Hello Ed
I'm writing a book at the moment on HRD and I have a chapter I'm working
on which is on Diversity. Here is an extract which may be of interest as
it tells you about the Austrlian scene. you can use it if you wish, just
give some acknowledgement. If you have any comment, I'd be interested in
that too.
I'd be interested in a copy of your speech.
Best wishes.
Francesco
Current history books say that Australia's indigenous people, the
Aborigines lived in Australia for 40,000 years before the colonisation by
Britain as a penal colony in 1788. The penal colony was a homogenised
society which had a high disregard for and was belligerent towards the
Aborigines. Subsequent waves of immigration of people were treated
differently from the Anglo-saxon inhabitants; like the Aborigines, the
immigrants were inferior in power, economic and social status. The
Australian government implemented policies of assimilation and
integration, that is the Australianisation of immigrants to the British /
Australian culture. Persistent immigration has meant that there is barely
a region of the world which has not migrated to Australia; even in the
last decade of 20th century global upheavals there have been immigrants
from most world regions.
Australia has taken the lead from the International Labour Organisation
(ILO) in creating standards to remove all forms of discrimination from the
work place. First the federal government endorsed ILO standards and
subsequently it enacted Affirmative Action legislation in 1986. The ILO
after World War 1 advocated principles of equity in opportunity and in
treatment. Towards the end of World War 11 the ILO affirmed the rights of
women as workers and asserted that all people have the right to pursue
their own material well-being and spiritual development in conditions of
economic security, freedom, dignity and equal opportunities. Through the
development of the International Labour Code the ILO has sought to ensure
that equal opportunity is promoted internationally regardless of the
economic growth and conditions in labour markets (ILO, 1987).
Diversity as Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
The Australian Public Service since the middle of the 20th century has
introduced change in developing and implementing Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) initiatives. For example, in 1949 women were admitted to
the clerical / administrative structure followed in 1966 by the removal of
the restriction on the permanent employment of married women. Initiatives
to assist people with special needs began in 1971 and those to assist
Aboriginal people began in 1973. In 1975 an EEO bureau was established and
an increasing number of programs such as ones for people of non-English
Speaking Backgrounds (NESB) have been introduced since then. In 1984 the
Public Service Act was amended to place a positive obligation upon the
leaders of Australian Public Service agencies to develop and implement EEO
programs and the Public Service Commissioner was required to report
annually on EEO matters to the Prime Minister.
There have been some achievements in EEO. For example, from 1984 to 1997
there was a 9% increase (from 39%-48%) in the employment of women in the
Australian Public Service and a 13% increase (from 7%-20%) of women in
senior management in the ten year period to 1997. The representation of
people of non-English Speaking Backgrounds (NESB) in the Australian
permanent workforce has grown 2% over the last decade, now standing at 15%
and an increase to 2% representation in the workforce of Australia's
indigenous people, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
In the same ten year period to 1997 there have been some disappointments.
The employment of people with disabilities has decreased from 6% to 4.5%
and employees in the EEO group have largely remained clustered in
non-management positions (William, 1998).
There has been a recognition that the EEO concept had its limitations and
was in need of review. One view of EEO is that it has outlived its
usefulness since it had a misplaced focus on a social justice imperative
unsuited to a modern climate of change management. Another perspective
interprets EEO as addressing procedural fairness through legal compliance
resulting in an emphasis on redress and correction. Also there has been
resistance by some who believe that anti-discrimination and EEO principles
have no benefits for much of the workforce; that EEO is only a token
gesture added on to human resource management processes.
Equal Opportunity (EO), the new term for EEO, means removing bias which
results from the way organisations are structured and the policies and
procedures which they follow. In recruiting staff Australian enterprises
must take into account a number of federal and state Acts to ensure there
is no discrimination on the basis of gender, race, disability, age, sexual
preference or personal characteristic not related to the task. There must
be no discrimination in workplaces. This means that organisations must be
careful not to exclude individuals from the benefits the organisation
offers or from employment opportunities simply because of some personal
characteristic which is irrelevant to performance of the task. People must
be given opportunities based on their merits and not on the basis of
prejudices or stereotypes. There are examples where this has happened and
the law has supported the individual. For example a Hollywood star was
prevented from taking a lead role in a film because she revealed that she
was pregnant. She won a discrimination case against the film company
involved.
Direct discrimination refers to excluding individuals because of a
personal characteristic which is not needed for the thing they are being
excluded. Direct discrimination is blatant and results from
organisational stuctures, policies and practices. An example of direct
discrimination is an advertisement I noticed in the Sydney Morning Herald
which asked for 'enthusiastic young Australians' to work in a number of
areas within the hospitality industry. The advertisement listed the
positions of 'manageress' (gender bias), 'receptionist, attractive and
tall' (physical characteristic bias), 'waitpersons to fit standard size
10-12 uniforms' (body size bias), and 'kitchenhand aged 16-19' (age
discrimination).
It is more difficult to address bias where the discrimination is not so
blatant as stated in the advertisement in the example above. Indirect
discrimination is subtle and difficult to identify usually relying on
implicit assumptions and unspoken attitudes of employers which
disadvantage some individuals more than others because of a difference
they have which has nothing to do with the job. An example of indirect
discrimination is the use of 'looks' (attractiveness of the face or body
size and shape) as a selection criterion for a job when 'looks' is
irrelevant to effective and efficient performance of the duties and tasks
of the job.
Much legislation has been passed in Australia in efforts to eliminate
discriminatory recruitment practices and work practices. For example,
public buildings must take into account in their structures, differences
in people which might prevent access to people with physical disabilities.
Another example is Affirmative Action, that is equal opportunity for women
which means ensuring that structures, policies and procedures do not
discriminate either directly or indirectly (Affirmative Action Act, 1986).
One failing in the past was that many managers created special processes,
artificial and temporary procedures to increase the upward mobility of
women. Rather than addressing the inadequacy of the existing policies and
procedures, the special processes created a stigma, preferential treatment
and reverse discrimination which resulted in resentment by others in the
normal process. The intention of the Affirmative Action policy was not to
create special processes but to transform the system so it would work well
for everyone.
In the mid 1990's the Australian government began promoting the broader
concept of Workplace Diversity as part of its overall objectives for
public sector reform. The concept of Workplace Diversity is seeen to
include and go beyond the concept of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
and Affirmative Action (AA).
The Broader Scope of Diversity
In the late 20th century the concept of Diversity has taken centre stage at
international and national levels. The Australian government sees Workplace
Diversity as one of the central pillars of its agenda for public sector
reform (Kemp, 1998). In Australia, in spite of the temendous failings, we
are proud of our multicultural heritage of many people, one nation. There
have been significant moves for reconciliation with Aborigines, Australia's
indigenous people. There are many examples of the valuing of Diversity in
people and in approaches to work and living at national and global levels.
Arpatheid policies in South Africa have been abolished in the late
twentieth century. Western governments have designed and implemented
policies of anti-discrimination against age, gender, ethnicity, disability.
Australian enterprises have adopted family friendly policies and practices
and have shown a commitment to changes in organisational culture which
values all individuals, gives them equal opportunity for careers based on
merit and values work as part of life rather than as life itself.
Increasingly international competitiveness, creativity and organisational
performance are promoted through a fresh and careful focus on Diversity.
Leadership and management in Australian public and private enterprises are
focusing on implementing practices for achieving equity and outcomes
through promoting Diversity in workplaces.
The broader scope of diversity does not focus only on racism, sexism and
disadvantaged groups but is concerned about preferential treatment,
discrimination, reverse discrimination and achieving a 'fair go' for all.
Diversity is not a neutral term. The term is being used deliberately to
effect important changes in business. The intent of the term is to create
enabling organisational structures for all so that through the empowerment
of every individual the organisation can achieve a competitive advantage.
The broader notion of Diversity relates to many Australian workplace
issues which includes a focus on the positive effects of difference and
the contributions which can be made to policy development and program
delivery in terms of experience and viewpoint; the impact of
anti-discrimination legislation on managing and developing people;
disadvanged groups to ensure they are both represented and treated fairly
in the workplace; quality achievements, benchmarking and continuous
improvement through capitalising on the Diversity of the workforce;
organisational effectiveness and morale; accommodating in the workplace
the interests and concerns of people from diverse backgrounds and with
different family and caring responsibilites; the evolving industrial
relations arrangements through the 1996 Workplace Relations Act and the
Public Service Bill to prohibit and eliminate employment and workplace
iscrimination and disadvantage.
The Australian workforce has become increasingly diverse. The Australian
government has enacted anti-discrimination and Affirmative Action
legislation and created equal opportunity in workplaces by promoting a
number of policies such as equal opportunity and sexual harrassment. This
means that the Australian government promotes practices which give every
individual, whatever their differences, access to employment and its
benefits. The legislation has set a benchmark for professional
interpersonal relationships in the workplace. Organisations need to ensure
that their practices in managing people, in developing people and in their
employment relationships promote equality of opportunity otherwise they
face the sanction of the law. The recent Karpin report on management in
Australia ackowledged the importance of creating management structures and
appointing a management which reflect the Diversity of people in the work
place and the Diversity of Australia as a multicultural nation.
Organisations are required to take into account the principle of Diversity
in their people management plans. By Spring 1998 heads of Public Service
Agencies will be required to develop and implement Workplace Diversity
Programs in their organisations which take into account corporate goals and
the broader legal and policy framework. The Agency managers are also
responsible for evaluating and reporting annually on the effectiveness and
outcomes as well as providing performance information of their Workplace
Diversity Programs to the Public Service Commissioner for tabling in
Parliament in October each year. Government policy states that such
Diversity Programs must include measures to ensure that
the program is available to all agency employees;
all employees are encouraged to develop their work skills and contribute
to their maximum potential;
the diverse skills, cultural values and backgrounds of employees are
recognised and used effectively; and
workplace structures, systems and procedures assist employees to balance
their work and family responsibilities effectively.
There is a saying that 'a new broom sweeps well'. Workplace Diversity
represents 'a new broom' for the Australian Liberal Coalition government.
The concept has the capacity to persuade organisations to acknowledge the
positive contribution that a diverse workforce can make by addressing past
problems and by improving productivity at the local, national and global
levels and by creating innovative practices.
The term 'Productive Diversity' was first used by the Labor government in
1992 to describe the development of multiculturalism. In 1998 the Liberal
Coalition government used the same term to highlight the advantages that
Australia's linguistic and cultural Diversity can provide for competing in
the global economy (Williams, 1998).
The term 'Productive Diversity' was captured by Cope and Kalantzis (1997)
for the title of their book where they set out a new, Australian model for
managing workplace change by making the most of Diversity. Their model
highlights the combined effect of a group of strategies which are the key
to improving productivity locally and globally. These 'Productive
Diversity' measures which include flexibility, multiplicity, devolution,
negotiation and pluralism may be no more than simple strategies to improve
profits. According to the authors 'Productive Diversity' is a system of
production that uses Diversity as a resource. Their notion of culture is a
process for negotiating differences to find common ground or to create new
ground and for managing the Diversity to create organisational cohesion.
Diversity has become a new buzz word. There are dollars in Diversity. The
Prime Minister Mr John Howard when launching Multicultural Australia: The
Way Forward in December, 1997 made it clear that the government believes in
the pro-active embrace of Diversity of our community. Australia believes in
sharing the values and reaping the dividend of our Diversity. But that's
not all. The rhetoric surrounding the concept of Diversity promises to
achieve solutions in a dynmanic climate of change and innovation. Diversity
would appear to be the latest panacea to organisational problems. Diversity
promises to deliver many things such as:
increased morale;
improved client service;
efficiency and effectiveness;
increased status;
improved international competitiveness;
world best practice;
creativity and innovation;
high productivity;
greater responsiveness;
faster growth;
workforce flexibility;
organisational strength;
recognition and rewards;
solutions to political, social and economic problems;
improved policies and program delivery;
multiple perspectives and paradigm shifts;
new styles of leadership;
improved organisational structures.
Thomas (1992) compared the development of the Diversity concept with Total
Quality Management (TQM). He maintained that total quality is one of the
most promising new ideas in the continuing efforts to maximise employee
productivity and competitiveness. Some mangers have viewed TQM as a set of
techniques: quality circles, just-in-time inventory control, employee
suggestion systems, participatory management and continuous improvement
while others have a broader view that TQM is a holistic philosophy, a
comprehensive management approach to organisational change involving
fundamental changes in the way organisations do their business. Leaders who
adopt TQM seriously become change agents themselves and not just supporters
of change. This certainly reflects the promises of Diversity listed above.
TQM suffers similar weaknesses to other interventions such as training. For
example it is difficult to provide proof that training and development
interventions rather than political, structural or other factors impacted
on improved performance. A similar difficulty exists with providing
evidence of the links between performance and TQM. Thomas (1992) maintained
that TQM and Diversity are similar in perspective and in intent, that is
they both promise to deliver improved competitiveness and both are equally
misunderstood. He maintained that there is a failure by many to distinguish
between Affirmative Action, valuing differences, and managing Diversity.
Terms such as multiculturalism, Diversity and pluralism are used
interchangeably which results in conceptual confusion.
There are five areas of similarity between TQM and managing Diversity which
Thomas (1992) suggested. I have interpreted that TQM and managing Diversity
are both:
1. strategies for achieving competitive advantage;
2. processes of empowerment and involvement of emplyees;
3. challenges to the fundamental beliefs and stategies of organisations;
4. second order change to the basic culture of organisations;
5. long term initiatives requiring continuity and unified purpose.
A new approach to Diversity has been emerging which does not focus on the
traditional divide according to legislation and categorisations of culture,
age, gender or ethnicity, but which focuses on categorisations of distinct
personality dynamics. What is increasingly important is how individuals are
and how they function regardless of other distinctions.present. Seagal and
Horne (1997) applied the principles of human dynamics to Diversity. The
personality categorisations highlight both differences and commonalities
that exist within the personality groupings regardless of distinctions in
culture, age, gender or ethnicity. Individuals with very diverse
backgrounds and differences also have many aspects in common. These
commonalities are discovered more by individuals with the same personality
dynamic rather then by individuals of the same age, ethnicity, culture or
gender. Individuals are able to experience each other at a more fundamental
level of relationship when they focus on their personality commonalities
rather than on their differences due to culture, age, gender, ethnicity,
sexual preferences, religion, literacy levels, language differences or
personal tastes.
Nine personality dynamics were idenfified by Seagal and Horne (1997). These
are basic patterns of human functioning, each a variation on one of the
three ways of being centred. The authors' research discovered three ways of
being centred mentally, three ways emotionally and three ways physically.
All nine patterns of the different personality dymanics are woven from the
same three principles of mental, emotional and physical which are common
threads that bond all of humanity. There is importance in discovering
commonalities and the extraordinary value of difference because both assist
with identity clarification and social/psychological development. The
sociologist, Charles Cooley maintained that others are the looking glass
self; we form our opinions and identity through the way others reflect us
back to ourselves.
Another advantage of recognising Diversity in the workplace is that
personal differences have an impact on the way individuals perceive problem
situations, identify, analyse and evaluate data and then form conclusions,
adopt strategies and interact with others. This Diversity should be
harnessed as an important basis for creativity, for sharing the richness of
multiple perspectives and for managing the conflict which will result as
change strategies are implemented. We should ackowledge and celebrate
Diversity and attend to underlying issues such as conflict. Probably the
most important issue for the future of workplaces and humankind in general
is the need for conflict resolution which arises from differences.
Organisational structures must facilitate effective development and
management measures to welcome, utilise and encourage diverse perspectives
resulting from differences, to adopt encouraging attitudes towards
Diversity, to celebrate differences and to address conflict resolution.
Above all, respect and appreciation are the guiding principles for
fostering Diversity.
>I've been asked to address a group about the issue of diversity and the
>bottom line in organizations. My research finds that most organizations
>are pretty much a like in how they argue for diversity's impact upon their
>bottom line. I'm curious about your thoughts. Now for some specific
>questions.
>
>1. Is there a correlation between organizations that embrace LO
>principles and are leaders in workplace diversity?
>
>2. In your organizations and/or with your clients, how do you define and
>describe diversity? Do you look at internal diversity or within the
>organization and external, or with diverse clientel?
>
>3. What are the LO issues related to enhancing workplace diversity?
>
>4. Do you have any stories about successful workplace diversity which I
>could use in my presentation.
>
>You can respond to the list, or privately to me at edb3@msn.com. Thanks in
>advance for your thoughts.
>
>Ed Brenegar
>Leadership Resources
>edb3@msn.com
Francesco Sofo, PhD
Head, Human Resource Development Program
Faculty of Education
University of Canberra, ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA
Phone: (612) 62015123
Facsimile: (612) 62015057
--Frank Sofo <franks@education.canberra.edu.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>