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

they toil to make systemic changes that will
take years. As a result, several of these directors
indicate that, for the health of their
career, they have to think of this as a shortterm
one-to-three-year position: ‘Getting back
to an operational role where I can demonstrate
my ability to get results will be crucial to
my career.’
The goal of all of the diversity directors
was, as one indicated: ‘weave diversity into
the everyday operation of the firm’. They
had no illusions about the difficulty of this
task. They knew they had to come up with
tactical methods of accomplishing their mission
of inclusiveness. This is a term that is
embraced more forcefully than previous terms
such as tolerance and diversity, which can
carry negative connotations. The new reality
is that since the workplace will be more
inclusive of a wider variety of employees and
customers an ‘inclusive growth strategy’ is
appropriate.
Dimensions of difference
It is important to note at this point in the discussion
that the persons in the studies rarely
placed any theoretic frame on the diversity
issues they discuss. In interviews they can
quickly embrace the interviewer’s conceptual
frames to explain what they perceive and
have experienced, but there is an obvious
dearth of their own application of such frames
to their daily activities.
Previous work by the author has focused on
employing programme objectives labelled
‘dimensions of difference’ (Swanson, 2001).
In the main, these can be construed as communication
variables. These provide a baseline
for the action research discussed here. The
dimensions provide a general way to bring
new concepts into interviews with the goal
of organizing and focusing some of the participants’
consideration of diversity. In brief
they are the following:
A starting point is to employ one of the
most widely applied value dimensions that
explains cultural distinctions: individualism–
collectivism (Fiske, 1991; Gudykunst and Ting-
Toomey, 1988; Hofstede, 1980, 1991;
Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990; Triandis, 1995). In
the instance of many managers, this value
dimension is highly applicable. It enables a
general view of how and why the subordinates
the leader supervises may hold a different
worldview and mindset from that of the
dominant culture manager. Ting-Toomey’s
(1999) discussion of the distinction between
individualism and collectivism encapsulates
the sort of concepts that can be applied:
Basically, individualism refers to the broad
value tendencies of a culture in emphasising
the importance of individual identity
over group identity, individual rights over
group rights, and individual needs over
group needs. Individualism promotes selfefficiency,
individual responsibilities, and
personal autonomy. In contrast, collectivism
refers to the broad value tendencies of a
culture in emphasising the importance
of the ‘we’ identity oriented needs over
individual wants and desires. Collectivism
promotes relational interdependence, ingroup
harmony, and in-group collaborative
spirit.
(p 67)
Applying three basic concepts, as awareness
objectives, produces a framework for productive
discussion. The concepts are worldview,
mindset and intercultural communication competence.
Those concepts can be faulted for
being expansive, yet they are valuable
because they broadly encompass elements
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors