What is the Agency of Diversity Management

The Agency of Diversity Managers in Organizational Change
The article by Tatli and Ozbilgin (2009) identifies three concepts that are essential for understanding the diversity manager’s agency in the organizational change process: these concepts are 1) situatedness, 2) relationality, and 3) praxis. This three-dimensional conceptual framework used to chart the manager’s agency embeds it “in the process of organizational change” (Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2009, p. 247). This paper will provide a synopsis of the article by Tatlie and Ozbilgin (2009) and describe the authors’ conceptual framework in detail and discuss the three concepts used to develop a deeper understanding of the agency of diversity managers in organizational change.
Tatli and Ozbilgin (2009) state that “in our framework, social field of diversity management refers to three historically formed structures at the social level: cultural and demographic dynamics in the labour market; institutional structures regarding diversity and equality (legislation and institutional actors); and the business environment” (p. 248). What this means is that the conceptual framework developed by the authors is rooted in the history of social structures in labor, in institutions, and in business. The first of these—the cultural and demographic dynamics in the labor market—“frame the diversity concerns in a society” (Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2009, p. 248). That is, considering the various historical trajectories of different societies, it is important to realize that some demographics “are socially constructed as the majority or mainstream while others are relegated as minorities or are marginalized” (Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2009, p. 248). Because of this difference, the process of diversity management will vary with the dynamics of the culture that exist in the society and labor market in which the organization is situated at the time. Plus, the manner in which the labor market is constructed bears on the management of diversity as the former represents the need for the latter.
The conceptual framework is also not defined by cultural and demographic dynamics in the labor market but also by the institutional structures of diversity and equality—especially within the context of legislative and institutional acts. As Tatli and Ozbilgin (2009) put it, “the institutional structures that reproduce or combat inequality in the area of employment affect the handling of workforce diversity at the organizational level” (p. 284). This means that diversity managers must be aware of the employment laws in their society—those laws which provide regulatory guidelines on employing persons and preventing discrimination. Likewise, diversity managers must be aware of the role that unions and other professional and legal entities play in representing different stakeholders in the industry.
Finally, the business environment also helps to define the authors’ conceptual framework. Tatli and Ozbilgin (2009) state that “the globalization of business and changing patterns of work organization, production, and competition have led to the rising need for diversity management” (p. 284). As more and more markets from all around the world become interconnected and various players are integrated into the organizational structure as stakeholder—“consumers, consumers, shareholders, employees, the state, trade unions, and diversity and equality institutions”—the need for diversity management of these myriad parts becomes apparent (Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2009, p. 284).
The conceptual framework is also situated in the organizational field as well. The policy on diversity in the organizational will place limits on how effective the diversity manager can be. The policy’s scope, systems, procedures, etc. will on bear on the manager’s ability to manage diversity. The extent to which diversity objectives are integrated will play a role in the manager’s effectiveness. All of this illustrates how the concept of situatedness is manifested in the authors’ framework.
The concepts of relationality and praxis are equally important in the framework, too. Relationality refers to “interdependence, intersubjectivity, and interactivity of individual and organizational phenomena” (Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2009, p. 249). The way that the self, others and the structures relate to one another all impact the diversity manager’s agency. This can also be described as micro-level relationality, meso-level relationality, and macro-level relationality—the self, other and structural levels, respectively. In terms of praxis—“defined as reflexive action and actionable knowledge”—the diversity manager’s agency is impacted by “individual capacity to learn and exert influence through a virtuous cycle of reflection and action” (Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2009, p. 251). Learning and exerting influence depends on the diversity manager’s ability to implement doxa, capitals and strategies—i.e., experiencing the preconstructed representation of the world and its underlying meaning; engaging with the human and social workplace capital; and utilizing the cycle of reflection to “strategically deploy the forms of capital that they possess in order to exert influence in their organizations” (Tatli & Ozbilgin, 2009, p. 252). In this manner, the concepts of relationality and praxis are implemented within the authors’ conceptual framework, joining the concept of situatedness to provide the meaning and structure attending to the agency of diversity managers in a workplace environment that has become increasingly globalized and diverse today.
References
Tatli, A., Ozbilgin, M. (2009). Understanding diversity managers’ role in organizational
change: Towards a conceptual framework. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26, 244-258.