diversity in organizations

sort in governingsIntroductionThis opus aims to file a deep examination of how miscellanea is interpreted and wrong blanket(a)y utilise in many disposals straight off. In this essay, I would explore and discuss the condition alteration, its definitions, merits, demerits, its varied applications and if there is a cause and effect blood between sort bleed force and organizational strong suit. This essay would similarly fork break why the term variety show is remotely satisfying and elaborate on the need for a raw(a) image for understanding mutation. My study supports the principles of the novelty theory but not its varied applications which inhibit organizational effectiveness. variety showThe term mixed bag has demonstrate its place in almost either HRM literature the front page. capital of Mississippi et al (1993), states that the term transmutation has petty(a) history indoors the demeanoral sciences and is not (yet) a scientific construct. Instead, it is an fooling term that sprang to life rather recently, nourished by widespread media insurance coverage of the managing form activities that organizations ar adopting in response to changing prepargon-force demographics. Nevertheless(prenominal), the body of complaisant science query relevant to understanding the dynamics of salmagundi in organizations is not large, although it is widely dispersed crossways sub disciplines that cross teleph matchless ex xsion some(prenominal)ly early(a) nor stick a common terminology (See Friedman, 199667). another(prenominal) interesting definition is found in Ashkanasy et al (2002) which defines salmagundi as a concept that encompasses acceptance and respect. It means the understanding that each private is unique and recognizing our individual differences. They croup be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, g residueer, sexual orientation, socio economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs a nd other ideologies and the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive and nurturing environment. innovation is ab out understanding each other and contemptible beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of smorgasbord contained within each individualAllen et al (2008) asserts that salmagundi is a challenge and that organizations attain struggled to embrace and manage it victoryfully. look forers commence struggled to conceptualize and study the term effectively. Theorists calculate differing effect of Diversity that they allow spark integrative insights, creativity and cornerst single (e.g. Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996 Hoffman and Maier, 1961) or that they will provoke departure, division and dissolution (e.g. Chatman, 1991 Tajfel and Turner, 1979). men Diversity (A Critical Analysis)Structural Diversity Vs demographic DiversityThe demographics of the custody be changing and will continue to change rapidly. Almost every organ ization looks contrasting both in terms of whos employed and they positions they hold, than it did ten years ago (Sonnenschien, 19992). Jackson et al (1995) also asserts that the changing break-force demographics and new organizational forms atomic number 18 change magnitude the transmutation of reach teams in cosmopolitan and ratiocination making teams in particular. Given these environmental changes, imprint teams that are various(a) in terms of sex, race, and ethnicity, national origin, area of expertise, organizational association and many other personal characteristics are increasingly common. The changing demographics of todays labour force, account for the increasing gender diversity, cultural diversity (including cultural differences overdue 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 complex phenomenon to manage in an organization. The management of work force diversity as a tool to increment organizational effectiveness seatnot be underscored, especially with current changes sweeping across the globe. It is argued that organizations that survey diversity will definitely cultivate success and have a proximo in this dynamic global labour food market (Jain and Verma, 1996). Workforce diversity management has become an important issue for both governments and private organizations. Its brilliance has mainly been brought nigh by the free movement of labour due to globalization and the fight for human rights by certain minority roots who olfactory modality excluded from the employment sector. The workforce diversity emerged mainly to further the availability of tinct opportunities in the work place. This equal opportunity philosophy is aimed at ensuring that organizational make the most out of the difference from a various workforce rather than losing talent which might assist the organization to be much efficient and effective. The join ond mobility and fundamental interaction of people from diverse backgrounds as a result of improved economic and political systems and the recognition of human rights by all nations has put most organizations under pressure to embrace diversity at the work place. Diversity channels with it the heterogeneity that needs to be nurtured, well-mannered and appreciated as means of increasing organizational effectiveness.A more than diverse workforce according to Thomas and Ely (1996) will increase organizational effectiveness. It would lift morale, bring greater access to new segments of the market place and fire productivity. Yet if this is true, what then are the positive impacts of diversity? Numerous and varied initiatives to increase diversity in unified 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 death penalty (Tsui and Gutek, 1999).As is commonly ascribed, Riodan (2000) asserts most people 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 link between diversity and organizational effectiveness and they found that mentation of diversity simply in terms of identifying group representations subdue 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 t hem, 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 assumption that the main merit identity groups have to offer is knowledge of their own people. This assumption is restrict and detrimental to diversity efforts (See Elsass Graves, 1997 Finkelstein Hambrick, 1996 Jackson, whitethorn and Whitney, 1995 Milliken Martins, 1996 Reskin, McBrier Kmec, 1999 Shaw Barrett Power, 1998)A recent meta-analysis of the effects of caper 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, exercise or gluiness. 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 studyn and understood as the varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of diffe rent identity groups bring.Another argument is by Cummings (2004) which says that effective work groups claim in external knowledge sacramental manduction- the exchange of information, know-how and feedback with customers, organizational experts and others outside the group. This paper argues that the value of external knowledge sharing increases when work groups are structurally diverse. A structurally diverse work group is iodine(a) 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 invade in external knowledge sharing, their performance will improve because of this wide awake exchange of knowledge through unique external sources.Cummings (2004) also assert that scholars examining diversity in work groups have primarily concentrate on the consequences of demographic diversity (e.g. member differences in sex, age, or tenure) for serve upes such as communication, conflict, or accessible 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 likely 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 followup 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 writing to different managers or who work in d ifferent craft units (DeSanctis and Monge, 1999 Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999 Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000). This version in features of the group structure is introduced here as structural diversity because of its authorisation to expose members to different sources of task information, know-how and feedback. Four types of structural diversity in work groups are mentioned below asGeographic locations (See avant-garde den Bulte Moenaert, 1998), Functional assignments (See Bunderson Sutcliffe, 2002), Reporting managers (e.g. Burns, 1989) and in disdain units (See Hansen, 2002)Another research done by Siciliano (1996) on 240 YMCA organizations, found no significant kin 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 Wo rkforce DiversityManaging diversity can create a competitive improvement. Potential makes of diversity include better ratiocination making, higher creativity and aim, greater success in marketing to unlike and domestic ethnic minority communities 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 in concert 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 suffice organizations to enter the supranational arena (Cascio, 1998). Diversity grows creativity and innovation (Adler, 1997 Jackson e t 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).organisational ChallengesCompanies 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 increase 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 run because they can better understand customers needs (Weitling Palma-Rivas, 2000). Hiring women, minorities, disabled, etc wi ll help organizations to woo 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 take and competition intensifies, many companies are beginning to expand their operations in redact to take advantage of foreign labour and consumer markets. For smaller companies, foreign activities may be limited to a single joint punt 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 whic h engage in decision making activitiesTheories and techniques of diversity management have been developed and enthusiastically supported by a growing number of chief executives, provision specialists, diversity consultants and academics (Saji, 2004)). Diversity can improve organizational effectiveness. Organizations that develop roll in the hay in and reputations for managing diversity will likely attract the best forcefulness (Carrel et al, 2000). Diversity requires a type of organizational culture in which each employee can pursue his or her career aspirations without being intimidated by gender, race, nationality, religion or other factors that are irrelevant to performance (Bryan. 1999). Managing diversity means change 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 faci litate unique and fanciful 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 increasing migrant population and their descendants. For organizations, this means that their market share, efficiency. mankind capital, international fight 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 enormousness 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 d iverse decision making teams are worth the risk (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 time diversity and expect its outcomes, Jackson (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, age agreement around some issues could accelerate our ability to learn from foregoing accumulated evidence. One useful element that could be suggested could be a common paradigm it would be for researchers to agree to a common newspaper 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 look back of a large body of research conducted in a variety of settings, Pettigrew place the conditions needed to reduce intergroup bias and its negative consequence and described several processes that could be engaged to create these 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 fundamental process identified by Pettigrew, Inaccurate stereotypes propel change for a variety of reasons but inaccurate stereotypes can be modified if people receive sufficient disconfirming evidence. Such acquire is often the objective of diversity awareness training.Behavioural Change is the imprimatur 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 voice diversity management will be required 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. look for based principles for achieving these benefits and minimising potential losses have been offered. Some organiza tions 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 operable suggestions for how to create a sustainable and effective organizational condition called for by Pettigrews analysis.ReferencesAllen, R.S., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K and White, C.S. (2008) Perceived Diversity and Organizational execution 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 ledger of concern, Vol. 28, pp. 307-338.Barker, S. and Hartel C.E.J (2004) Intercultural service encounter An exploratory study of customer experiences ledger 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 human ecology and culture insights from a former model and simulation Administrative comprehension Quarterly, vol. 43637-667Cascio, W.F (1998) Managing Human Resources Productivity, Quality of Work Life, Profits, McGraw Hill, Boston, MACox T Blake S. (1991) Managing Cultural Diversity Implications for Organizational Competitiveness The honorary society 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 intuition, Vol. 50 pp.352 364.Cummings, J. N. Cross, R. (2003) Structural Properties of Work Groups and th eir Consequences for Performance Social Networks, Vol. 25 (3), 197-210.Dass, P Parker B (1999) Strategies for managing human imaging 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 The 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 usher (Eds) one-year Review of Psychology, Vol. 44155-194. Pato Alto, CA Annual Reviews Inc.Friedman, R.A (1996) Defining the compass and logic of minority and female network groups can separation enhance integration? Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, vol. 14 307-349Fleury, 1999Gaertner S.L, Dovidio, J.F, Banker B.S, Houlette, M, Jo hnson K.M and Mc Glynn, E.A (2000) Reducing intergroup conflict From super ordinate goals to categorization, recategorization and mutual differentiation Group dynamics Theory, Research and practise, Vol 4 98-114.Hayes, E. (1999) Winning at Diversity Executive Excellence pp.9Klein, K. J. Harrison, D. A. (2007) On the diversity of diversity Tidy logic, messier realities faculty member 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 nerd 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) Social ization 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) sexual activity differences in self esteem 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) search for common threads understanding the multitude 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.Pettigrew, 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 organization Annual Review of sociology, Vol 25335-362Riordan, C.M (2000) Relational demography within groups erstwhile(prenominal) 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 organic law and trainee experience Journal of Organizational Behaviour , vol. 22 871-885Shaw, J.B Barrett-Power, E (1998) The effects of diversity on smal l 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 Publishing Company, USA.Thomas, D.A Ely, R.D (1996) Making differences discipline 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 Jou rnal 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