Damaris Lowenna Clark and Laura Balázs
Introduction
This chapter will define and analyse the importance of diversity in the context of an increasingly internationalised and globalised workforce. We will first look at the wide variety of benefits diversity can bring, before moving on to how Social Identity Theory can help foster acceptance of diversity and fight against discrimination in higher education institutes. In order to gauge whether higher education institutions (HEIs) are ready to adopt diverse work forces, we must first analyse the existing organisational culture as this provides a wider context for HR managers. The existing literature and analysis of university strategies suggests that one of the biggest issues regarding diversity within HEIs is the male-dominated nature of organisations and underrepresentation of women in academia. As such, we have focused specifically on this aspect to provide practical examples of inequality and what is being done by HR managers to address this. After providing some initiatives for addressing the gender balance in HEIs, we will then discuss some best practices that can be employed to promote diversity in general in HEIs.
Diversity at the Workplace
When we talk about workplace diversity we refer to the variety of differences between people in an organization. Diversity can be defined as acknowledging and valuing the differences among people with respect to age, gender, race, ethnicity, physical and mental ability, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, socioeconomic background, education, etc. (Etsy, 2005).
A diverse workforce is a reflection of a changing world and marketplace and it means a multitude of beliefs, understandings, values, and unique ways of viewing the world. During the last decades rapid internationalization and globalization have increased the significance of work-force diversity in all types of businesses and organizations. Diverse work teams can bring high value to organizations and provide a larger pool of experiences. To be able to fully utilize the unique talents and potential of the diverse workforce the organization has to create an inclusive atmosphere and it has to be committed to valuing diversity (Shen, Chanda, D’Netto & Monga, 2009). Miller (1989) also emphasizes the role that diversity plays in an organization as a key resource for creating high performance work culture that enables each member of the organization to perform their work as well as possible (Miller, 1989).
Diversity in the workplace can provide many benefits for the company, for example it can increase marketing opportunities, recruitment, creativity, and business image (Esty, Griffin, & Schorr-Hirs, 1995). Using the appropriate HRM tools to manage a diverse workforce, the organization can also create a more cooperative behaviour, which can improve inclusiveness, increase organizational efficiency, flexibility, profitability and provide a competitive advantage. (Shen, Chanda, D’Netto & Monga, 2009). The fact, that human beings prefer working in homogeneous groups, and humans, just as the organizations they are a part of generally avoid and resist change, can provide a challenge for creating true diversity at the workplace (Kreitz, 2009). To be able to change behaviours and mindsets, the organization has to change organizational policies and culture. “It must develop a broad range of policies and practices to help ensure that today’s workplace works for everyone” (Aronson, 2002, p.22). In this process the HR manager is uniquely qualified and strategically positioned to work together with the management to tackle these challenges (Kreitz, 2009).
Social Identity Theory
As HR managers deal with all types of individuals within organisations, from the most senior staff to the junior members, it is important that they understand the antecedents to individual and group behaviour. In this instance Social Identity Theory (SIT) can provide HR managers with a social-psychological perspective to organizational identity and can offer coherence to the complex intricacies of discrimination and furthermore presents a theoretical framework to underpin the implementation of a more diverse workforce. The main premise of SIT is that individuals tend to classify themselves and others into certain social categories (also known as schemas) according to gender, profession, religion etc. (Taijfel & Turner, 1985). Categories are defined by prototypical features of members of the group (Turner, 1985). The benefits of such a classification system are twofold, firstly it creates a systematic and undemanding way of defining others. Secondly, it provides an individual sense of identity and belonging for members of groups (Ashforth & Mael 1989). There are two further elements to social identity that it is measured relative to the characteristics of other groups and members can decide to what degree they wish to be associated with a category.
SIT has the possibility to fuse diversity and organisational unity by bringing together individuals from separate social groups (thus creating a diverse workforce) and creating a new collective identity by association of their values and commitment to higher education. However, Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggests that a single identity within a large and complex organization (such as a university) may be both problematic and unrealistic. They suggest, as an alternative, the notion of loosely coupled identities. Patchen (1970) defines organisational identity as shared characteristics which foster loyalty and solidarity within.
How can HR managers use social identity theory to promote diversity and reduce discrimination within higher education institutions? Ashforth and Mael (1989) identify three antecedents for strength of identification to one’s “in-group” as it is defined in SIT, distinctiveness of the group (even if negatively distinctive), prestige of the organisation and awareness of out groups as a boundary for one’s own group. Therefore, by cultivating a stronger unified workforce through facilitating the above mechanisms, members of naturally divergent groups can work together harmoniously. However, counter to this, it is rare that organisations exist as a single “group”, in reality it is comprised of multiple subunits, which naturally gives rise to intergroup conflict within the bigger group (in this case, subunits may refer to individual departments and disciplines and the bigger group to the university as a whole), this somewhat diminishes the idea of a harmonious workforce (Tajfel, 1982) and could give rise to a host of other problems, such as fragmentation within the university.
Social identity theory defines organisations as far more than just interpersonal relations (Turner, 1985) and posits that strong affiliation with one’s organisation can take place even in the absence of social cohesion and similarity (i.e. a diverse workforce) but perhaps more salient is the influence it has on psychological affect and behaviour. In sum, what HR managers can learn from SIT, is that through strengthening employees’ identities to the university by promoting distinctiveness and prestige, even in the presence of individual differences, employees will feel a collective identity. This collective identity can help bring together individuals and foster commitment and investment to the institution as a whole. In a sense, what this refers to is the necessity to create a distinct organizational culture within the workplace. Before we can address diversity in the specific context of HEIs, we must first look at the existing organizational culture, and whether this is a fertile environment for diversity to grow.
Organizational Culture and Diversity in HE institutions
According to Baruch (2013) definition, universities are institutions whose major role is to create and disseminate new knowledge, develop and educate people, and progress the search for intellectual truth. Since a highly committed and qualified workforce is crucial for their success, effective leadership and people management are essential ingredients for the success of universities in both the short and long-term (Baruch, 2013). The international and multicultural environment in which universities have to operate these days necessitates the management of an increasingly diverse workforce. It could be also argued that educational institutions – based on their importance as gateways to citizenship and economic opportunity, and as places for "cultural meaning-making" should provide a "role model" for creating a sustainable change in racial and gender equity (Sturm, 2006).
It is particularly difficult to establish consistent and complementary cultures within academia, considering – as Becher (1989) put it in his classic book – different "academic tribes" are formed along disciplines with different and distinct characteristics.
Clark (1983) outlined three levels of culture in higher education: the culture of the discipline, the culture of the enterprise (i.e., organizational culture), and the culture of the academic profession and/or national system. Based on his contribution, Silver (2003) argued that there is no common institutional identity in higher education institutions and contemporary universities are characterized by value conflicts and lack of coherence (Silver, 2003). On the other hand, Becher (1989) believed that members of strong academic cultures share ideologies, values, and quality judgments, and those who seem not to comply with these common cultural elements risk being penalized. Barbosa and Cabral-Cardoso (2007) noted that in higher education institutions individualism, selfishness, competition - as opposed to collectivism, cooperation and solidarity, which are more suitable for diverse workforce – are more prevalent. The structural conditions i.e. the organizational hierarchy are also less suitable for integration processes. The aforementioned organisational culture and structure suggest that, HEIs are not exactly designed to embrace a diverse workforce. This could not be more visible than in the underrepresentation of women in academia, which will address next.
Representation of Women in Academia
The lack of women’s and minorities representation and inclusion, particularly in senior positions, remains a problem for academic institutions (Bilimoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008). Published in an article in The Gazette, the results of the Global Gender Index (from data provided voluntarily by institutions ranked in the top 400 of THE’s World University Rankings) highlight a huge disparity in the ratio of male to female academics in nearly all of the countries that took part in the survey. The situation is the worst in Japan, where women only make up 12.7 per cent of the academics at the country’s toprated universities. The problem exits even in the Scandinavian countries (which are often regarded as the some of the most progressive countries in the world regarding gender issues), such as Sweden (36.7 per cent), Norway (31.7 per cent) and Denmark (31 per cent). An almost equal gender split can be found in Turkey, where 47.5 per cent of staff at the top five universities are female.
Academia "is underpinned by the archaism of male domination," says Louise Morley, director of the Centre for Higher Education and Equity Research at the University of Sussex. She points to the “entrenched patriarchal power nexus at universities, with their male-dominated departments, interview boards and academic journal editors” which she believes to be selfperpetuating. This makes it more difficult for women to increase their research potential and academic capital that might lead to full-time positions, or sabbaticals to further their work. She argues that women mostly do low-level administrative work, while men can focus on tasks that will advance their careers prospects.
Whilst in some countries e.g. the USA, overt discrimination is reducing, more subtle forms of prejudice such as male favouritism which limits the professional development of women in academia are still prevalent (Roos & Gatta, 2007). Reskin (2003) points out that gender inequality is not always a product of conscious cognitive processes and may result in subtle advantages for men and subtle disadvantages for women. This emphasises the necessity in raising awareness of potentially underlying prejudices.
In a study of an unnamed state university in the United States, Roos, and Gatta (2007) identifies three key indicators of inequality for women in academia, firstly women were still underrepresented in disciplines that were atypical for their gender, most notably maths and science. It was suggested that these bias were made at both the recruitment and promotion stage. Secondly, large discrepancies between men and women were still prevalent with regards to rank, promotion and leadership. Furthermore, women who were in senior positions rose through the ranks as opposed to men who were hired directly into senior positions. Finally, differences in salary prevail among men and women, with the latter only earning 89 percent of the former.
Looking at academia from a different point of view, it could be argued that academic roles offer many opportunities for work-life balance. Being present in the office is not a precondition to conduct the work (though physically being in class is essential for lecturers) and there is an option and need to work in nonconventional, flexible hours. In certain cases, this can be an incentive to encourage women to choose an academic career (Özbilgin and Healy, 2004).
To facilitate the inclusion and representation of women in academia and the problems which often arise as presented above, NSF launched an initiative titled “ADVANCE IT” which rewarded institutions which implemented not only institutional policies and procedures which encouraged full participation of women in the workforce and particularly in senior positions, but also to actively pursue a positive climate and culture towards this (National Science Foundation, 2005). Institutions that were rewarded undertook the following measures; adopted mentoring and faculty development programs, created new structures and positions both to monitor and develop diversity and facilitate the inclusion of women in the workplace e.g. childcare services.
Another example of initiatives to recognise and promote awareness of women’s achievements can be seen in Western Australia’s Department of Education’s (2010) “Equity and Management Plan”, under the initiative to build inclusive workplaces there are a number of actions; 1.) to recognise achievements through the “Women of Achievement Award” 2.) to conduct regional workshops in which women can identify issues affecting women in leadership 3.) provide scholarships and short term projects/secondments in higher positions 4.) implement a monitoring process for aspiring women to discuss the issues of academic progression and under presentation of women. The desired outcome of these actions is ultimately the same, that is, to provide more opportunities for women in senior positions and raise awareness of issues of inequality. The key to success in this management plan is the use of well defined actions, a timeline of implementation and making specific staff/units accountable for these outcomes and more importantly, their accomplishment (Department of Education Management Plan 2011-2014).
The focus of women in academia is not to imply that gender is the only area in which HEIs lack diversity, it just happens to be a prominent issue and provides a practical example of how HR managing are dealing with this issue through different initiatives and programmes. The remainder of this chapter will now concentrate on more general practices which can and are adopted by HR departments and managers to create equal opportunities and diversify the workforce.
Human Resource Management Practices
Human resource management practices – and more specifically diversity management policies and tools – can create "pleasant and respectful work places, where different cultures and religions are appreciated, equal opportunities rights policies are really developed and physical handicaps are not an obstacle to professional development." (Strazzeri, 2005).
These policies and practices can operate at different levels:
The only way to create lasting change – for example creating a favourable climate for minorities or disabled workers – in an organization is to implement policies on a strategic, organizational level. “Bringing about the changes needed to build and sustain diversity requires commitment, strategy, communication, and concrete changes in organizational structure and processes“ (Kreitz, 2007). The organizational framework – which can include for example anti-discrimination policy and equal opportunity employment policy - will define the HRM approach also.
On the tactical HRM level diversity management has to do first of all with recruitment and selection decisions. Schneider (1987) warns about the danger of falling into the "A-S-A (attrac-tion, selection, attrition) cycle", whereby organizations choose candidates for positions, who share many common personal attributes, and those workers, who do not share the common attitudes, leave the company shortly. The way the job vacancies are communicated can be the first step to attract a diverse pool of applicants (e. g. using non-discriminatory language). In respect of training and development, establishing a diversity awareness training, increase female and minority participation in professional trainings, establishing mentoring relationships can have a beneficial effect. Involving culturally diverse employees in performance appraisal panels can ensure the fairness of these process. It is of high importance also to reduce earnings differences between men and women, and to provide flexible, alternative employment possibilities (diverse workforce has different priorities).
The HR department can also be engaged in efforts "to make departments (microclimates) more collegial, egalitarian, equitable and transparent (e.g. Department transformation programs, Funding for departmental transformation projects, Assistance to department strategic planning, Department-specific seminars/workshops, Training and presentations to department chairs, Coaching department chairs & senior faculty, Cross-departmental committees)" (Bilimoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008).
Some examples of equal opportunity and diversity management practices and policies that HR departments use at higher education institutions:
Conclusion
Workplace diversity means more than barely accepting or tolerating people from different backgrounds – it is about recognising and valuing the varied competences, skills, experiences, and perspectives that people bring to their work. Without a strategic HR operation in place, academic institutions might not be able to take full advantage of their human capital, which in turn can negatively affect institutional effectiveness and academic quality (Evans & Chun, 2012). One study conducted by Kossek, Markel and McHugh (2003), showed that HR strategies that only concentrate on structural change but fail to develop supportive group norms and positive climate are inadequate change strategies.
Also, ineffective diversity management can result in unpleasant working atmosphere, demotivation, conflict, higher employee turnover and low performance (Shen, Chanda, D’Netto & Monga, 2009). Universities also need to implement practices that initiate a deeper, long-term change in mental models, by “awareness creation, skill building, empowerment, leadership development, process improvements, policy modifications, and structural changes need to occur simultaneously” (Bilmoria, Joy, & Liang, 2008) so that their employees have the opportunities to develop and demonstrate their full potential.
References
Aronson, D. (2002). Managing the diversity revolution: Best practices for 21st century business. Civil Rights Journal, 6, 46-66.
Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and organisation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Barbosa, Í. & Cabral-Cardoso, C., (2007). Managing diversity in academic organizations: A challenge to organizational culture. Women in Management Review, 22(4), 274 – 288.
Baruch, Y. (2013). Careers in academe: The academic labour market as an ecosystem. Career Development International, 18(2), 196 – 210.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultural disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S. & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engeneering. Human Resource Management, I47(3), 423–441.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Esty, K., Griffin R., & Schorr-Hirsh M. (1995). Workplace diversity: A managers guide to solving problems and turning diversity into a competitive advantage. Avon, MA: Adams Media Corporation.
Evans, A. & Chun, E. (2012) Creating a tipping point: Strategic human resources in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report. 38(1).
Kossek, E.E, Markel, K.S. & McHugh P.P. (2003). Increasing diversity as an HRM change strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(3), 328 - 352
Kreitz, P.A. (2007). Best practices for managing organizational diversity. SLAC-PUB-12499. Retrieved from http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-12499.pdfMiller, F.A. (1998). Strategic culture change: The door to achieving high performance and inclusion. Public Personnel Management, 27(2), 151-60.
National Science Foundation (2005) ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383.
Ozbilgin, M. & Healy, G. (2004). The gendered nature of career development of university professors: The case of Turkey. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 64(2), 358-371.
Patchen, M. (1970), Participation,achievement and involvement on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Reskin, Barbara F. (2003). Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. American Sociological Review, 68, 1-21.
Roos, P.A. & Gatta, M.L. (2009) Gender (in)equity in the academy: Subtle mechanisms and the production of inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27(3), 177-200.
Shen J., Chanda A., D'Netto, B. & Monga M. (2009) Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235-251.
Silver, H. (2003). Does a university have a Culture? Studies in Higher Education, 28, 157-69.
Strazzeri, L. (2005). Diversity management: A challenge for higher education and research institutions. OECD conference on: Trends in the management of human resources in higher education, Paris, 2005.
Tajfel,H. (1982) Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 483-507). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.) Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Western Department of Education (2010). Western Australia Department of Education Management Plan 2011-2014. Retrieved from http://www.det.wa.edu.au/policies/detcms/policy-planning-and-accountability/policies-framework/strategic-documents/equity-and-diversity-management-plan-2011-2014.en?oid=com.arsdigita.cms.contenttypes.FileStorageItem-id-11063832.
There has been error in communication with Booktype server. Not sure right now where is the problem.
You should refresh this page.