Strategic Management of Diversity in the Workplace

An Australian Case

Emile Chidiac

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138720473
• eBook ISBN: 9781351762779
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Strategic Management of Diversity in the Workplace discusses the strategic management of ethnic and cultural diversity by taking particular examples from Australia, Canada, The United Kingdom and the United States of America, in order to determine the salient benefits that organisations could derive when ethnic and cultural differences are seen as opportunities, not as problems, and are viewed as benefits rather than threats.

Strategic Management of Diversity in the Workplace provides a clear demonstration of the benefits, conflicts and challenges faced by organisations. The renewed interest in multiculturalism in academic and policy circles revives the debate about issues related to the management of ethnic diversity in society at large and in specific settings, such as corporate Australia. This book specifically focuses on this problematic area by aiming to explore the practice of management and application of multiculturalism in the workplace. This book seeks to examine post-multiculturalism in Australia and explore whether it has affected the ways in which corporate Australia deals with issues of diversity and the lessons learned here are ones that apply across the business world.

Strategic Management of Diversity in the Workplace would be of interest for researchers, academics, undergraduate and postgraduate business degrees students in the fields of Strategic Human Resources Management, Cross-Cultural Management, Managing Workplace Training and Managing and Leading People.

1 Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism(s): A Short Introduction

The concept of multiculturalism emerged from the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Ethnic minorities and women’s equality groups were dissatisfied because of the lack to progress to end inequality through civil rights legislation. Many immigrants and racioethnic groups living in multi-ethnic societies felt that their dreams had not been realised (Nkomo and Hoobler 2014). The advance and retreat of multiculturalism has been present in various countries, except Canada, where multiculturalism has been the most prominent worldwide. To start with the advance of multiculturalism, reference must be made to the increased migration starting in the 1960s, which led to the formation of multiculturalist policies in developing countries and the developed societies of North America, Western Europe and Australasia. A change of attitude occurred in the host countries with the new wave of migration, whereby the previous policies of assimilation that expected immigrants to adopt the majority culture became neither necessary nor desirable (Crowder 2013).

The term ‘multiculturalism’ was coined in Canada and became the nation’s official policy in 1971. It gained some popularity in the 1980s and 1990s in other migrant-receiving countries, such as the US, the UK and Australia. There are varied definitions of multiculturalism, yet, overall, multicultural ideologies tend to encourage and appreciate different cultural groups, including their experiences and contributions. Multiculturalism encourages these groups to maintain their culture and cultural identities, and emphasises the notion that no group is superior or privileged (Nkomo and Hoobler 2014). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2006, 17) stated that ‘the term multicultural describes the culturally diverse nature of human society. It not only refers to elements of ethnic or national nature, but also includes linguistic, religious and socio-economic diversity’. A distinction is generally made between two different meanings of multiculturalism: an empirical concept that refers to cultural and moral diversity, and a normative concept that celebrates cultural plurality (Jahanbegloo and Parekh 2011). A multicultural society is distinguished by cultural diversity, and multiculturalism is considered a normative doctrine because it represents a specific approach to that diversity (Jahanbegloo and Parekh 2011). In other words, multiculturalism has three core dimensions:

(a) a reflection of a country’s ethnocultural demographic diversity, (b) a political philosophy aimed at recognising and accommodating the differences that achieve objectives based on the above political philosophy, and (c) a public policy instrument to help achieve objectives based on the above political philosophy.

(Ng and Bloemraad 2015, 620)

However, multiculturalism does not have a straightforward definition, and depicts multiple meanings. Interestingly, to complicate matters further, America’s multiculturalism is not the same as that of Europe—the histories, origins, intentions and present practices are not the same, and the future will not be the same either. Therefore, the meaning of multiculturalism, both in theory and practice, can vary from one place to another, especially when comparing attitudes towards multiculturalism in countries in Western and Eastern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australasia; Africa and Asia. For example, in Canada and Australasia, multiculturalism does not encompass indigenous peoples, and indigenous groups refuse to have their claims covered by multiculturalism because of the question of legitimacy of the state concerning indigenous peoples. In contrast, in other parts of the world, such as Latin America, indigenous peoples use the term ‘multiculturalism’ to refer to their claims, as opposed to immigrant groups (Ivison 2010).

European approaches to multiculturalism operate on different principles and subsequently produce different outcomes. The European approach tends to be more accommodating of differences. Europe’s politically involved Christian communities—in accordance with the dominant European multiculturalism—have made more criticisms of Islam than their American counterparts to educate ‘acceptable’ Muslim partners who might enhance social stability, rather than serve as allies against secularism. Although there are striking differences in how multiculturalism is legally defined and politically governed in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, they share in common the fact that they all have large foreign-born populations, as shown in Table 1.1. Additionally, the share of the foreign-born population in the total population is increasing in these four countries.

As a result of the increasing levels of human mobility across borders, the world is no longer perceived as a system of separate communities, but viewed as a mixture of many interacting relations. Therefore, ‘the other’ could be any person, regardless of the country in which the individual lives (Jawor 2014). Sociology has also strengthened the feeling that the social environment belongs to ‘our’ people, and that we feel safe ‘among us’, while anything ‘strange’ or ‘other’ is viewed as a threat. From this point of view, xenophobia and homophobia can be considered natural. It is human nature to fear anything unknown and unfamiliar. According to Jawor (2014, 135), the cure is not to exclude ‘the other’ or to include the other into ‘mainstream’ culture, but to exclude the other by eliminating the division between majority and minorities, thereby making the other one of us: ‘We are all different and we are all equal, just like the colours of the rainbow palette: everyone is different, but they are all parallel’.

Table 1.1 Foreign-born Population as a Proportion of the Total Population in G8 Countries and Australia

Country of residence	Census year	Foreign-born population (%)
Japan	2000	1.0
Italy	2009	8.0
Russian Federation	2002	8.2
France	2008	8.6
UK	2010	11.5
US	2010	12.9
Germany	2010	13.0
Canada	2011	20.6
Australia	2010	26.8

Source: Statistics Canada (2011).

After the US attacks on 11 September 2001, there has been a shift in global and economic structures, which led to a focus on immigration, not only in the US, but also in Western Europe. This focus seems to have replaced the questions of identity that ruled the debate of multiculturalism in the 1970s and 1980s, where identities were distinguished by phrases such as ‘Asian American’, ‘Native American’, ‘Black German’, ‘German Turkish’ and ‘British Asian’ (Lauter 2009). However, multiculturalism focuses on the issue of legitimisation—whether one is and is perceived as a legal, legitimate, full citizen (Lauter 2009). Having accepted so many immigrants, liberal states must tolerate the multicultural transformation of their societies, simply because they are dubious about imposing cultural ways upon their members. Further, multiculturalism is not a description of culturally diverse societies, but a claim to recognise cultural difference; thus, it becomes the responsibility of the state (Joppke 1996).

Three ‘logics’ of multiculturalism have been identified to represent three models to help understand the essence of multiculturalism. The first logic is protective or communitarian multiculturalism, which aims to publicly recognise ethno-cultural groups and preserve the cultural integrity and authenticity related to their life. The second logic is liberal multiculturalism, which can be regarded the most prominent political theory, where multiculturalism is protected because of its promotion of liberal values, including equality, autonomy, toleration and equal respect. Protecting the human rights of minority groups is an essential element of democracy, as shown through national legislation and international practice (Ivison 2010). A liberal state can be accused of illiberalism if multiculturalism is not adopted (Guiora 2014). The third logic is imperial, which is neither protective nor liberal, and questions how ‘minorities’ and ‘majorities’ are defined (Ivison 2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of multiculturalism in Figure 1.1 provided by Ng and Bloemraad (2015) highlights the current discussions and challenges of multiculturalism.

Figure 1.1 SWOT Analysis of Multiculturalism

Source: Ng and Bloemraad (2015).

The debate over immigration in the US and the West has shifted to where the immigrants come from, and the focus on domestic multiculturalism has shifted to a globalised ‘migrant’ culture. Western secular democracies were built on compromises that enabled the various religions introduced by immigrants to flourish. However, the form of religious expression known as ‘deism’ constituted the core belief system of many people in the eighteenth century. In various parts of the developing world, especially in the Middle East, people have been attracted to extreme religious fundamentalism as a choice against Western domination. It seems that the attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, in Madrid in 2004, and in London in 2005 created a conflict between radical Islam and democracy. One of the leading advocates of European multiculturalism, British sociologist, Modood (2007, 14), expressed anxiety about multiculturalism after 11 September 2001, and questioned the appropriateness of multiculturalis...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Abbreviations
• Author’s Biography
• Introduction
• 1 Multiculturalism
• 2 Diversity in the Workforce: Facts and Figures
• 3 Strategic Management of Diversity: Benefits and Challenges
• 4 Diversity Management in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia: Legal and Political Analysis
• 5 Diversity Management in Practice
• Conclusion
• Index