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

interaction patterns are slow to evolve as
D’Amica and D’Amica (1997) suggest in their
futurist anticipation of work attitudes in the
twenty-first century: ‘Breaking through the
inertia of entrenched patterns in both individual
behaviour and organisational systems has
shown itself to be much more difficult and
long-term than expected’ (p. 6).
Diversity training has evolved through some
rough waters. In 1988 diversity was not one
of the top forty training topics reported by
companies in a Society for Human Resource
Management study (Rynes and Rosen, 1994).
By 1998 a study by the same organization
reported that 75 per cent of the Fortune 500
firms and 36 per cent of companies of all sizes
had some sort of diversity programme in
process (Allen and Montgomery, 2001). In the
1990s diversity became a hot topic and Loden
(1996) reported:
Today, the myriad training programmes,
planning councils, diversity audits, consultants,
and organisation initiatives that purport
to be changing corporate cultures
often seem to be focused more on generating
activity than results. While awareness
and understanding have become a staple
of every organisation’s diversity strategy,
many programmes to increase awareness
appear to be generating more heat but not
more light.
(p. viii)
The heat often comes in the form of a white
male backlash by those who react to training
programmes as ineffective. For example one
respondent in this study indicated that: ‘White
men are blamed for all the problems. I resent
white male bashing. We built and maintain
this company.’ This is a major obstacle that
diversity programmes must overcome. ‘In
effect, positioning diversity so one group must
take blame for the past makes the ultimate
goal – greater unity – impossible’ (Rasmussen,
1996: 5). Typical training approaches, such as
those applied in most organizations considered
in this study, are very brief. A half-day or
full-day training session raises some awareness
and provides some rationale for change,
but rarely begins to work with the broader
issues of diverse worldviews from diverse
cultures and the resultant mindsets that
guide key elements of workplace behaviour.
Thomas and Ely (1996) encapsulate this sort
of awareness:
Numerous and varied initiatives to increase
diversity in corporate America have been
under way for more than two decades.
Rarely however, have those efforts spurred
leaps in organizational effectiveness.
Instead, many attempts to increase diversity
in the workplace have backfired, sometimes
even heightening tensions among
employees and hindering a company’s
performance. It is our belief that there is a
distinct way to unleash the powerful benefits
of a diverse workforce. Although these
benefits include increased profitability,
they go beyond financial measures to
encompass learning, creativity, flexibility,
organizational and individual growth, and
the ability of a company to adjust rapidly
and successfully to market changes. The
desired transformation however, requires a
fundamental change in the attitudes and
behaviors of an organization’s leadership.
(pp. 79–80)
Performance evaluation is a focus point for
diversity management programmes. Most
performance appraisal systems strive to make
legally defensible appraisals and this means
that issues objectively covered by law become
the focus (Smither, 1998). However, the
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors