Muslim Minorities, Workplace Diversity and Reflexive HRM

Jasmin Mahadevan, Claude-Hélène Mayer, Jasmin Mahadevan, Claude-Hélène Mayer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317112327
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Workplace diversity has become increasingly relevant to academics and practitioners alike. Often, this issue is tackled merely from a business-oriented/managerial point of view. Yet such a single-level perspective fails to acknowledge both the macro-societal context wherein companies and organizations act and the micro-individual dynamics by which individuals construct and affirm their identities in relation to others.

Muslim minorities are part of current workplace diversity in many parts of the world. This book focuses on Muslim identities and their interrelations with societal frameworks and organizational strategy and practice. Contributors from various disciplines and societal contexts ensure a multiplicity of perspectives. The authors shed light on this diversity and draw implications for human resource management (HRM) theory and practice. Chapters uncover the wider discourses on Muslim minorities that impact organizational HRM. The book explores howHRM academics and practitioners might become aware of and counteract these discourses in order to acheive a truly inclusive HRM regardingMuslim minorities.

Throughout Muslim Minorities, Workplace Diversity and Reflexive HRM, readers are guided from large theoretical concepts to specific contexts, whilst being encouraged to question their assumptions. This book lays the foundations for managing Muslim employees beyond stereotypes, enabling the reader to develop the reflexive mindset needed for truly inclusive HRM with regard to Muslim employees.

Part 1
Perceptions of Islam and Muslim minorities

---

Chapter 1
Muslim minorities and Islam in HRM literature

Identity labels and authoritative sensemaking

Jasmin Mahadevan and Iuliana Ancuţa Ilie

---

Introduction

Human Resource Management (HRM) texts on ‘Muslim individuals’ and ‘Islam’ do not emerge within a vacuum but within certain boundary conditions. They are informed by ‘something’, and this ‘something’ is referred to as discourse (Fairclough, 1995; Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Phillips and Hardy, 2002). Discourses are concepts with real-life consequences and a practice that in return influences the concept (Mahadevan, 2017). Simply speaking, discourses convey how a subject, phenomenon, individual et cetera is (not) ‘normally’ thought of, spoken about, referred to or dealt with, mainly on a collective level. From a critical perspective, these processes have power implications, and might advantage some over others (Fairclough, 1995).

Questions of ‘Muslim identity’ and considering ‘Islam’ have become particularly relevant mainly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September 2001 (e.g. Liao et al., 2016). This event is most commonly referred to as ‘9/11’; it seems to constitute a discursive watershed regarding ‘Muslim individuals’ and ‘Islam’. Since then, societal discourse towards Muslim immigration in many developed nations, particularly in the West, has changed from being highly supportive to being highly restrictive after 9/11 (Liao et al., 2016, pp. 1–2). Kunst, Tajamal, Sam and Ulleberg (2011, p. 518), quoting Sirin and Balsano (2007), state that ‘Anti-Muslim and islamophobic sentiments in the Western world have gained increased scientific attention following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.’ This phenomenon is also acknowledged by Moosavi (2015), who observes it not only on academic level, but also in the media and in the discourse of mainstream politicians. Western media might be considered a key disseminator or even producer of this discourse (Liao et al., 2016, pp. 2–3), and some films and novels seem to be informed by a ‘post-9/11 distrust of the Muslim other’ (Lau and Mendes, 2016, p. 1).

From the perspective of critical discourse analysis (CDA), which we employ in this chapter, HRM texts are informed by discourse while at the same time contributing to it. This implies that HRM texts do not portray Muslim minorities ‘as they are’ (for this might be impossible) but from a certain perspective that contributes to making sense of or giving meaning to the social world. If one identifies this perspective and its underlying and related discourses, themes and assumptions, one can shed light on potential HRM blind-spots concerning Muslim individuals. Conversely, an HRM practice that takes HRM texts ‘for granted’ and applies their insights without considering their discursive limitations and implications might remain myopic and distorted. Based on these considerations, we assume that HRM practitioners need a critical – that is, power-sensitive – discursive awareness to improve upon their practice. This chapter wishes to exemplify such an investigation.

Our approach focuses on the label-making facet of discourse (Näslund and Perner, 2012), namely the ability of concepts such as ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ to structure sensemaking and inform reality. We view these labels critically, that is, with regard to their power implications (also see introduction to this book). In line with our critical perspective, we pay particular attention to those incidents wherein a label becomes dominant and results in a prescription of meaning, so called authoritative sensemaking (Brown, 2004). Authoritative sensemaking is problematic, for it is at this point that the label obscures and restricts the potential openness of discourse: we no longer see an open process of ‘label-making’ that intends to fill the label with meaning, but rather a closed act of ‘label-giving’, that is, the attempt to prescribe meaning via using a singular label (Näslund and Perner, 2012).

For instance, a religious label such as ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ might be considered dominant if it restricts an individual's or an organization's (or an HRM manager's or department's) ability to ‘make sense’ of current workplace diversity, that is, to view a minority employee with multiple identity-facets as anything other than ‘a Muslim’. We argue that it is at this point, namely when losing sight of whom it concerns, that managing diversity must fail or deliver unsatisfying results. We also suggest that this ‘losing sight’ might already start on the level of the texts that try to create the knowledge needed for managing Muslim employees, namely HRM articles in relevant journals. These can be considered ‘authoritative’ in the sense that these texts, and their authors, claim to have produced relevant knowledge concerning ‘Muslim individuals’ and ‘Islam’. We will therefore need to check whether this presumably ‘best-possible knowledge’, which shall provide orientation to future researchers and practitioners alike, is characterized by problematic labels, and this requires a critical discursive investigation of HRM texts (this book included).

Our approach is based on the assumption that dominant meanings ascribed to identity-labels might restrict the otherwise open and multi-faceted sensemaking that is part of any discourse. This results in myopic and distorted views on actual workplace diversity and related HRM requirements. HRM practitioners need to become aware of these mechanisms, and this article suggests the investigation of identity-labels as a viable means for such a reflexive HRM practice. Obviously, labels and discourse do not equal reality (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000), but still, they might provide access to previously neglected angles from which to give meaning and make sense of workplace diversity in specific contexts, and, to our mind, this ability is the crucial requirement for any meaningful HRM.

In order to make this contribution, we firstly highlight the theoretical background and overall perspective of this chapter. Next, we provide further information on how our material was gathered and interpreted with the help of critical discourse analysis. This leads to an overview on the HRM discourse and to a discussion of label-related restrictions and their implications for HRM. We conclude with a summary and recommendations to practitioners.

Theoretical background and perspective

In this chapter, we understand discourse as ‘an interrelated set of texts, and the practices of their production, dissemination, and reception, that brings an object into being’ (cf. Phillips and Hardy 2002, p. 3; based on Parker, 1992). The term ‘text’ refers to numerous forms, for example spoken words, pictures, written texts, symbols, artifacts, gestures et cetera. Due to its complex nature, the entirety of discourse cannot be studied; rather, researchers need to analyse specific texts for clues of how discourse creates social reality (Phillips and Hardy 2002, p. 4), thereby locating discourse in context. We share this understanding and analyse HRM articles regarding Muslim individuals as texts that are informed by discourse and that in return contribute to producing social reality and discourse.

Discourse is an instrument of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Sensemaking suggests that individuals try to link context, experience and social frames of reference (Czarniawska, 2008), and they do so by various acts, for instance communication and narrative. The goal of sensemaking is to stay in contact with context, to integrate past and present, and to link oneself to others (Weick, 1995), that is, to give meaning to the social world and to oneself in it when facing specific actors, relations and practices which characterize the situation (Phillips and Hardy 2002, p. 4).

This process is iterative and recursive; it creates labels for meaning-making that are then used for further sensemaking (Peirano-Vejo and Stablein, 2009). Even though the cognitive process of sensemaking is individual, it depends on and is influenced by collective frames of references. These frames of references are applied and form the basis for further processes of sensemaking on a social level (see Näslund and Perner, 2012, p. 93). Academic texts create narratives of the above mentioned kind; they transport HRM meaning and inform HRM practice. In principle, discourses have the potential to result in a polyphony of voices (Brown, 2006). Yet, discursive formations of power often silence alternative sensemaking and, as a result, some discourses might become dominant (Geiger and Antonacopoulou, 2009) and even hegemonic. We therefore need to identify what kind of discourse is transported by HRM texts, particularly regarding its power implications.

A discursive view on workplace diversity also implies that identity is nothing fixed but linked to processes of creating a concept of ‘self’ and ‘other’ in a specific situation and within certain boundary conditions (see also Phillips and Hardy 2002, p. 41). This makes identity not an individual but a social phenomenon, which is linked to a ‘social self’ (Lawler, 2008, p. 5–8, see also chapter 4). Processes of identity-making are influenced, sometimes even determined, by macro-societal and historic imbalances of power (Prasad, 2006). When applied to the field of diversity, such a biased or dominant discourse renders some outcomes of diversity as virtually unthinkable or unimaginable (Prasad, 2006). For example, the global understanding that female circumcision in Africa should be banned can be re-read as the attempt to project Western ideals of ‘female modernity and freedom’ on to the presumably ‘traditional non-Western female’. Similarly, it is not considered a potential outcome of the current Western European discourse on the Muslim veil that non-Muslim European females might choose to wear it (Prasad, 2006). This means that, like any discourse, HRM texts on ‘Muslim minorities’ and ‘Islam’ are linked to power as they are ‘systems of thought that are contingent upon and inform material practices … practically through particular power techniques’ (Alvesson and Deetz, 2006, p. 266). We approach the question of ‘Muslim identity’ from this perspective and assume that we can only observe that individuals view themselves as being ‘Muslim’ and are identified as ‘Muslim’ by others, but not define ‘identity’ objectively. We consider discrepancies across these processes of self-referencing and ascriptions made by others a potentially problematic incident of labelling through which power-discrepancies manifest themselves.

Details to the material and its interpretation

In order to gather our material, we conducted a literature review on two levels. Firstly, we conducted a search in relevant HRM journals; this search delivered 34 articles in total. Our focus is based on our attempt to trace discourse, and our assumption is that discourses emerge in context; we consider HRM, particularly diversity management, the relevant concept for the purpose of this chapter.

To contextualize this material, we then extended our search by looking in relevant journal databases such as Taylor and Francis Online, SAGE Journals Online, ScienceDirect and Emerald Insight. We extended our search based on the assumption that discourses, such as the specific discourse on HRM, is related to and informed by other discourses, and these additional articles can therefore inform us of the contours and ‘border’ of the specific HRM discourse on ‘Muslim minorities’ and ‘Islam’. The second step delivered a vast number of articles and points to a much larger and differentiated discourse.

As first finding, we can say that the literature on ‘Muslim minorities’ and ‘Islam’ is scarce in HRM as compared to the wide-ranging and multi-disciplinary debate outside HRM. This debate starts in organizational and sociologically informed managerial journals, but is most visible in considerations that go beyond management and organization studies. We can therefore assume that the HRM discourse, as visible in HRM journals, on ‘Muslim identity’ and ‘Islam’ is still nascent and emergent. Based on the societal relevance of the topic in general (which seems apparent from the vast extent of articles published outside HRM), we do not assume that the discourse in general is irrelevant but rather conclude the contrary.

Focusing on the material gathered within HRM journals, we then chose two special issues (14 articles in total) for our analysis, as we firstly assume a special issue to be more discursively coherent and dense than individual articles published on ‘Muslim individuals’ and ‘Islam’. Secondly, we also assume that we can best identify problematic labels where discourse is the most ‘dense’.

We analysed our material with the help of critical discourse analysis (CDA). This method pays attention to the role which discursive acts and texts – such as HRM articles – have in constituting and sustaining unequal power relations (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, cf. Phillips and Hardy, 2002, p. 25). Essential to such an interpretation is paying attention to how discourse and its intersection with other facets of the social world might privilege some over others (Phillips and Hardy, 2002, p. 25). Furthermore, it is assumed that the relation between different discourses and the relations between discourse and specific situations and structures are complex and multi-dimensional (Francis, Parkes and Reddington, 2014). This implies that a change in discourse or a change in the relation between discourses, situations and structures will also change the power relations and the meanings associated with this interrelation (ibid.). In specific situations, individuals position themselves in relation to an event, and they do so within existing discourse and by doing so they inform discourse. For example, when Labour Party candidate Sadiq Khan was elected as major of London in May 2016, the prominent public label attached to him was ‘first Muslim major of London’ (at least this is the result of our internet research two weeks after the election wherein we entered solely his name). A critical investigation requires us to ask, for instance, why this label and not any other (such as ethnic minority, migrant)? How is this discursive act of labelling linked to other discourses, structures and situations? How would sensemaking have taken place differently in a ‘pre-9/11 era’? If we identify a shift in discourse, what has changed, and who will be advantaged and disadvantaged by it? How will this specific event and the act of labelling one individual as a representative of the category ‘Muslim’ influence the perception of Muslim minorities in general?

In another, but interrelated, discursive sphere, not only media but HRM texts contribute to the production, dissemination, proliferation, reproduction or legitimation of these power mechanisms. It is through this lens that we present and analyse our material in the following.

The contours of HRM discourse

This section presents...