Search results

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.

Most publications on the management of diversity in Western countries pay homage to history by referring back to the way regulatory frameworks developed to promote equal treatment and to oppose discrimination. In work on English speaking countries, particular attention has been given to the struggles waged in the USA for civil rights and for gender equality in the 1960s and their impact on the emergence of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws and policies. Generally, these developments are depicted as the antecedents to the emergence of diversity management in the USA. This genealogical orientation is usually designed to establish historical foundations. However, as we see it, this approach to history has promoted an impression of linear evolution. Our general aim in this chapter is to show how an historical perspective can help uncover continuities in regard to equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and diversity management policies and strategies in Australia, particularly in relation to the management of cultural diversity in Australian workplaces. Rather than seeing development in linear terms, our aim is to highlight connections and the implications of such connections. Accordingly, this chapter relates each of these policies/strategies to analogous political and legal developments that emerged concurrently, in particular such initiatives as multiculturalism, anti-discrimination laws and what became known in Australia as ‘productive diversity’ policies.

This chapter aims to expose the reader to the notion that mandated diversity and inclusion changes intended to vary the composition of institutions of learning has not accomplished its goal. Rather, it has triggered a complex mix of reactions from the very people for whom the policy was designed to assist and from those who work under the policy. As society is molded to meet diversity targets, salient threats from dominant groups directed toward minority groups result in interpersonal conflict. This chapter explores the benefits that instructors receive from professional development activities centered on diversity. It examines the social identity conflict that is created when different minded people work together. It provides insight into the benefits of approaching social identity conflict with a conflict transformation perspective. This chapter exposes the reality that, while the words one speaks are respectful and inclusive, one’s actions may be totally different. Educators must exhibit an overarching commitment to the making of decisions on integrity and evidence rather than impressions. This chapter discusses the importance of the role of educators as moral leaders and the need for educators to create inclusive classrooms where diversity is celebrated.

Social policy in the UK has subsumed race inequality into a wider framework of inequalities, managing diversity and social exclusion. However, the David Bennett Inquiry and the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) have placed ‘race’ firmly back onto the policy agenda, particularly within mental health services. In response to the Inquiry and as part of a wider strategy, the Department of Health has set out proposals to improve mental health services to black and minority ethnic (BME) communities. Although there is a long history of race equality training to address race inequality in public services in the UK, the definition and effectiveness of race equality training remains unclear.This paper presents an overview of approaches to training in the UK, the evidence of effectiveness and explores whether cultural competency is an appropriate and adequate framework to address race inequality.

The article builds upon recent developments in feminist theories as they were adopted in organization studies to review the state of research into women in MNCs and to offer new directions for the study of MNCs as “gendering organizations,” both as they are shaped by gender relations and are active agents in constructing gender categories, division of labor, images, and inequalities. Juxtaposing insights from gender studies and International Business and Management, the article offers a new agenda for the studies of corporate internationalization and its social consequences.

This study used a scenario design to examine whether there are different reactions among whites based on how a diversity program is justified by an organization. A reactive justification (affirmative action) was proposed to result in greater backlash than a competitive advantage justification (diversity management). In addition, this study examined the effects of personal and group outcomes on backlash and explored two individual difference variables, gender and orientation toward other ethnic groups, as potential moderators of the proposed relationships. Backlash was operationalized in four ways: an affect‐based measure (negative emotions), two cognitive‐based measures (attitude toward the diversity program, perceptions of unfairness of promotion procedures), and a behavioral‐intentions‐based measure (organizational commitment). Results indicated that the diversity management justification was associated with more favorable support of the diversity initiative, and that unfavorable personal and group outcomes adversely affected backlash reactions. There was no empirical support for the influence of the moderator variables on the proposed relationships, however, a main effect for gender was found. Implications of the study's findings and future research directions are discussed.

Managing cultural diversity in the workplace and attempts to abolish affirmative action are emerging as some of the most important issues facing American business in the 90s. The relationship between affirmative action and diversity may start in their definitions. Affirmative action was born during the Civil Rights Movement in an effort to reverse the effects of generations of racial discrimination (the concept and the laws which governed it broadened over the years to include women and other traditionally disadvantaged groups). It is federally mandated law to combat discrimination. Diversity on the other hand, is an organisational effort that aims to modify organisation standards, procedures, and management practices that hinder creativity, productivity, and advancement of all employees.

Affirmative action and diversity management are complementary efforts to achieve an inclusive workforce. Research on attitudes toward affirmative action can therefore contribute to an understanding of reactions to diversity programs. Using data from two studies, we assess the extent to which the strength of the affirmative action plan (AAP) influences the relationship between attitudes and individual difference predictors. The relation of attitudes with the respondents’ race and perceived self-interest increased monotonically with AAP strength, whereas measures of racial prejudice and political orientation best predicted attitudes toward AAPs of intermediate strength. We explore the implications of these findings for the theory and practice of diversity management.

The term managing diversity is increasingly being used by Australian managers. It is a process which involves more than compliance with affirmative action legislation. This article identifies the major philosophical principles underpinning diversity management, the major ways in which it differs from affirmative action and the arguments for a diversity management approach. The process of building a culture which explicitly values differences between inidividuals operates at three levels: the strategic level, the managerial level and the operational level. The last section of the article examines some of the techniques which can be used at these three levels to effectively manage diversity. Examples from Australian organisations are used to illustrate these techniques.