The Advantages of
Diversity in Educational Institutions
Burbank, California; November 10, 2001; Joan Marques, MBA
(URL: https://www.angelfire.com/id/joanmarques/PR)
This article
focuses on the positive aspects of diversity in the workplace, and the
necessity for Human Resources to not only identify the importance of workplace
diversity, but to implement and accommodate diversity at every level in the
work environment as well. Even though there is a wide range of arguments to be
enumerated, the focus in this article will be limited to the following
advantages of workforce diversity:
·
Feeling
good to be doing the right thing
·
Creating a
better work environment while providing better service to customers at the same
time
·
Making the
organization more innovative, productive, and creative
·
Increase
employee’s commitment by practicing more flexibility
When presented
in the course of the article, these points of focus will also be explained
briefly.
Although the
issues to be discussed are applicable to practically every work environment,
the main focus of this article will be higher education institutions. The customers
and clients to be mentioned throughout the article could therefore be
seen as students, while the product could be regarded to be education.
Diversity means
recognizing and respecting differences in people (DeCenzo & Robins, 1999,
p.9). Work-force diversity includes the varied backgrounds of employees that
are present in our companies today (DeCenzo & Robins, 1999, p.9). In an
attempt to predict our future work-force diversity, DeCenzo & Robins (1999)
explain that this will be made up of “males, females, whites, blacks,
Hispanics, Asians, Natiove Americans, the disabled, homosexuals, straights, and
the elderly (p.38)”.
In a projected article by Dr. Connie
Sitterly, DeCenzo & Robins (1999) state that anyone not sensitive to
diversity issues needs to stop and check his attitude at the door (p.33).
Sitterly predicted that by the end of the 90s, people of color, white women and
immigrants will account for 85% of our labor force (DeCenzo & Robins, 1999,
p.33).
The most
important advantage of diversity is presented in the aforementioned article
when Sitterly states that
[implementing
workplace diversity] should be done not only because it’s the law, or because
it’s morally and ethically the right thing to do or because it makes good
business sense, but also because when we open our minds and hearts we feel
better about ourselves (DeCenzo & Robins, 1999, p.33).
This brings us
to the first, and maybe most important advantage of diversity, the
establishment of a feeling of satisfaction because the choice has been made to
do the right thing instead of the easiest thing, which would be, hiring people
who fit best. Verespej (2001) asserts that the problem is often not whether
companies can find someone who is qualified; it is whether they think someone
will fit in (p.23). According to Verespej (2001) companies are trying to make
people fit, rather than creating a work environment where people can feel
comfortable and can contribute regardless of their backgrounds or culture
(p.23). Verespej (2001) discusses a fable told by Roosevelt Thomas Jr., CEO of
R. Thomas Consulting & Training Inc., about the friendship and subsequent
business partnership between a giraffe and an elephant (p.23). Problems rise
when the elephant tries to fit in the giraffe’s house. The story subsequently
explains that elephants should not be forced to fit in giraffe’s houses, but
rather be accommodated in an environment that fits their shape as well as the
giraffe’s, resulting in a general feeling of comfort and increased performance.
Verespej (2001) clarifies his point by citing former U.S. Secretary of Labor
Lynn Martin, who asserts
You
can’t treat people the same. That is not how you manage diversity. The single
biggest mistake we in management can make is to say that sameness is equality.
Understanding and managing diversity means listening to someone else even if
you don’t like what you hear (p.23).
Gilbert (2000)
states that the advantage for the American industry in the world market will be
based upon our success in optimizing and utilizing this richly diverse work
force (p.175). According to Gilbert (2000), this prediction suggests that to
succeed in the future, organizations must learn how to attract, promote, and
retain a diverse group of people in order to sustain a competitive advantage
(p.175). Dianah Worman, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
(CIPD) resident equal opportunities guru, underlines this opinion by explaining
that it’s in employers’ interest to think smartly about who their potential
workers are… A (sophisticated approach) to customers and clients outside the
organization should be mirrored in the way they approach their staffing
(Centaur Communications Ltd., 2001, p.S03). Alger (1997) asserts that the
argument for the necessity of diversity is perhaps stronger in higher education
than in any other context (par.4).
The
ultimate product of universities is education in the broadest sense, including
preparation for life in the working world. As part of this education, students
learn from face-to-face interaction with faculty members and with one another
both inside and outside the classroom. Racial diversity can enhance this
interaction by broadening course offerings, texts, and classroom examples, as
well as improving communications and understanding among individuals of
different races (Alger, 1997, par. 4).
In a more
general scope Thomas (2001) states that diversity is about bringing different
perspectives to the company (p.10). Thomas (2001) continues by explaining that
the next challenge … is to improve diversity at higher levels. Once that
perspective is in place, there will be more mentors and role models creating a
win-win situation for both individual employees and the corporation as a whole
(p.13).
Richard &
Johnson (2001) explain that a diversity orientation results in a diverse
culture where employees embrace their differences and use them to enhance
organizational effectiveness through creativity and innovation (p.180). Diversity
practices can provide firms with the expertise to regularly develop and market
competitive new products by enhancing organizational creativity and problem
solving (Richard & Johnson, 2001, p.186). According to Richard &
Johnson (2001) the relationship between diversity orientation and performance
will be contingent on an organization’s business strategy, but also on the
organization’s human resource strategy (p. 187). With this statement Richard
& Johnson explain that much of the implementation and success of workforce
diversity depends on the priorities the organization’s human resource
department focuses on. If these priorities are aiming on better long-term
performance rather than lower immediate costs, diversity will be accommodated
and proven successful. According to Richard & Johnson (2001) the level of
racial and gender diversity and diversity orientation will positively affect
organizational performance through its interaction (p.190). However, the
authors warn that these performance effects will take place over time. A
group’s ability to embrace and leverage diversity is going to emerge slowly
(p.190).
Dianah Worman,
the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) resident equal
opportunities guru who was cited earlier in this article exclaims that most
employees are so grateful for that extra bit of flexibility you give them, they
actually become even more committed (Centaur Communications Ltd., 2001, p.
S03). Worman (2001) believes developing work/life policies to meet the needs of
a diverse workforce must begin with an understanding of the value of diversity
in itself. She is of the firm opinion that a healthy approach to flexible
working holds benefits not just for employees, but for businesses too (p. S03).
Worman’s point of view is shared by Richard & Johnson (2001) who also note
that effective diversity management enhances organizational flexibility, simply
because more diverse groups consider a wider variety of perspectives. As
diversity policies and practices become instituted, increased fluidity and
flexibility result in an organizational culture that can react to environmental
changes (p. 192).
Grensing-Pophal (2000)
asks the interesting question, “if an organization says it is committed to
diversity and is attempting to build a diverse workforce, should its HR staff
not exemplify diversity in its own ranks? (p.46)” While enumerating the
advantages of workforce diversity, Grensing-Pophal (2000) continues to
emphasize that any HR department should also have as much diversity as possible
(p.47). Grensing-Pophal exclaims that when it comes to diversity, the HR
department is viewed as a leader in the organization. “If they don’t do it,
other departments will say it’s not possible (p.47).” In Grensing-Pophal’s
opinion it’s very important from a credibility point of view that the people
who work in the HR department are reflective of the workforce at large and that
they understand the diversity of their internal customers (p.47). Richard &
Johnson (2001) argue that diversity depends upon human resource policies that
are judged and evaluated by employees in a context dependent upon
organizational justice perceptions (p. 178). Richard & Johnson continue
that human resource policies and practices that fit with the business
strategies of the firm enhance firm effectiveness (p.178).
Although there
are undoubtedly negative aspects to be enumerated when it regards workforce
diversity, such as increased costs, higher employee turnover, and slower
corporate progress due to diversity-related misunderstandings, this article
presented a brief overview of the various advantages of workforce diversity in
an increasingly diverse global workplace. As stated in the introduction, all
the advantages as well as the possible disadvantages of workforce diversity,
are applicable to all work environments. In this article the academic
environment was explicitly mentioned at some instances, however, this does not
exclude the applicability of the discussed arguments on other work areas.
In many of the
cited articles it was stated that diversity is not a naturally preferred
process, because people have a tendency to hire people who are like themselves
(Grensing-Pophal, 2000, p.47; Richard & Johnson, 2001, p.180). This is
somewhat understandable; especially when corporations are looking for
short-term output increase. However, it will be those who implement diversity
now, and create a work-environment that brings out the best in a diverse
workforce, that will enjoy the profits of this strategic decision on the long
run. As Richard & Johnson (2001) state, projections show that increasing
diversity in the workplace is a reality, not a myth (p.192), and since the
student-body in many higher educational institutions is also diverse, one
should not underestimate the importance of association: a student who can find
at least one staff- or faculty member like him- or herself, will feel more “at
home”.
Alger,
J. (1997). The Educational Value of Diversity, [Internet]. American
Association of University Professors. Available:
http://www.aaup.org/aadivart.htm [2001, 9/23/01].
DeCenzo,
D., & Robins, S. (1999). Human Resource Management (sixth ed.). NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gilbert,
J. (2000). An empirical examination of resources in a diverse environment
(2), [Internet, proquest.umi.com]. International Personnel Management
Association Summer 2000 [2001, 9/8/01].
Grensing-Pophal,
L. (2000). Is your HR department diverse enough?, [Internet,
Proquest.umi.com]. HRMagazine [2001, 9/8/01].
Richard,
O., & Johnson, N. B. (2001). Understanding the impact of human resource
diversity practices on firm performance, [Internet, Proquest.umi.com]. Journal
of Managerial Issues [2001, 9/8/01].
Unknown.
(2001). Vive la difference, [Internet, Lexis.NexisÒ Academic Universe-Document]. Centaur
Communications Ltd. Employee Benefits [2001, 9/23/01].
Verespej, M. (2001, June 11,
2001). How to solve the worker shortage, [Internet, Lexis.NexisÒ Academic Universe-Document]. Industry Week [2001,
9/23/01].