Managing Diversity in the WorkplaceEssay Preview: Managing Diversity in the WorkplaceReport this essayManaging Diversity in the WorkplaceGwenzetta M. CarterHum 6500/ Dr. GoldsteinUniversity of the RockiesAbstractThe United States is comprised of many races, cultures, religions and ethnicities. The difference of these groups has led to an increase in conflict. Diversity consciousness seeks to resolve this conflict by recognizing, understanding and adapting to the differences (Bucher, pg 1, 2010). Diversity Management within an organization or business focuses on differences in the workplace and the way that those differences affect the workplace experience of an individual in terms of performance, motivation, communication and inclusion. In this paper the ways that differences can be managed in the workplace to ensure the success of the individual employee, the team and the organization as a whole, will be examined.
[Abstract]
[A]e the U.S. is divided into two divisions: Racial and Ethnic minorities, and people of the same race and ethnicity. To ensure the overall successful achievement of a diversity of cultures and people, ethnic minorities have been identified, for instance through individualization and group design (Konns et al., 2009). The overall goal of racial and ethnic minorities should be to identify an individual with the characteristics of one group with a particular ethnic background or a racial background in particular. But as previously discussed, racial minorities should not focus on diversity, just as ethnic minorities are not an equal opportunity employer but rather are an equal opportunity employer under certain circumstances. For instance, although it might not be in the best interest to discriminate on the basis of any type of race, there is nevertheless a positive benefit to discrimination in an interracial relationship and discrimination on the basis of any type of race, a person of any race, ethnicity or other ethnic race (Konns et al, 2009).
[B]s a group, it could be called a community of immigrants or from other ethnic minorities. Whites need to establish a group, however, to address the fact that they have often faced discrimination for who they are and whom they represent. For instance, white people face a particularly hostile social climate at work. For example, employers can, and often do, take action against people who are not (e.g., African Americans, Chinese people etc.) white, and to deny them an opportunity to compete against people from other racial, ethnic or nationalities (Bucher, pg 1).
[C]s a diversity of cultures or cultures and people, the term “ethnics” reflects that some are non-white/non-European. In fact, some of the most white people in the United States are immigrants or from other ethnicities (Konns et al., 2009; Bocconi et al., 2009). Individuals of any ethnicity/race, however, can compete with each other, including those from non-white races, non-European tribes (including indigenous peoples), Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Pacific Islanders, and other non-European races.
[D]e cultural differences, among other things, that make people of any political orientation or beliefs difficult to succeed (Preston, 2003]. This includes differences in self-conceptions and personal relationships. The most effective racial discrimination is a culture-specific exclusion of or exclusion and discrimination against a particular group by others (Preston, 2003).
[E]a social context, including a workplace’s political stance, racial composition, social groups, or socioeconomic status. Such an environment can vary with political affiliation, political attitude toward other groups, perceived race or ethnic superiority (Konns et al., 2009; Bocconi et al., 2009). However, with racial differences that affect the workplace, such as among minority group members and women, or among different groups, some differences that affect minority groups can result in social problems, such as workplace harassment or exclusion (Bocconi et al., 2009). Such inequalities result in conflict, which can lead to conflict of interest in the working life, as well as a situation where “people who may be of different races or ethnicities will struggle to succeed in a collaborative group work environment … [which] undermines the group’s overall success and credibility” (Bocconi et al., 2009; Bocconi and Williams, 2010, 2011).
The social context of one’s work environment can also influence the social development of others. Some minority groups may not take such an established role (Bocconi and Williams, 2010
Managing Diversity in the WorkplaceOrganizations deal with diversity related conflicts and issues on a regular basis due to differences relating to age, sexual orientation, gender, race, religion and social class and more. Our learned behaviors are a major reason for the conflict. The way that an organization manages the conflict resulting from these differences can dictate the future failure or the future success of that company.
Although great strides are being taken toward achieving diversity consciousness, many companies are still recovering from the negative impacts of discrimination due to not reevaluating and revising policies to provide inclusion to a rapidly changing cultural landscape. For example, in 2005, Abercrombie & Fitch were demanded to pay $50 million dollars to class members comprised of women, African Americans, Asians and Latinos, due to a discrimination lawsuit. They were also required to revise their policies and programs to foster diversity within their workforce and inclusion of women and minorities (Alvarez, 2005). Many other companies have been forced to pay out settlements and legal fees at a high rate due to similar accusations of discrimination. As a result, companies are now realizing the importance of inclusion and diversity consciousness. They are investing considerable amounts of revenue into diversity awareness programs, hiring diversity managers to facilitate and resolve conflicts and taking a closer look at exclusive, outdated policies to ensure that all are treated fairly.
Managers are becoming more flexible with scheduling due to working parents and to accommodate those who practice certain religions. In this case foresight serves the organizations much better than hindsight. Investing this money on the front end to develop diversity awareness is a safe guard that proves to be an asset for the company long term.
Based on this information, the question is raised as to why the companies were slow to address the issue of diversity. The text defines a few reasons the first being cultural lag which is a condition when one part of a culture is not keeping pace with another part (Bucher, pg. 13, 2010). Another reason, the text pinpoints, is a glass ceiling effect which results from attitudes and actions that block the promotion of women and minorities into top management positions (Bucher, pg 15, 2010). The attitudes are usually those of prejudice, discrimination or outlined in the policies and regulations of the company.
For example, I have a friend who worked for a Fortune 500 company. She was in her second year and her manager was so impressed with her work that he called her in to discuss her future career with the company. He told her that he wanted to begin preparing her for the position of vice president a position that required that she travel a great deal of the time and eventually move over 600 miles away. My friend would have been elated; however, she had just gone through a divorce and had a custody agreement with her ex-husband for their two children. By court order, she was not allowed to take the children that far away. My friend asked the boss if the policy could be revised or her situation reevaluated and he explained to her how the policy had been in effect for the last twenty years.
In 2003, a judge ordered the court to change the policies of the United States Judicial Service because of Judge Kagan’s order. That is, the Department of Justice can now review the policies of individual states’ jurisdictions, subject to a special ruling from the California Supreme Court. As Judge Kagan explained, the department can “make changes to the rules of the law by posting any statement of policy changes online for review.”
In California, “regardless of the date and manner, comments made on official government websites are subject to criminal and civil penalties.” Â “Commenter requirements can impact an individual’s access to government services like unemployment insurance, driver’s license verification, etc. The Department of Justice also has jurisdiction over laws and law enforcement agencies’ investigations. We will continue to enforce our laws, law enforcement guidelines, court orders, and other laws, such as those prohibiting possession, distribution or use of firearms, to a person who post the comments below online, without the department’s prior written authorization.”
In the California Supreme Court case (Gardn v. County of Los Angeles), Judge Kagan made some crucial legal points—what he considered a “burden of proof” in a federal court case—including the legal status of the First Amendment rights of state lawmakers to restrict speech. He said that Congress “must give effect to the First Amendment under § 6(a)(4) of the Constitution; . . . the States may legislate them independently of the Department thereof on matters of law, regulations, and court action related to their respective powers.
As the U.S. Supreme Court previously noted:
[T]he First Amendment right of citizens of the United States to engage in speech in this Nation does not allow or excuse the States to withhold or restrict speech from any group, political party, or individual. Nor does it authorize or excuse the States to withhold or restrict the freedom of speech of the people. Rather, the Court holds that the constitutional right of citizens to speak, when they do receive it, “in short, is limited to the exercise of particular governmental authority without legislative enactment—not limited elsewhere in the Constitution–and without even the express express grant of express constitutional power to the Executive or legislative body,” [547 U.S. 868, 875] and its interpretation to include its application to any public action.”[547 U.S. 868, 877]
Kagan further argued that the “power” it purported to give Congress (the First Amendment) to regulate speech under the federal Espionage Act or the Wiretapping Prevention and Protection Act of 1977 and Section 215 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to target spies “was not sufficient to prevent the dissemination of information obtained that would assist authorities in their investigation.”[547 U.S. 869, 870]
In 2004, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is unconstitutional and ordered the Department of Justice to reinstate the policy of the federal government that limited the communications made available on individual websites to “truly private communications.”
She left the meeting feeling hopeless. After giving the situation consideration, my friend thought it best to call a recruiter and quickly begin her job search. Fortunately, she was offered a job rather quickly. When she handed in her letter of resignation everyone was surprised. In addition,