Search results

Interest in managing diversity has grown in recent years. From origins in the USA, and initial interest in the idea and ideals of managing diversity, the focus of current attention in managing diversity tends to be on its organisational implications and benefits. This article discusses the concept of managing diversity in relation to service quality, a critical goal and priority for all hospitality organisations. It examines the practicalities and potential of managing diversity. Reference is made to case study analyses of UK hotel chains which indicates that, in this sector, approaches to managing diversity are reasonably well developed and are closely linked to enhanced service quality.

Analyses the notion and value of managing diversity to establish its current theoretical positioning and potential organisational significance. Focuses on a recent case study examination of equality at work in a major, national public sector organisation. Affords an insight into an organisational shift towards managing diversity, through the lens of key organisational stakeholders. Within this case, proposes three emergent practical implications of managing diversity which may have resonance for other public sector organisations.

Academic interest in managing diversity is now developing from conceptual analyses to practical examples. However, the conceptual relationship between managing diversity and equal opportunities remains rather blurred. Perhaps investigation of managing diversity in practice may help bring greater focus to the relationship. This article seeks to bring further insight into the debate on managing diversity in terms of its link with equal opportunities and key dimensions in practice. On the basis of consideration of theoretical perspectives and dimensions of managing diversity, a practical development of managing diversity is discussed in a longitudinal case study of a proactive diversity initiative in BBC Scotland.

Many organizations have implemented various types of initiatives within the last few decades in an effort to deal with diversity. A possible missing vinculum (link) between how an organization deals with diversity and its impact on the bottomline is a corporate diversity strategy that is executed using a planned change approach to systemically manage diversity. While many organizations have implemented a corporate diversity strategy, most have not used a “planned change‐corporate diversity strategy”. The lack of a “planned change‐corporate diversity strategy” is quite likely to inhibit managing diversity from becoming systemic to an organization's culture and its way of doing business, thus tending to disallow the potential benefits of diversity to be maximized. Hence, this paper offers a framework for using a “planned change‐corporate diversity strategy” to: progress along the “diversity continuum” starting with acknowledging to valuing, and ultimately to managing diversity; and systemically managing diversity using a eight‐step “managing diversity process”.

The purpose of this paper is to propose reflexivity as a means to managing diversity practice in organizations. Reflexivity enables taken for granted assumptions about identities, roles, perspectives, language, meanings and understandings between managers and employees to be explored and redefined in ways that matter to the people in the workplace. It provides insights and examples from a practitioner perspective while engaged in designing and implementing a managing diversity initiative. In addition, it positions the development of relationships between managers and employees as a key ingredient in managing diversity.

This paper is based on a post hoc qualitative reflexive study of a managing diversity project undertaken by the author as a diversity practitioner.

The study suggested that reflexivity can allow both managers and employees to critically examine the conventional ways in which diversity and differences are understood, as this awareness can enable more relational approaches to diversity to be developed.

Because of the chosen qualitative research approach, the specific findings cannot be generalized; rather, an example of the potential of reflexivity as practice in organizations is proffered and insights are offered to enable further academic enquiry and practical considerations.

Reflexivity stimulates both independent and shared action-learning sense-making processes which support equal participation. This challenges and expands the diversity agendas prevalent in the applied field of managing diversity. For example, by positioning organizational diversity as an inter-subjective and contextual process, meaningful dialogue between employees and managers becomes possible. Moreover, as reflexivity allows for a range of narrative accounts to emerge from such embedded activities, this approach can serve as a model for similar dialogical processes to occur within the wider organization. In addition, this paper provides insight into how reflexivity as practice for both practitioners and researchers can offer a means for more collaborative relationships to develop at the practitioner/researcher nexus.

The paper endeavors to make a contribution to both the academic and the practitioner managing diversity fields by demonstrating that reflexive practice can add significant value to managing diversity processes in organizations and research.

Looks at the 2000 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference held at the University of Cardiff in Wales on 6/7 September 2000. Spotlights the 76 or so presentations within and shows that these are in many, differing, areas across management research from: retail finance; precarious jobs and decisions; methodological lessons from feminism; call centre experience and disability discrimination. These and all points east and west are covered and laid out in a simple, abstract style, including, where applicable, references, endnotes and bibliography in an easy‐to‐follow manner. Summarizes each paper and also gives conclusions where needed, in a comfortable modern format.

Argues that the discourse of “managing diversity”, emerging from the US management literature, cannot be simply mapped on to organisations in other cultural contexts. It uses the example of Aotearoa/New Zealand to show that a “diversity” based on the demographics and dominant cultural assumptions of the USA fails to address – and may in fact obscure – key local “diversity” issues. It argues that the dominant discourse of “managing diversity” has embedded in it cultural assumptions that are specific to the US management literature. It calls for a genuinely multi‐voiced “diversity” discourse that would focus attention on the local demographics, cultural and political differences that make the difference for specific organisations.

This paper aims to investigate diversity management (DM) practices in China and India by analyzing formal DM policy (if one exists) adopted by the company and informal DM practices adopted by managers. It also aims to discuss the appropriateness of the US‐originated notion of, and approach to, managing diversity in the Indian and Chinese contexts by exploring how local managers make sense of diversity and manage it in a pragmatic way.

The authors adopted a qualitative approach. In particular, through a semi‐structured interview design, qualitative data were collected from 16 Chinese and Indian middle and senior managers and four human resources (HR) director of regional headquarters of foreign multinational firms. The data were supplemented by secondary data from a wide range of sources, including government reports and media coverage to extend contextual understanding.

The paper reveals that most Chinese organizations do not see DM as an issue. Where exists, its focus is on conflict avoidance rather than value‐addition to the business. In contrast, managing diversity in India is of greater significance for firms, both legally and financially. Compared with their Chinese counterparts, the Indian managers are much more familiar with the notion of diversity. They are more informed and articulate about diversity issues in their country and organization. DM as a softer approach to human resource management (HRM) has yet to feature as an espoused HR strategy in Chinese and Indian firms.

The paper shows that the starting point and the process of DM in the Chinese and Indian contexts are different from that in the Western contexts. Institutional contexts and cultural traditions are essential to understanding DM issues and likely solutions. Small sample size in the study may limit the generalization of the findings.

The paper has a number of implications for Western multinational corporations that have operations in China and India and intend to adopt a global HR strategy and roll out their DM initiatives to subsidiaries in different parts of the world. It also has implications for Chinese and Indian owned multinational companies operating in the western contexts.

Sources of discrimination and inequality at both macro and micro levels were identified in China and India. The paper also highlights areas for DM to improve leadership skills and organizational performance. The findings may inform policy making and the formulation of organizational strategy, contributing to the elimination of inequality and enhancing employee commitment and productivity.

The paper fills a gap in the DM literature on China and India through a comparative lens. It highlights the contextual differences in political, economic, cultural and social aspects between China and India and between these two and the Western contexts, including the USA and the UK, where the concept of DM as part of the strategic HRM was originated and popularized.

Affirmative action in the USA, and employment equity in Canada, are policy frameworks that have developed through the use of legislation, regulation and decisions by courts and administrative tribunals, as mechanisms for addressing discrimination in employment. Managing diversity, in contrast, is a voluntary initiative by corporate decision makers, at the level of the firm, in response to the growth of diversity in the workforce and marketplace. Provides a framework for comparing and assessing the three approaches and choosing between them.

The purpose of this paper is to address a significant gap in the line manager, HRM and the diversity management literature, that of exploring the role and significance of emotional labour (EL) in relation to the lived experienced of line managing neurodiversity.

A qualitative approach was used to explore lived experiences of line managers responsible for managing neurodiverse employees. Interviews were conducted with line managers employed in the UK transport industry.

The findings provide rich insights into line managing neurodiversity. A key overall finding is reasonable adjustments deemed essential to support neurodiverse employees require a myriad of hidden, complex, time consuming and often emotionally draining interactions with disabled employees, the employee’s wider team, and HRM and occupational health (OH) practitioners.

This is an exploratory study and therefore limited by nature of the research design, industry focus, scope of study and sample size.

The findings have the potential to inform HRM and OH practitioner support for line managers responsible for managing neurodiverse employees.

The study contributes to wider societal attempts to make employment more inclusive to a range of historically disadvantaged groups.

The study fills an important gap in the HRM literature on line managing neurodiverse employees. The study makes a specific and unique contribution to extensive literatures on line management, disability and EL.