Search results

This chapter explores the many dynamics of diversity initiatives and presents a central argument that diversity initiatives are most effective when organizational leaders create and strategically implement them to form an inclusive organizational culture. This chapter addresses diversity from a global perspective in three ways. First, it defines diversity and emphasizes one goal: diversity of perspectives. Second, it advocates for creating an organizational culture to overcome conflicting aspects of traditional, demographic-centered, or individual-centered diversity initiatives. Third, it introduces the DURCI Diversity Model, which stands for Define, Understand, Review, Communicate, and Implement, as a five-step method to foster a diverse, inclusive organizational culture. This chapter begins with a definition of diversity as efforts to synchronize unique demographic groups. It emphasizes the importance of defining diversity as it applies to an organization and ultimately creating an organizational culture that transcends individual demographics and defines diversity by what it means explicitly to the organization, including what diversity the organization already possesses. This chapter proceeds to use nonprofit, private, and public organizations, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services, Google, the American Red Cross, Cisco Systems, Americans for the Arts, the National Diversity Council, and the Gates Foundation, to illustrate the wide applicability of the DURCI Diversity Model to frame successful organizational diversity initiatives.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” When Sir Walter Scott penned these words, he probably did not have diversity or universities on his mind. Those of us that are genuinely engaged in diversity, inclusion, equity, social justice, and/or multicultural education work can ruminate on his words and think of how university campuses tout their diversity initiatives and sometimes brag about being the “most diverse” are in actuality deceiving themselves and the constituents they serve. Even though diversity awareness has become an important topic in academe in recent years, so many campuses have largely failed to address it in any substantive way, thus creating an environment where students and even employees sometimes become disengaged. Davies (2007) argues that “university leaders who claim openness to diversity do not acknowledge the presence or participation of Others in activities that are characteristic of a free and democratic society” (p. 154).

Many institutions of higher learning honestly believe that in showcasing a campus program based around food, festival, or fun, they can check the diversity box. Yet, when diversity practitioners push the campus in becoming multicultural competent by addressing diversity outside the proverbial realm of “race,” questions like, “Why are they doing this?” arise. The struggle to sustain a comprehensive and meaningful campus diversity program is real for many agents for change. In order for diversity advocates to have a seat at the table, the campus attitude and practice of “diversity need not apply” cannot continue to exist.

Leaders within academia must be cognizant of their campus culture, which governs the law of the land. More importantly, it is vital to understand that sometimes your campus culture may not be receptive to cultural differences, although university verbiage may state, “We will promote diversity and maintain an environment that celebrates and values the many perspectives, cultures, and […]” Institutions of higher learning in this new millennium (twenty-first century) are deeply entrenched in organizational culture that has become its cornerstone over time, and is resistant to change.

Campus culture is real. Stewart and Dottolo (2005) state that universities should strive to ensure that any groups that fall outside of the traditional culture do not encounter an unwelcoming and threatening institutional environment. However, not every university strives or desires to create a campus climate where diversity is welcomed, celebrated, and/or embraced. It is paramount that educational institutions that serve diverse populations strive to become proficient in multiculturalism (Roach, 2004). Institutions of higher education are socially obligated to provide a learning environment for students with varied backgrounds (Bridges et al., 2008). It is essential that universities take a very close look at how they can contribute to the greater good of society by instilling a sense of worth in all students, regardless of ethnicity and other features of student identities. Williams and Swail (2005) argue that “attending college can be a liberating, developmentally powerful experience with the potential to increase individual productivity and, to some degree, the quality of life of the larger society” (p. 222). This can only occur if or when all aspects of diversity can apply and become an integral part of the university.

There is an established link between national cultural differences and documented variations in technological innovations across countries. To move beyond a narrow emphasis on national cultures, scholars have suggested using within‐country diversity to compensate for known limitations in national culture measures. Given that ethno‐linguistic diversity is a known source of cultural variation, this paper specifically aims to explore the relationship between culture, ethno‐linguistic diversity and national innovativeness.

The researchers used publicly available data on patents and trademarks in a multivariate regression context to study the effects of national culture and within‐country diversity on national levels of innovativeness.

The research found that culture and ethno‐linguistic diversity are independently positively associated with national innovation. More importantly, cultural and intra‐cultural variation measures when taken together account for significantly greater variance in levels of national innovation than does national culture when measured separately.

While this study points to the importance of ethno‐linguistic diversity in explaining national levels of innovativeness, there are other measures of within‐country diversity to be explored.

If national culture were the sole factor in innovativeness, then companies would be limited by their host cultural legacies; since within‐country diversity is also associated with innovation, it provides entrepreneurs, government policy makers and executives with important options for increasing innovativeness.

While previous studies pointed to the potential link between ethno‐linguistic diversity and innovation, prior research has generally not taken this variable into account.

Service innovative behavior from employees helps hospitality organizations gain a competitive advantage and sustain business flourishment. Although group diversity has been demonstrated as a predictor of employee outcomes, whether group diversity in terms of extraversion and openness enhances employee service innovative behavior remains a gap. This study aims to fill this gap by developing a multilevel model of the direct relationship between group diversity in terms of extraversion and openness and employee service innovative behavior and also the mediations and moderations behind the relationship.

The authors collectd data from 44 Chinese hospitality teams. The research model was validated by multilevel structural equation modeling.

Results showed that both group extraversion diversity and group openness diversity fostered employee service innovative behavior via creative self-efficacy. Developmental culture strengthened the effectiveness of group openness diversity on creative self-efficacy and the effectiveness of creative self-efficacy on employee service innovative behavior. Nevertheless, developmental culture did not strengthen the effectiveness of group extraversion diversity on creative self-efficacy.

Findings suggest that managers and team leaders from hospitality organizations can elicit employee service innovative behavior through increasing group diversity in terms of extraversion and openness. Hospitality practitioners also should understand that employees’ confidence for creativity is able to channel group diversity into employee service innovative endeavors. Moreover, building developmental culture is essential for hospitality teams to strengthen the effect of group diversity on innovating services.

This study expands the diversity-innovation research through unfolding both the mediations and the moderations behind the link between group diversity in terms of extraversion and openness and employee service innovative behavior.

This paper empirically explores the types and extent of cultural diversity strategies in Sweden, a developed economy with many migrant workers. The role of organizational culture as the context and the association with diversity strategy and the selection of international skilled migrant workers are examined.

Empirical data are collected by surveying 249 Swedish large or medium-sized firms. Cluster analysis is used to explore the configuration of organizational culture, cultural diversity strategy (CDS) and selection and development criteria.

The authors identify five clusters of organizations. Organizational culture is the main contextual factor that influences the CDS and human resource (HR) approaches for selecting skilled migrant workers. The profile of the clusters including organizational culture, diversity strategies, the selection criteria and firm demographics is presented. The empirical results indicate that organizational culture and demographics are associated with the choice of diversity strategy and, consequently, HR processes.

This study's main focus is on international skilled migrants, which is among empirically less-studied areas in global mobility literature. Furthermore, until now more attention has been directed toward studying the consequences of diversity than toward understanding the factors that influence choice of diversity strategies and practices. This study focuses on antecedents of diversity and attempts to understand the factors that influence adoption and implementation of different cultural diversity strategies.

The authors use the debates instigated by Bernal's Black Athena to rethink the concepts of “race”, “culture” and “diversity” in organization and aim to examine their intersection with academic authority.

Drawing on the works of Derrida and Hegel, the authors question the pursuit of origins and illustrate its role in essentializing race, culture and diversity. The paper examines these through binaries including white/black, nature/culture, purity/diversity and diversity/university.

First, both the Black Athena debates and the organizational literature turn to origins to ground concepts of difference. This attests to the power of narratives of descent in defining current interests. Second, organization studies have relied on images of a clear past which had eliminated racialization and its implications. Whereas culture is considered progressive, as a user‐friendly term it has served as a “surrogate” or “homologue” for race. Diversity, in turn, has been deployed both to harbour and to control difference in organization.

The Black Athena debates alert people to the authority of scholars and practitioners in normalising identity categories in organization. They challenge people to develop theories and practices of organizational diversity that are open to ongoing difference rather than essence and origin.

Derrida's contribution has rarely been used in organizational history, particularly its implication with Hegel's legacy to the historical and cultural canon. The paper invites readers to rethink the notions of race, culture and diversity by examining their historical development and considering the history of their inclusion into the canons of management and organization. Historicising can unsettle entrenched assumptions, but the cautionary word is that it can also legitimate current practices by identifying their relevance since “the beginning”.

The hospitality and tourism industry has seen an increase in organizations operating internationally, bringing people from diverse cultural backgrounds together. The authors aim to help clarify that with a lack of awareness and understanding about diversity, many problems arise in terms of effective intercultural communication between managers and employees and employees and the customers. This paper helps in answering the questions related to the importance of cross cultural management, the intercultural issues faced by an organization, the best practices for diversity management and the future of cultural diversity.

The authors have carried out a review-based research of 60 papers relevant to the topic. The study has been restricted to secondary data consisting of research in the area of managing cultural diversity.

The researchers have concluded that there are different dimensions of cultural diversity and thus policies and programs to manage it have to be carefully implemented and integrated. Also, managers need to identify the current gaps in the organization in terms of diversity management to take the necessary steps for building a harmonious relationship between expatriates and the local employees.

The study addresses the complex nature of cultural diversity and the management issues of multiculturalism within the hospitality and tourism industry. The authors have made an effort to identify the best practices and programs for managing a diverse workforce which may also improve engagement and retention levels through radical inclusion of employees.

Past research on group diversity tends to overlook organizational contextual and group process variables. Although recent studies have revealed the main effects of group diversity on intra‐group conflict, it is important to examine the contextual factors reducing or facilitating those effects on intra‐group conflict. This paper presents a conceptual analysis and research proposals that build on past research on intra‐group conflict and organizational culture to examine the relationships between organizational culture, intra‐group conflict, and group diversity. The paper proposes that organizational cultural intensity and content have direct impact on intra‐group conflict and moderate the relationship between group diversity and intra‐group conflict, depending on the degree of value congruence and the value content shared among group members.

The purpose of this paper is to examine if and how diversity management outcomes differ across non-native and native Dutch groups within public sector organizations. The effects of diversity management on the extent employees feel their organizational environment is inclusive and on their attitudes and behaviour, are expected to be dependent on how diversity management is perceived by non-native and native Dutch employees in the organization. Drawing on social exchange theory, the authors expect that employees who positively value diversity management practices will reciprocate through showing attitudes and behaviours that are valued by the organization. Since social exchange refers to a social relationship between the employee and the organization that goes beyond the formal contract alone, the authors analyse affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) as employee outcomes.

The authors analyse data from a quantitative survey of a sample of Dutch central government employees and use structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyse the consequences of diversity management across non-native and native Dutch employee groups.

Results show that diversity management is associated with higher levels of inclusion which in turn boosts affective commitment and OCB of both non-native and native Dutch employees.

The findings show that higher levels of diversity management is associated with an increased inclusive environment, which in turn boosts employees’ affective commitment and OCB. This effect is equal for social-demographic diverse groups. Public managers should therefore implement diversity management that focus on creating an environment that is inclusive for all employees. The positive employee attitudes and behaviour resulting from this can contribute to achieving organizational goals.

This paper combines theory on diversity management outcomes and social exchange to empirically explore and explain group differences by testing these linkages using SEM.