Diversity Management: Ethnicity, Culture, and Gender at Work

Introduction

Diversity is widely considered to be a beneficial quality when found in a business or professional organization. It promotes greater nuance in perspective, a wider pool of contributing talent, and a personnel that should naturally produce a harmonious cross-cultural organizational atmosphere. This is not always the reality, unfortunately. The opportunities relating to organizational diversity are many, but so are the challenges. Indeed, for management and leadership, it should be considered a goal not just to improve diversity in the areas of culture, ethnicity, and gender, but also to create an atmosphere in which these differences are embraced.

The research conducted here is intended to demonstrate both that such diversity is inherently beneficial and that we are a long way from realizing true and balanced diversity in the American working culture. Using both a literature review and applied interviews, the research is directed toward discussion of diversity as it relates to such organizational conditions as organizational culture, managerial leadership, communication, and accommodation of the globalization of the corporate world. This promotes a consideration of Hofstede's Dimensions Theory, which examines the needs reflected by individual workers as a function of cultural differences. The research also examines such issues as ethnic and cultural differences in managerial leadership, the implications of diversity for workplace communication, and the realities of gender diversity and gender discrimination in the workplace. The thesis driving the research is that the workplace is increasingly characterized by diversity, but that this diversity is also distinguished by the need for greater accommodation, sensitivity, and organizational preparation.

Methodology

In order to best determine the correlation between diversity management and the experiences of those outside of the hegemonic order of American working culture, it is necessary to draw a correlation between existing research and applied data gathering. Therefore, the research conducted here pairs two distinct processes. Reporting on a set of gathered literature samples constructed to examine ethnic and gender diversity respectively, the discussion then focuses on data gathered from interviews administered to two subjects who qualify as "others" from a diversity perspective.

Literature Review: Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions and Globalization

The interviews reported here were constructed based on open-ended, face-to-face discussion with the intended subjects, and report on their experiences as minority individuals in managerial roles within the American workforce.

The theoretical thrust of this section is driven by the Dimensions of Culture framework, which holds that cultural differences have a direct impact on the way that individuals relate to organizations and organizational goals. Hofstede identifies Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Masculinity-Femininity, and Individualism-Collectivism as the dimensions by which cultures and cultural organizational values tend to differentiate. These conditions are considered throughout a discussion that touches upon the increasingly culturally diverse nature of organizational orientation.

In consideration of the relevant human resources issues, Hofstede's dimensions framework denotes the relationship between such priorities as economic survival, job satisfaction, personal advancement, and cultural identity. More specifically, Hofstede's framework offers an array of spectrums across which a wide variance of cultural distinctions must be understood. With this in mind, we approach the realities of modern business, which are deeply impacted by the patterns of globalization. The deregulation of international trading parameters has dramatically altered the interaction of parties across state borders. Accordingly, research notes that "even within particular industries, worldwide companies have developed very different strategic and organizational responses to changes in their environment. While a few players have prospered by turning the environmental turmoil to their advantage, many are merely surviving—struggling to adjust to complex, often contradictory demands." (Bartlett & Ghoshal, p. 3) This condition suggests some shortcoming in understanding and applying the lessons of Hofstede's Dimensions theory.

Using Hofstede's framework, we can observe that the cultural qualities of a nation will often have a sweeping impact on business orientation. Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance principle "refers to the extent to which a culture feels threatened by ambiguous, uncertain situations and tries to avoid them by establishing more structure. The high positive scores on the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) indicate low tolerance for ambiguity." (Hofstede, p. 2) This means that differing cultures will score differently in terms of organizational orientation toward risk or conservatism. To this extent, the differences accounted for between trading nations may be seen as directly pertinent to specific cultural realities within each context. Moreover, as research on significantly culturally divergent nations such as China suggests, "the type of work goals whose pursuit is encouraged and rewarded depend in part on the prevailing cultural value emphasized in society." (Jaw et al., p. 2) The variations across priorities for the national profiles considered here are suggestive of the need for strategic orientation toward any given location.

An increasingly international business atmosphere places heightened demands upon corporate management to attend to the differentiated demands of various cultures. Research points to the potentially serious consequence of failing to acclimate to the interaction of cultures displaying different points on the spectrum. Black et al. (1999) offer an interesting case scenario that demonstrates the issues that might potentially arise in the intersection of business cultures. The authors describe a common scenario in today's international business atmosphere, asking the reader to "consider a mid-sized company that sent its marketing director to Asia. The marketing director did not want to go from the beginning and was essentially dragged overseas. As illustrated in the following situation, he was completely oblivious to any need for cultural sensitivity." (p. 45) The authors describe an incident in which the man's cultural inexperience results in a disastrous meeting in Korea. During a verbal dispute, the American businessman went out of his way to prove his authority on a subject, humiliating his Korean counterpart in front of his associates. The damage to the relationship between these organizations was irreparable. This demonstrates the importance of priming organizations for the cultural implications of this level of interaction.

With respect to Hofstede's theory, this refers us to his dimension of collectivism versus individualism. His theory denotes that "individualism-collectivism describes the degree to which a culture relies on and has allegiance to the self or the group." (Hofstede, p. 2) In this instance, the individualism accentuated in Western culture, combined with the subject's absence of cultural sensitivity, created a negative cultural interaction with a culture that is far more collectivist. Such an example reinforces the idea that cultural sensitivity is necessary to cross-cultural communication. This manifests in ideas regarding the best mode for helping individuals of all backgrounds achieve personal needs, such as the need for financial success or a sense of self-worth. As Terry (2007) indicates, "different cultures have different ideas about leadership." (p. 62) The path to success may genuinely constitute different characteristics according to different cultures, even if many of the same end goals—such as financial security or a sense of self-worth—remain constant across cultural borders.

One major implication of the internationalization of the economy is a change in the nature of corporate culture, personnel, and leadership. Nations have become increasingly interdependent through relationships forged by the integration of their private sectors, and organizations in all contexts are themselves becoming increasingly diverse. Closer relationships between such culturally distinct nations as the United States and India, and more intimate interaction between traditional partners such as the United States and the United Kingdom due to technological innovation, have both precipitated a cross-breeding of the labor pool. Today, it is not uncommon for managerial leadership to be drawn from one pool and placed in the other in order to facilitate greater coordination between operational aspects separated by geography and culture.

Though this strategy brings notable benefits with regard to the coordination of global operations, it also bears challenges that fall upon the Human Resources department to address. Employing an expatriate as a leader in an otherwise nationally homogenous organization, for example, will tend to require a conscientious acknowledgement of cultural differences that are likely to enter into engagements—both in terms of the awareness of personnel and the individual in question. The HR department must be prepared to bridge any gaps that might occur by choosing the appropriate managerial candidate, devising goals which assume close parallels between differing national operations, and ensuring that proper cultural training is in place within the existing organization.

Difficulties with this strategy of international management are demonstrably present. It is often difficult for personnel to adapt to a management style derived from an unfamiliar culture. This is further complicated where gender is concerned, with the initiation of expatriate female managers only occurring in very recent times. (Linehan, p. 433) According to Hofstede, there are inherent differences in the cultural outlooks of interacting nations in the global market, particularly in areas such as gender orientation. He argues that the masculinity-femininity dimension "indicates the degree to which a culture values such behaviors as assertiveness, achievement, acquisition of wealth or caring for others, social support, and the quality of life. This dimension tends to draw unwarranted criticism for its name alone. It basically refers to expected gender roles in a culture." (Hofstede, p. 2)

It appears that, in light of these concerns, organizations are often ill-prepared to make the appropriate adjustments to enjoy the strategic benefits of the selected approach. Research indicates that "many organisations have a clear outline of the expatriates' costs but a vague or unclear picture of their related return on investments." (Schiuma, p. 1) The result is that procedural adjustments rarely account for new opportunities in terms of the organization's versatility and diversity of perspective, instead focusing on what research finds is the more burdensome process of integrating a new managerial culture. This notion, however, is countered by the reality that "companies who manage the entire process well—beginning with assignment-specific goal setting, identifying appropriate candidates, and ending with securing appropriate jobs for expats upon repatriation—have a better return on investment." (KPMG, p. 1)

The era of globalization has produced some of the problems that arise from this corporate integration. Particularly, as nations and their domestic companies develop partnerships with one another, divergent goals often become mutually dependent. This requires a shared positive focus from managerial leaders at the corporate level to induce sustainable fairness of practices between one another. "The institutional environment—and in particular, corporate governance stakeholders—will shape firms' globalization patterns." (Aguilera et al., p. 56) Such patterns are directly implicated by the quality of international assignments such as those invoking expatriate managerial leadership.

According to Hofstede, "power distance reflects the degree to which a culture believes how institutional and organizational power should be distributed (equally or unequally) and how the decisions of the power holders should be viewed (challenged or accepted.)" (Hofstede, p. 1) This means that organizations must be considerate of concrete cultural value differences which distinguish the leadership modes of parties in a developing partnership. To some extent, the ethnocentrism of the United States, as well as its dominant economic scale, had produced the impression that its educational and professional structures are uniquely conducive to managerial leadership. However, this impression is subsiding in the face of changes produced by globalization. Although the U.S. had enjoyed hegemony in this capacity for several generations of corporate evolution, a "disruptive trend may be the fast-rising tide of white-collar jobs shifting to cheap-labor countries. The fact that programming, engineering, and other high-skilled jobs are moving to places such as China and India seems to conflict head-on with the 200-year-old doctrine of comparative advantage. With these countries now graduating more college students than the U.S. every year, economists are increasingly uncertain about just where the U.S. has an advantage anymore." (Bernstein, p. 1)

Communication, Stereotyping, and Cross-Cultural Interaction

A major challenge to the internationalization of business specifically affects the smaller enterprise, where a desire to grow outside of domestic borders may be overshadowed by the heavy economic demands of such a transition. For companies large and small, cultural divergence is likely the most daunting challenge in constructing the bridges needed to improve the efficacy of globalization strategies. Languages, customs, political ideologies, shared religious values, and general business customs vary significantly from one nation to another. In Hofstede's dimensions, we are given a clear spectrum through which to view the differences that make cross-cultural business interaction inherently challenging and simultaneously rewarding.

Gudykunst's (2006) theory is a fundamental building block to understanding the disconnect that intervenes in effective cross-cultural interaction. The underlying notion in his theoretical framework is the assertion that we are inclined to engage a variety of defensive devices in order to either facilitate more effective communication with cultural "others" or to at least reduce the anxiety that is inherent to interactions obstructed by ethnic, linguistic, ideological, social, or aesthetic differences. In appealing to any of these devices, the theorist notes, a message originator imperils the effectiveness or credibility of a meaningfully communicative dynamic by couching the exchange in compensatory internal explanations for ideas and behavior that may be seen as personally alien. As Gudykunst explains, "anxiety and uncertainty are the basic causes of all communication failure in intercultural situations." (Griffin, p. 410)

Thus, it is not specifically the compensatory devices—such as nonverbal culture-affiliate identifiers or concerted verbal reciprocity—that cause failed intercultural communication attempts. Rather, it is an underlying anxiety produced by the uncertainty of encountering the unknown, the unfamiliar, or the uncontextualized. In this regard, Gudykunst diverges from the commonly understood notion that intercultural communication often fails due to concrete external realities. Though his set of axioms concerns these external realities—manifested in language, customs, and even physical appearance—his essential principle sets these qualities as products rather than causes of a communicational stumbling block. This helps us to identify a potential solution for the issue, particularly by recognizing that for many, there is an internalized discomfort that is less institutional than it is based upon individual fear.

This would confirm the claim in Barna's (1994) text that "stereotypes are stumbling blocks for communicators because they interfere with objective viewing of stimuli." (Barna, p. 341) A failure to recognize and accommodate the cultural distinctions of new arrivals while simultaneously setting aside presumptions about personal ability, company value, or receptiveness constitutes a communication shortcoming forged on the acceptance of stereotype. As Gudykunst explains, "effective communication is made possible by our ability to mindfully manage our anxiety and reduce our uncertainty about ourselves and the people with whom we are communicating." (Griffin, p. 496)

This observation represents a fundamental departure from precipitating ideas regarding the need for certainty in orienting ourselves toward informational exchange with "others." Instead, it is appropriate to initiate an entire organization into the nature of diversity through sensitivity training, where it is explicitly acknowledged that assumptions of cultural barriers are often more presumptive than real. While differences must be navigated, it is inappropriate to view them as obstacles. Training must focus on diversity as a virtue and value to the organization. Rather than isolating newcomers, organizations must make them feel welcome and part of the direct community so that their contributions may actually surface. Ultimately, in order to improve inter-cultural communication, it is simply necessary to reduce the presumption within an organization that culture is a blockade to understanding. Instead, culture should be seen as a two-way street where exchange and improvement of an organization's knowledge economy are made possible.

Conclusion

The resolution of this study is that diversity remains a goal of organizations, rather than an assumed accomplishment. Though great strides have been made in terms of the visibility of individuals of ethnicity, culture, or gender distinct from the hegemonic order, the power structure remains tilted toward the white, male American. While it may not be soon that we alter this tilt of power, it is clear that we can begin to make changes at the organizational level. The process of improving the internal orientation of companies toward immigrant laborers, those of a racial diversity, or those of the female gender should be considered both an ethical and strategic priority for all viable modern organizations.