NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... th the integration of each individual culture that exists in various groups. Three methods can facilitate this. The assimilation process is the act of adopting a set of values that is most prominent in the organization. In this process, one takes on the values and norms of another culture, and leaves their own behind.
The pluralism process consists of adopting values and norms from each other. The third process, cultural separatism, exists with very little adaptation by either side (Cox, Jr. 353 - 366). &# 61623; Structural Integration: When an organization takes a look into the cultural mix, levels, and various workgroups, and tries to create an environment where all can co-exist. This would create a presence of the various cultural groups within one organization, with very little integration by any one party. &# 61623; Information Integration: This concept identifies the valuable work-related contacts made outside the work setting. This informal network includes activities which would involve minority-culture members for social integration (Cox, Jr. , 353 - 366). &# 61623; Cultural Biases: This concept consists of two bases, prejudice and discrimination.
Prejudice breeds when negative attitudes exist and can cause organizations to place people at a disadvantage. When practiced by a major group, its impact is far worse than when practiced by minority culture members. Discrimination, which is brought about by ones prejudices, is the hostile, observable actions taken by certain members of the organization. &# 61623; Organizational Identification: This occurs on an individual level. An individual will identify and define ones self within their own organization.
Depending on the culture, levels of identity can be seen in the members behavior. &# 61623; Inter-group conflict: This is the inter-group conflict that is referred to as levels of culture-group-based tensions and interpersonal friction. Inter-group conflict can actually be an asset in an organization until increased differences occur. When this happens, between minority-group members with others, there follows a reduction of cohesiveness and communication (Cox, Jr. ). A third author who presents her own organizational theory, Joan Acker, describes gender processes in organizations. The term gender processes means the advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity, are patterned through, and in terms of, a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine. Social norms and folkways of past traditions find their way into the organization (Acker, 1990).
Organizations are structured and designed by the dominant groups, usually the white male, to fit their own needs. Gender processes have to include race and class of women, because white males are usually at the top level of the organization. Male dominance has become ingrained in, and perpetuated by, societal norms; it is strongly traditional and patriarchal. Along these same lines is the gender-neutral organization. Although organizations can no longer say that women should apply only for specific jobs, the thought and biases of these past actions remain. Gender processes involve symbols, images, and forms of consciousness that justify, and very rarely prevent, gender diversions.
Top level people are perceived as strong, aggressive, rational, and competitive. Western cultures have developed the male to fit nicely into this role. From the time they are born, they are taught certain learned behavioral male traits such as; bravery, aggressiveness, rationality, and indepen! dence. Women, on the other hand, are taught or perceived to be weaker, irrational, and anti-competitive. For generations, women have been trying to change this stereotypical image that has held them down in the workforce for years.
This attitude has cost organizations talent and creativity at all levels (Acker). Gender has a third process which has to do with interactions such as women to women, women to men, and men to men, that promote the action of dominance and subordination. This attitude of these various relations sometimes creates exclusions of some individuals and alliances with others. Until we can look at one another in a gender-neutral way, this has a tendency to interfere in our various work settings. Her fourth process of gendering consists of the mental maps people tend to build on their organizational environment as they acquire an understanding of how the company works.
From here, one learns how to get ahead. This sometimes includes sexual power games. Gender neutrality does not work and society cannot expect to exclude ones genetic make up. Unfortunately, this tends to develop a gender substructure within the organization and in society, again holding womens capabilities below those of men (Acker).
Two other theorists that encompass the previous principles and dimensions, are David Thomas and Robin Ely, of the Harvard Business School. They also provide a framework that takes into consideration the classical, human resource, political, and symbolic views of diversity. Their theory creates a change in paradigm which promotes integration as the new way to manage diversity. They believe that the influence of race, gender, ethnicity, age, and other dimensions described previously can be realized through two perspectives that have guided diversity programs. One perspective, the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm resembles the old classical view. The second perspective, the access-legitimacy-paradigm best parallels the human resource view (Thomas, Ely).
Thomas and Ely's perspective on diversity should be understood as the varied perspectives and approaches to work that people from different groups bring. The perspectives are called paradigms. The historic way of examining diversity is what the two men describe as the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm. It is a narrower view of the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity requirements.
An excellent example of this structure would be the military, with their bureaucratic and structured, control and reward mechanisms. The paradigms basis of logic is as follows: Prejudice has kept members of certain demographic groups out of organizations such as ours. As a matter of fairness, and to comply with federal mandates, we need to work toward restructuring the makeup of our organization to let it more closely reflect that of society. We need managerial processes that ensure all employees are treated equally and with respect, and that they are not given unfair advantage over others. The operation of this paradigm treats everyone the same.
The organization would conduct itself as though everyone was of the same race, gender, nationality, physical ability, and so on. The employee must assimilate and comply with organizational structure, strategy, attitudes, and culture. The discrimination-and fairness-paradigm does not understand and investigate peoples differences or potential, and is totally blind to prejudice and discrimination. As Acker's theory suggests, this is a gender-neutral paradigm.
Thomas and Ely believe that the access-and-legitimacy paradigm has become the trend for the rational of human diversity. This paradigm resembles the political, the symbolic, and the human-side frames of the companies that emerged. It was developed as a base to celebrate differences and encourage acceptance of racial, sexual, and ethnic distinctness. The fundamental purpose of this paradigm can be expressed this way: We are living in an increasingly multicultural country, and new ethnic groups are quickly gaining consumer power. Our company needs a greater demographically diverse workforce to help us gain access to these differentiated segments. We need employees with multilingual skills in order to understand and serve our customers better, and to gain legitimacy with them.
Diversity isnt just fair; it makes business sense. This paradigm suggests that while organizations go after a niche, the access-and- legitimacy organization emphasizes the role of cultural differences, but does not examine and understand how these differences actually help to get jobs accomplished. These organizations operate in the best interest of the company, rather than the welfare of the employees. This often leads individuals to feel exploited and restricted from functioning at their highest levels (Thomas, Ely).
Thomas and Ely describe another paradigm that they term the new emerging paradigm. This paradigm connects diversity to work perspective. It also resembles Cox, Jrs integration framework, Acker's theory, and the diagram of the fourteen dimensions used by Pfeiffer and Company. This new paradigm recognizes that employees frequently make decisions and choices at work that draw upon their cultural background - choices made because of their identity or group affiliations. The companies viewpoint is to incorporate the employees perspectives into their jobs.
Multicultural racial groups handle this by trying to enhance the companies work by rethinking certain tasks and by redefining markets, products, strategies, missions, business practices, and organizational culture itself. Thomas and Ely describe this shift as the learning-and-effectiveness paradigm, in which companies and workers actually become connected and dig into the benefits of diversity (Thomas, Ely). This paradigm goes beyond many others in that it over-extends into assimilation. The idea of this paradigm is to achieve a demographically representative work force where everyone is treated exactly the same.
The access-and-legitimacy paradigm can be described as over-extending itself into uniting differentiation. In all actuality, it is trying to place different individuals where their predestined demographic characteristics would correspond with those of constituents and markets. In contrast, the learning-and-effectiveness paradigm also extends into the theme of integration. This model helps the organization internalize differences among employees so that it learns and grows because of them.
Ultimately, individuals can say they are all on one team with their differences, not in conflict in spite of them. One must understand that it is never an easy task to develop a certain diversity paradigm, or to change from an existing one that doesnt work. There are several preconditions that should exist, they are: The leadership must understand that the diverse workforce will embody different perspectives and approaches to work, and must truly value variety of opinion and insight. The leadership must recognize both the learning opportunities and the challenges that the expression of different perspectives presents for an organization. The organizational culture must create an expectation of high standards for performance from everyone. The organizational culture must stimulate personal development.
The organizational culture must encourage openness. The organizational culture must make workers feel valued. The organization must have a well-articulated and widely understood mission. And the organization must have a relatively egalitarian, non-bureaucratic structure.
And finally, to put these in action: Organizations need to make a mental connection. 2 They must encourage openness of discussions. They must strive to go against actions that dominate and subordinate and that prevent employees from being active contributors. Trust is kept alive and progressive for everyone. A high level of commitment is mandatory to develop and establish learning fields. The mental map and vision of a diverse workforce must be clear and concise and above all, recognized by everyone that prejudice will not be tolerated.
As you will see in the following examples of present day actions and accusations, the discrimination issue is still at the forefront, and costing many companies a large sum of money. Are they all guilty? Or are some companies also becoming scapegoats for the money mongers? Diversification theory is constantly influencing contemporary management issues. A number of large corporations have suffered the consequences of discrimination in their management structure, and these companies make excellent examples of the impact of diversification theory. The Publix supermarket chain felt the influence of diversification theory in 1996.
Over one hundred thousand past and present female employees of the company filed a sex discrimination suit which charged, that Publix hires women into dead-end, low-wage jobs and blocks them from the stock and clerk positions that would put them on a management track. (Business Week 1996, 32). They substantiated their charge with some significant statistics about the management structure of the supermarket chain. It is important to keep in mind that deli positions rarely lead to management positions, and are viewed as dead-end jobs in the organization. The following chart illustrates the disparity of employment within the organization (Business Week 1996, 32): Managerial Position Percent Female Maximum Weekly Pay Store Manager 2 % $ 820 Meat Department 1 % $ 640 Produce Department 2 % $ 590 Bakery 20 % $ 630 Deli 90 % $ 600 Employees charged that Publix's overall management structure includes only 21 % women, compared with the national supermarket average of 40 %. In addition, male employees wages were 35 % higher than comparable wages for females (Business Week 1996, 32). These statistics suggest that Publix's management strategy ignored females, and created an environment that discouraged or blocked the advancement of women.
Although Publix acknowledged the statistics, they did make a strong argument that they are not completely responsible for the management structure in their stores. The argument was, that most female employees choose not to take career-track jobs in part because of the long hours. (Business Week 1996, 32). They substantiated this argument with affidavits from over 6, 000 female workers, stating that they had not experienced discrimination during their employment. It is also very interesting that Publix has an excellent reputation as an employer. In 1993, Publix was listed as one of the 100 best companies to work for in America. (New York Times 1997, 2) Ultimately, Publix agreed to pay $ 81. 5 million to settle the lawsuit, mainly in order to reduce negative publicity caused by the suit.
They admitted no wrongdoing, and reiterated that they are complying with all applicable employment laws. (New York Times 1997, 1). With the settlement, Publix agreed to allow all female employees to submit applications, stating their interest in becoming part of the management team. In addition, Publix agreed to promote women in equal proportions to men as long as they meet the qualifications for the subject jobs. (New York Times 1997, 3). Diversification theory also had a very large impact on the Texaco corporation.
A class action suit, Roberts v. Texaco, was filed in June 1994 charging discrimination based on race (Newsweek 1996, 49). The suit charged that in 1994, only four of the top four hundred ninety eight executives in the company were black, and cited various instances of discrimination by management. The case began in a non-descript manner, and the publicity involved was very minimal.
Initially, Texaco failed to react to the suit, preferring to allow its legal council to fight the court battle, with the belief that they would not be found to be at fault. This attitude changed drastically in 1996, when taped conversations of management revealed that Texaco was withholding incriminating evidence of discrimination. The taped conversations of management using racist language, and incriminating documents were the evidence necessary to bring the suit to the attention of the nation, and to Texaco's ch! airman Peter Bijur.
Bijur expressed what was viewed by many people as a very sincere apology for the actions of the company, and agreed to the largest ever settlement in a race discrimination case. (New York Times 1997, 14). The settlement included a lump-sum payment of $ 176 million, along with assurances that Texaco would improve its record on diversity. In response to the settlement, Texaco has set quotas for the hiring and promotion of minorities. Texaco managers who meet the quotas will be rewarded, and likewise, those who fail to meet the goals will be penalized. Over 1, 000 black employees were given an 11 % pay increase, and monitoring provisions were established to allow outsiders to monitor the companys progress. (New York Times 1997, 14). Texaco has also established a board committee on diversity that is designed to help the organization improve its image and record on diversity (Business Week 1996, 39).
The experiences of both Texaco and Publix are not unique. In September 1997, Home Depot, a large home improvement dealer, settled a discrimination suit with its female employees for over $ 87 million (New York Times 1997, 7). This is another case where a company known as a good employer was sued for not promoting females in the same proportion as males. This trend of employee groups suing employers is on the increase, with the number of such cases up by over 100 % since 1995 (New York Times 1997, 3) The impact on management theory from this type of this type of litigation is significant. Statistics show that in the corporate business world, whites monopolize management and professional positions. The following chart published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1994, illustrates the current disparity in employment: Tools such as diversity training have shown very limited success historically, and the changes in corporate philosophy need support from the overall body of employees.
Texaco had a diversity training program for over three years prior to the recent settlement (Business Week 1996, 39), and the effectiveness of the program is very questionable. The financial consequences of these suits have grabbed the attention of the management of large corporations, and diversity has become a top priority in many companies. A balance needs to be reached, where corporations can reach a point where the diversity issue no longer is a polarizing issue. This balance will only be reached with a gradual education process for all of society. It is very important that constructive results are achieved in the future, and progress will not be judged with additional quotas established by corporations that intend only to avoid the financial consequences of litigation. Acker, Joan.
Gendering Organizational Theory. Gendering Organizational Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc. 1992. Pp. 248 - 260. Adams, John L. Business Supports Work-Family Programs.
from speech to National Council of Jewish Women, Juggling Job and Family September 1993. Pp 254 - 261. Barr, Edward E. Apprenticeships Would Increase Opportunities for Youths. from speech to New York University School of Business, Ramping Up The American Economy 9 February 1993: 219 - 227.
Bresler, Robert J. Affirmative Action on the Rocks. USA Today July. 1996: 7. Byars, Lloyd L. and Leslie W.
Rue. Human Resource Management. United States: Times Mirror Higher Education Group, Inc. , 1997. Campbell, Geoffrey A.
The World Book Year Book. Chicago: World Book, Inc. , 1996. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Document #: PL 88 - 352. 2 July, 1964. web (1 Nov, 1997) Eck, Diana L. Challenge of Pluralism Nieman Reports God in the Newsroom Summer 1993: vol.
XLVII, no. 2 1 - 11. Eichenwald, Kurt. Report Says 3 Executives Misled Texaco New York Times 15 July. 1997 Pp 19 Equal Opportunity Act of 1972. Jan. 6, 1997. web (Oct. 14, 1997).
Fierman, Jaclyn. Business Does Not Adequately Support Work-Family Programs. Are Companies Less Family-Friendly? , Fortune, 21 March 1994: 262 - 268. web (1 Nov. 1997). Hair, Penda D. Color Blind Or Just Blind.
The Nation. October 14. 1996: 12. Harris, Nichole. Revolt At The Deli Counter.
Business Week 1 April. 1996 Kantor, Harvey. Apprenticeships Would Reduce Opportunities for Youths. The Hollow Promise of Youth Apprenticeship, Rethinking Schools, Autumn 1993, vol. 8, no. 1 228 - 236. Krauthammer, Charles.
An Orwellian Assault on Democracy. Time December 9. 1996: 94. Lewin, Tamar. Women Losing Ground to Men In Widening Income Difference. New York Times 15 September. 1997 Pp 1 Mergenhagfen, Paula. Enabling the Disabled Employee.
American Demographics. July 1997. Meyers, Gerald & Susan. Texaco's Hasty Apology. New York Times 12 January. 1997 Pp 14 - 15 Mogelonsky, Marcia. Naturalized Americans.
American Demographics. March 1997. Myerson, Allen R. Supermarket Chain To Pay $ 81 Million To Settle a Bias Suit New York Times 25 January. 1997 Pp 1 Home Depot Pays $ 87. 5 Million For Not Promoting More Women New York Times 20 September. 1997 Pp 7 N.
O. W. (National Organization for Women). Equal Rights Amendment. web (6 Nov. , 1997).
Pagan, Jose A. , and Davila Alberto. Obesity; Occupational Attainment, and Earnings. Social Science Quarterly. University of Texas Press. Vol. 78. No. 3, Sept. 1997.
Pfeiffer & Company Consulting. 1996 Annual: Vol. 2, Consulting. Diagram of the Fourteen Dimensions of Diversity by Loden M. , and J. Rosener. Workforce America!
Managing Employee Diversity As a Vital Resource. Illinois: Irwin, Pp. 20. (1991). Reese, Shelly. When Whites Arent a Mass Market. American Demographics. March 1997.
Reich, Robert B. Training Programs Will Benefit U. S. Workers. From speech to Center for National Policy, Getting American to Work: Whats Working and Whats Not Working in Workforce Policy 27 January 1994: 41 - 47. Robbins, Stephen P.
Foundations of Individual Behavior. Organizational Behavior. (1996). Pp 83 - 86. Rowe, Mary P. Fostering Diversity: Some Major Hurdles Remain. //humanity. ucsb.
edu / projects /aa / docs /Chang e 6. html 7 October 1997: 1 - 7. S. A.
D. P. (Students Against Discrimination and Preferences). Proposition 209 in Federal Court. Nov. 3, 1997. web (1 Nov. , 1997). Sandburg, Carl.
Abraham Lincoln: The War Years. Vol. 2. New York: Harcourt, Brace Solomon, Jolie. Texaco's Troubles. Newsweek 25 November. 1996 The Hall of Public Service. Interview with Rosa parks.
June 2, 1995. web (6 Nov. 1997). Thomas, David A. , and Robin J. Ely.
Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review. Sept/Oct 1996. Yates, William T. Equity Management: Affirmative Action for the 21 st Century. //humanity. ucsb.
eu / projects /aa / docs /Change 7. html 7 October 1997: 1 - 4. Bibliography: CITED REFERENCES Acker, Joan. Gendering Organizational Theory. Gendering Organizational Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc. 1992.
Pp. 248 - 260. Adams, John L. Business Supports Work-Family Programs. from speech to National Council of Jewish Women, Juggling Job and Family September 1993. Pp 254 - 261.
Barr, Edward E. Apprenticeships Would Increase Opportunities for Youths. from speech to New York University School of Business, Ramping Up The American Economy 9 February 1993: 219 - 227. Bresler, Robert J. Affirmative Action on the Rocks. USA Today July. 1996: 7.
Byars, Lloyd L. and Leslie W. Rue. Human Resource Management. United States: Times Mirror Higher Education Group, Inc. , 1997. Campbell, Geoffrey A.
The World Book Year Book. Chicago: World Book, Inc. , 1996. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Document #: PL 88 - 352. 2 July, 1964. web (1 Nov, 1997) Eck, Diana L. Challenge of Pluralism Nieman Reports God in the Newsroom Summer 1993: vol.
XLVII, no. 2 1 - 11. Eichenwald, Kurt. Report Says 3 Executives Misled Texaco New York Times 15 July. 1997 Pp 19 Equal Opportunity Act of 1972. Jan. 6, 1997.
web (Oct. 14, 1997). Fierman, Jaclyn. Business Does Not Adequately Support Work-Family Programs. Are Companies Less Family-Friendly? , Fortune, 21 March 1994: 262 - 268.
FindLaw. Black Codes web (1 Nov. 1997). Hair, Penda D. Color Blind Or Just Blind. The Nation.
October 14. 1996: 12. Harris, Nichole. Revolt At The Deli Counter. Business Week 1 April. 1996 Kantor, Harvey. Apprenticeships Would Reduce Opportunities for Youths. The Hollow Promise of Youth Apprenticeship, Rethinking Schools, Autumn 1993, vol. 8, no. 1 228 - 236.
Krauthammer, Charles. An Orwellian Assault on Democracy. Time December 9. 1996: 94. Lewin, Tamar. Women Losing Ground to Men In Widening Income Difference. New York Times 15 September. 1997 Pp 1 Mergenhagfen, Paula.
Enabling the Disabled Employee. American Demographics. July 1997. Meyers, Gerald & Susan. Texaco's Hasty Apology. New York Times 12 January. 1997 Pp 14 - 15 Mogelonsky, Marcia.
Naturalized Americans. American Demographics. March 1997. Myerson, Allen R. Supermarket Chain To Pay $ 81 Million To Settle a Bias Suit New York Times 25 January. 1997 Pp 1 Home Depot Pays $ 87. 5 Million For Not Promoting More Women New York Times 20 September. 1997 Pp 7 N. O.
W. (National Organization for Women). Equal Rights Amendment. web (6 Nov. , 1997). Pagan, Jose A. , and Davila Alberto. Obesity; Occupational Attainment, and Earnings. Social Science Quarterly.
University of Texas Press. Vol. 78. No. 3, Sept. 1997. Pfeiffer & Company Consulting. 1996 Annual: Vol. 2, Consulting. Diagram of the Fourteen Dimensions of Diversity by Loden M. , and J. Rosener.
Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity As a Vital Resource. Illinois: Irwin, Pp. 20. (1991). Reese, Shelly. When Whites Arent a Mass Market.
American Demographics. March 1997. Reich, Robert B. Training Programs Will Benefit U. S. Workers.
From speech to Center for National Policy, Getting American to Work: Whats Working and Whats Not Working in Workforce Policy 27 January 1994: 41 - 47. Robbins, Stephen P. Foundations of Individual Behavior. Organizational Behavior. (1996). Pp 83 - 86. Rowe, Mary P.
Fostering Diversity: Some Major Hurdles Remain. //humanity. ucsb. edu / projects /aa / docs /Chang e 6. html 7 October 1997: 1 - 7. S. A.
D. P. (Students Against Discrimination and Preferences). Proposition 209 in Federal Court. Nov. 3, 1997.
web (1 Nov. , 1997). Sandburg, Carl. Abraham Lincoln: The War Years. Vol. 2. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company. 1939 Solomon, Jolie. Texaco's Troubles.
Newsweek 25 November. 1996 The Hall of Public Service. Interview with Rosa parks. June 2, 1995. web (6 Nov. 1997). Thomas, David A. , and Robin J. Ely.
Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review. Sept/Oct 1996. Yates, William T.
Equity Management: Affirmative Action for the 21 st Century. //humanity. ucsb. eu / projects /aa / docs /Change 7. html 7 October 1997: 1 - 4.
Free research essays on topics related to: diverse workforce, organizational, harcourt brace, paradigm, diversity
Research essay sample on Harcourt Brace Diverse Workforce
