|
|
|
|
|
3rd Sem. ITM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Diversity management
Development from Intercultural Management -> Multicultural Management -> Diversity Management Two cultures contact -> several cultures interaction -> holistic approach to differences
Sometimes reduced to HRM aspect. But D.M. includes also relations to customers, suppliers, POS partners, institutions etc.
idm (int. society for diversity management): What is Diversity? Diversity refers to the experience of human differences and commonalities, an experience which is increasingly becoming relevant to people’s daily lives in the 21st century. In order to be successful, all kinds of organisations (business, public administration, NGOs etc.) are obligated to confront the issues involving diversity internally, among management and staff, and externally in their environments (customers, suppliers, contractors etc.). What is Diversity Management?The purpose of Diversity Management is to tap into the positive potential of diversity and transform this potential into a reality. Organisations are reassessing their structures and processes in light of equal opportunity. Awareness of diversity and competence in its management are necessary prerequisites for success. Many business and other organisations have already developed diversity management programs with some success. Having originated in the US in the early 1980s, DM is to some extent already established in many organisations. Also, in Europe organisationsare learning to use diversity as an advantage. Valuing differences makes the difference for success! BackgroundDiversity Management is a young management discipline, which originated out of a maze of many different historical currents and social issues. In the USA Diversity Management is still associated (rightly or wrongly) with "affirmative action" and "equal opportunity" in multi-cultural (ethnicity, race, gender, sexual preference, etc.) contexts. In Europe the emphasis has been more on the management of language and national differences as well as equal opportunity for women (gender mainstreaming). Both in Europe and in the USA there seems to be movement away from Equal Opportunity (or in German "Chancengleichheit"), which often, albeit sometimes unintentionally, leads to quotas and pressupposes assimilation as the main adaptation principle, toward a more systematic, positive, organizational approach of diversity management, toward appreciation of diversity and the conscious striving toward a scientific as well as ethical and results-oriented approach. This approach, however, is not easy to put into practice. Conflicts and social issues obviously cannot be overlooked as they are embedded in their complexity and contexts. This complexity entails the fine tuning and nimble use of different tools for dealing with it, and for describing and assessing each unique diversity constellation of any particular organization, community, region or country. For example, in South Africa diversity takes on a dif-ferent form than in Germany. The different historical and social roots of the South African and German diversities have to be deeply respected and taken seriously. There are no simple recipes. As a consequence, inspite of difficulties in overcoming complexity, DM has to assume that people are able and willing to change themselves and their thinking, and thereby define and redefine diversity in a positive light. How can such changes be initiated? What are the political implications? Again, we have not got easy answers but there is one important point we would like to keep in mind. Complex systems often react counterintuitively to the attempts at managing or controlling them. To some extent this was the case of "affirmative action" which has consciously been considered very political. Management meant management of problems and conflicts because some demanded changes and others reacted politically, relying on different perceptions of social justice. Consequently, conflict management was the way to manage. Intercultural conflict management, as it was and still is known, often involves managers' collecting tools in a toolbox to deal with cultures as reified, foreign identities. Modern diversity management does not necessarily see cultures as fixed entities which repel against one another. Rather, the emphasis is on a meeting of different cultures, co-cultures, genders, age groups and other diverse groups and individuals from all directions in a cooperative, dynamic, creative, challenging process. In this more dynamic, complex light, IDM attempts to develop more sophisticated, theoretical frameworks to bring about better results in organizations and at the same time retain a sense of justice and understanding. And, furthermore, it is holistic in the sense that this broader framework includes conflict resolution and intervention tools; it includes the toolbox to maintain the "machinery" of organizations and the vast variety of possibilities for functioning (and to avert dysfunctioning) in an equally vast variety of types and unique, organizational identities (hospitals, retirement homes, IT Services, textile exports, pharmaceuticals, chemistry industry, government administration, the Red Cross, UNESCO, police, etc.), often further involved in some sort of cross-identity or cooperation (mergers, acquisition, joint ventures, government contracting, etc.). Diversity management looks at the productive side of diversity of all actors incl. sources, employees, customers, institutional partners. Diversity management includes cultural differences according to cultural group (nationality) but also according to gender, age, position, experience, special skills etc.
FOUR
DIMENSIONS OF DIVERSITY - EXAMPLE UNIVERSITY PERSONALITY (inner
circle)
ORGANISATIONAL DIMENSIONS (outer
circle)
Basic approach Hofstede´s Five-Dimensions Model
Culture, understood as the accumulation of shared meanings, rituals, norms and traditions among members of an organisation or society, is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes members of one group or society from those of another.
Therefore culture is not a phenomenon in its own right. It is the difference perceived, and only then perceived, by one group when it comes into contact with and observes another one. It is important to point out that the idea of pure cultures meeting in intercultural exchanges without much knowledge about the other culture is outdated. Today almost everybody outside a given culture has some information and knowledge about that culture, however superficial.
CULTURE AS AN ICEBERG
The foundation for most cross-cultural interpretation is the work of Geert Hofstede. He developed with the help of large-scale samples starting in the 1970s cultural index scores for five constructs: Power distance, Uncertainty avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Feminity and Long term/Short term orientation.
These dimension are acquired through “mental programming”, learned patterns of thinking, feeling and potential acting.
Three level of uniqueness are distinguished: The inherited universal human nature, the learned culture specific to certain societies or groups within a society, and the inherited and learned individual personality.
Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions with scores for China, Japan, USA and Switzerland (lowest possible score 1, highest possible score 118)
Consequences Example:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Please form two groups. Each
group should develop a marketing plan: How should a marketing campaign by the German National Tourism Board (DZT) to bring more Australian visitors to Germany be planned in the light of the ideas of Diversity Management and Hofstedes dimensions? Please include ideas about communication within DZT, with Australian potential customers, with Australian partners (tour operators, airlines, media etc.), with German partners (incoming agencies, DMOs etc.) and others. In the third unit both groups have about 30 min. each to present their campaign. We will then compare and discuss both results. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "The Geert Hofstede analysis for Australia reflects the high
level of individuality Australian's hold dear. The Individualism (IDV) index for
Australia is 90, the second highest score of any country in Hofstede’s survey,
behind the United States' ranking of 91. This individuality is reinforced in Australian’s daily lives and must be considered when traveling and doing business in their Country. Privacy is considered the cultural norm and attempts at personal ingratiating may meet with rebuff. Power Distance (PDI) is relatively low, with an index of 36, compared to the world average of 55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal levels, including government, organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces a cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment." itim 2007 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contact:
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Georg Arlt, Study Program Director |
|
