource in enhancing and maximising performance to effectively meet the diverse needs of its service users.

Marks & Spencer on diversity:

We promote an environment free from discrimination, harassment and victimisation and work hard to ensure everyone is offered equality of opportunity to achieve their full potential. All the decisions we make relating to employment practices are objective, free from bias and based solely upon work criteria and individual merit.

Not only are we responsive to the needs of our employees and customers but we also take pride in the role we play in the community at large. Because of this we value diversity very highly and it's important to us that we recognise and make full use of the wealth of talent we have within our organisation.

It is our policy to:

Ensure that all decisions relating to employment practices are objective, free from bias, and based solely on work criteria and individual merit. In every set of circumstances we aim to find a solution which takes account of an individual’s personal circumstances and the needs of the business.
Employ a workforce that reflects the diverse community we serve and maximises personal and commercial opportunities.

M&S Board of Directors

Criticisms of the liberal approach

Equality legislation strong in theory, often weak in practice (implementation gap)
Do fair procedures always lead to fair outcomes?
Is it possible to make rational, unbiased decisions?
Treats the symptoms of inequality, not the causes
Focus on ‘neutral’ individual ignores
impact of belonging to disadvantaged
groups
Does not challenge workplace ‘norm’,
against which everyone else is
measured

The radical approach

Aim: equality of outcomes

Need for direct intervention

Targets; quotas?
‘Positive discrimination’

Focus on groups, not on
individuals

Representative workforce

‘Merit’ inherently biased by
stereotypes, negative judgments

Reading list: See Verbeek (2011): “equal results”

University of Washington’s
affirmative action plan

The University of Washington has established placement goals where the actual representation of women or minorities in a job group is less than would be reasonably expected based on calculated availability. In establishing placement goals, we applied the following principles:

1. When the percentage of minorities or women employed in a particular job group is less than would reasonably be expected given their availability percentage in that job group, the University established a percentage annual placement goal equal to the availability figure derived for women or minorities, as appropriate, for that job group.

2. Placement goals are not quotas that must be met, nor are they to be considered as either a ceiling or a floor for the employment of particular groups.

University of Washington’s
affirmative action plan (continued)

3. In all employment decisions, the University makes selections in a nondiscriminatory manner. Placement goals do not provide a justification to extend a preference to any individual, select an individual, or adversely affect an individual's employment status, on the basis of that individual's race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, veteran status, or national origin.

4. Placement goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they intended to achieve proportional representation or equal results.

5. Placement goals are not used to supersede merit selection principles, nor do these placement goals require the University to hire a person who lacks any or all of the necessary qualifications to perform the job successfully or hire a less qualified person in preference to a more qualified one.

Quotas

Norway’s 40% quota for women on boards

France (40%)

Malaysia (30%)

Belgium (30%)

Iceland (40%)

Italy (33%)

The Netherlands (30%)

Spain (40%)

Germany (30%)

Reading list: See Seierstad & Opsahl (2011) for an assessment of the Norwegian gender representation law

There is an EU proposal to improve the gender balance of non-executive directors on company boards by imposing a mandatory 40% quota for EACH gender by 2020 (2018 for public undertakings). Excludes SMEs. This directive would apply to around 5,000 listed companies across the EU.

Criticisms of the radical approach

Incurs negative responses to direct interventions

‘favouritism’, ‘special treatment’

Being unfair to make things fair

Do changes in representation lead to meaningful change in the structure of organisations?

Cockburn’s short vs. long agendas (treating symptoms vs. changing systems)

The diversity management approach

Differences should be recognised, nurtured, rewarded
Shift away from assimilation to the ‘norm’

Difference is individually-
based

Organisations will benefit
from diversity
Business-driven approach

Focus on culture change

Reading list: See Verbeek (2011): “individual recognition”

So this isn’t about fairness. This is about making money.

Accenture’s inclusion and diversity statement

At Accenture, we take the widest possible view of inclusion and diversity, going beyond gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to create a work environment that welcomes all forms of differences. Each employee is a respected member of our team; we recognize and value individual similarities and differences. Our workforce is a reflection of the clients we serve, the suppliers we do business with and the communities in which we operate.

Inclusion and diversity are fundamental to our culture and core values, fostering an innovative and collaborative work environment that helps our people to be successful and enables Accenture to effectively compete in the global marketplace.

Abercrombie & Fitch’s diversity statement

At Abercrombie & Fitch, we are firmly committed to increasing and utilizing the diversity of our associates and management team across the organization. Those differences are supported by a culture of inclusion, so that we better understand our customers, capitalize on the talents of our workforce and have an inclusive mindset that values every dimension of diversity.

L’Oreal’s diversity statement

“A diversified workforce in every function and on all levels strengthens our creativity and our understanding of consumers and it enables us to develop and market products that are relevant.” - Jean-Paul Agon, Chairman & CEO of L’Oreal

In L’Oréal's people-centered culture, the diversity of the teams is one of the success factors. Fostering the values of all forms of multiculturalism and respect for differences, the group is enriched by employees from various horizons that enable it to gain a better understanding of the diversity of its consumers and markets. With a portfolio of 32 international brands, a presence in 130 countries, and 78 600 employees, L’Oréal's ambition is to meet the needs of every consumer according to his or her habits and lifestyle. The diversity of its brands and its products is a testimony to its commitment to enhance every type of beauty.

France: 51.3% women, approx. 15% ethnic minorities

L’Oreal’s Management Committee

5 women here: 31% of the group

0% ethnic minorities

Reflect

Does it matter that groups representing the organisation are homogeneous?

If so, for whom?
Why is it like this?
What does this say about societal and organisational norms?

Liff’s typology of diversity
approaches

Accommodating Differences

Valuing Differences

Utilising Differences

Dissolving Differences

Commitment to social group equality as an organisational objective

High

Low

High

Low

Perceived relevance of social group differentiation for policy-making

Liff, S. (1997). Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics. Employee Relations, 19(1), 11-26.

Dissolving differences

Policy initiatives respond to individual needs, not group ones

Valuing differences

Focus on social group differences; positive action (e.g., training, observing religious holidays)

Accommodating differences

Opening up opportunities to under-represented groups (e.g., flexible working)

Utilising differences

Social group differences can benefit the org with special contributions

Criticisms of the diversity
management approach

Promises more than it can deliver

Is diversity management just EO?

Can the business case coexist with social justice?

Exploits people & their differences

Reinforces stereotypes

Focus on individual ignores realities of social group disadvantage & discrimination

Individualistic approach can be resource-intensive & make business case difficult

Key takeaways

Different approaches to diversity have different motivations and different goals

No clear answer to question of what is the best way to treat people fairly

For the seminar

Prepare an answer to the question, “Should the UK impose a mandatory quota for women on boards?” Consider:
What is the current situation in the UK re: women on boards? Is there equal representation? Is it heading in that direction?
Do quotas work? What is the evidence from other countries?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of quotas?

Justify your answer(s) with reference to the assigned readings and the supplementary materials posted on My Learning (newspaper articles, the CIPD policy report Quotas and targets: How do they affect diversity progress?)