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

and physical ability. As the concept of diversity
evolves to fit the contemporary workplace
where organizations have flattened structures
and moved to new team and workgroup
forms designed to increase synchronous
communication, more complex categories of
diversity are the focus of research. For example
Jehn, Northcraft and Neale (1999) did a
field study of ninety-two workgroups applying
three types of workplace diversity (social
category diversity, value diversity and informational
diversity). They found it appropriate
to question the typical hypothesis, taught
as a basic concept on group dynamics, that
heterogeneity in groups leads to better group
performance, while homogeneity leads to
better group process. However, the reality is
more complex. Their field study discovered
that social category diversity could be mediated
by task type and task interdependence
and that value diversity could be the most frequent
impediment to group performance.
Consequently, being alert to the impact of
diverse value sets, reflected by worldview and
mindset, is a key challenge to those who wish
to mobilize all of the human assets in a given
decision-making setting.
Contemporary theorists have described
strategic stages of the development of diversity
programmes. Allen and Montgomery
(2001) define the stages simply as: ‘unfreezing’
the forces resisting change; ‘moving’ to
cultural change; ‘refreezing’, or institutionalizing
the change; and the ‘competitive advantage’
that results. In 1996 Thomas and Ely
defined three paradigms to explain the evolution
of a diversity programme. Initially, the
‘discrimination and fairness paradigm’ must
be satisfied. Second, the ‘access and legitimacy
paradigm’ must be put in place, and
reinforced. Third, the programme must strive
for ‘the emerging paradigm’ that connects
diversity to work perspectives. Subsequently
the third perspective has been further defined
as the ‘integration-and-learning’ perspective
that enables dialogue on diversity issues to
occur (Ely and Thomas, 2001).
From the manager’s vantage point, is the
goal of the diversity programme to enforce
law and expectations and support incremental
improvements Or is the goal to develop and
maintain a systemic programme that has a
dramatic impact on the corporate culture It is
evident from the reactions of interviewees in
this study that these are neither dichotomous
nor mutually exclusive goals. Whatever the
mission of the diversity unit is, high-level
executives must be involved and champion
the programme. ‘Top management support
for diversity is certainly critical. Management
needs to begin the process of unfreezing the
current culture by changing the system within
which it operates’ (Allen and Montgomery,
2001: 154).
Implications
This review of corporate members’ perceptions
raises a variety of concepts that in their
application must be context dependent.
‘Organizational leaders also need to examine
their internal and external environments to
adopt an approach to implementation that
matches their particular context or with a context
they believe will emerge’ (Dass and
Parker, 1999: 78). There is no single best set of
concepts or way of dealing with diversity
management. Each organization inheres its
own unique demographic features.
In any effort to understand the attitude
toward diversity programmes that exists in
the contemporary corporate environment it
seems that the appropriate focus is upon
executives and their influence on the sort of
diversity programming selected to fit their
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors