Search results

This chapter is partially based on an unpublished Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) background report, titled ‘OECD Research Project on Diversity in the Workplace: Country Report Germany’, which was written by the authors of this chapter. While the OECD country report illustrates how diversity policies and related diversity instruments targeting various diversity dimensions have developed in Germany over recent decades, this chapter focuses solely on the management of ethnic diversity and its related policies. Diversity policies are broadly understood as any policy that seeks to increase the representation of disadvantaged social groups such as migrants and ethnic minorities, women, disabled persons, older workers and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, intersex and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ) in the workplace, both in the public and in the private sector. The central idea of this chapter is to provide an overview of which policies and instruments have been implemented for migrants and ethnic minorities at the workplace and to evaluate their success or failure where possible. In doing so, this chapter also discusses obstacles, success factors and challenges for policy implementation for the past and for the future.

This chapter focuses on the management of ethnic diversity and investigates Diversity Management practices in an organization which is a member of the Diversity Charta in Germany and even won a prize for its outstanding Diversity Management initiatives. However, this chapter illustrates that in this company Diversity Management can only be understood as window dressing, rather than as a serious attempt to manage diversity and particularly ethnic diversity. The case study data derives from a larger study, which examined the habitus of managing ethnic diversity in Germany. The case study data consists of observations, interviews with key internal stuff as well as employees, a focus group, documentary analysis of company data (policies, annual reports, brochures, as well as employee statistics), information about company history and lastly visual data in the form of pictures.

The unanticipated disruption caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic led to the extensive use of flexible working arrangements. In such a boundaryless work environment, however there are significant concerns, especially around inclusivity and discrimination. Given the increasing concerns surrounding hybrid and remote work settings, the authors investigated whether the extent of working in substantially flexible working arrangements relates to employees’ perceived ostracism and inequality, distinguishing between working from home, in a hybrid mode or from the office. In addition, the authors theorised that in flexible working arrangements, high-quality leader relationships, such as leader–member exchange (LMX) and servant leadership are likely to reduce perceptions of ostracism and inequality. Based on a survey of 161 professionals, who worked to varying degrees in flexible working arrangements, the authors found that employees who worked extensively in a hybrid mode were less likely to report experiences of ostracism and inequality in comparison to employees who worked mainly from home or in an office. Furthermore, a moderation analysis showed that the effects of LMX and servant leadership on perceptions of ostracism and inequality were much stronger for individuals who work in hybrid working arrangements than those who work at the office or from home. This research makes an important contribution to our understanding of how different degrees of flexible working arrangements affect employees by demonstrating the role of high-quality leader relationships in reducing perceptions of ostracism and inequality at different degrees of work flexibility.