Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

game’ according to the men’s rules, while
being vigilant ‘not to be seen as shrill or overly
emotional’.
Are diversity units as proactive as they need
to be The diversity directors would respond
with a resounding ‘no way’. Do they know
how to approach the entrenched issues
Some might say they are making progress.
One feature that is required of persons in a
diversity management position is that they
must have patience. They recognize they are
working for cultural change and it is going to
occur over a significant period of time. They
relate the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
Small improvements will lead to eventual
cultural change within the corporation. They
believe in diversity training, but are guarded
regarding its quality and impact. As one said:
‘I haven’t met a soul in the firm who liked the
diversity training we have.’ They doubt that
the short segment of time devoted to diversity
training enables the opportunity to make a
lasting impact. They would rather do very
limited training than poor training that only
creates and reinforces stereotypes. They
recognize that the most important component
of the diversity training process is the midlevel
managers’ support and reinforcement of
it. ‘The persons who need real hard core
coaching on diversity management are the
middle managers who either don’t recognize
the need, or because of business pressures,
won’t take the time for it. They think sending
new employees to a day-long diversity orientation
will solve the problem.’ However as the
focus groups testified, and reported previously,
the managers are on the precipice
regarding diversity fairness perceptions and
have the greatest need to be informed, sensitized,
and coached. None of the diversity
directors feel that their diversity programmes
are approaching adequate cultural change
programming with mid-level managers.
The directors, who have been in the
minority position themselves, are aware that
‘minorities are often in less political positions’.
This provocative observation implies that in
some cases diverse executives are isolated to
‘safe havens’ where they are impacted less by
the shifting winds of corporate change. A case
in point is the diversity executive who feels he
is safe from rifts because he is a high-profile
minority within the diversity management
programme.
Some diversity managers believe that
‘informal networks work in adverse ways for
the minority population’. The familiar example
is: ‘If I don’t play or talk golf, I’m at a real
disadvantage.’ There is a strong sense that the
quality and nature of organizational members’
relationships is a hidden element that
bears a great deal of weight during performance
evaluation and decisions on rifts and
promotions. The questions can be as basic as:
does the minority person have enough understanding
of the majority person’s value set
and interests to carry on a satisfying conversation;
does the majority person have enough
sensitivity to recognize that not everyone
shares his/her value set and interests
Diversity directors realize that because they
are expected to be cultural change agents they
should be accountable for objectives that are
long term and very difficult to measure.
However corporate leadership prefers consistent
quantification of results. Diversity managers
dislike quotas just as much as the
ideological critic of affirmative action. They
recognize that the quality of work life and
satisfaction with peer relationships may be
measured by retention rates, but its impact on
productivity and quality decision making is
very difficult to measure. Diversity directors
suffer from the corporate headquarters habit
of measuring results over a brief time span yet
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors