Improving Organizational Integrity Through Humanistic Diversity Management
The Case of Minority–Majority Relations in Healthcare Organizations and Academic Institutions
Introduction
In light of globalization processes, diversity of workforce and organizational membership constitutes a reality in most parts of the world.1 Notwithstanding the pervasiveness of this phenomenon, its ramifications on humanistic organizational practices, particularly on workplace integrity, have hardly been examined.
Constructive engagement of diversity constitutes a vital component of humanistic management in the current organizational reality, embedded in a complex sociopolitical and cultural context.2 Employers, employees, and members of organizations hardly grasp the potential impact of diversity on work climate and on relationship dynamics. Moreover, they experience difficulty in controlling their own prejudice and stereotypical judgments, thus impeding organizational integrity, as reflected in actual and perceived social and economic justice (equality and equity), inclusion, and an opportunity to express authentic voices.3 Maintaining integrity within nationally and ethnically diverse organizations constitutes a particular challenge in divided societies, such as those ridden by protracted intergroup conflicts.4
This chapter aims to close some of the knowledge gaps and contribute to the understanding of the consequences of diversity on integrity in organizations, especially in a divided society ridden with protracted conflicts. We endeavor to illuminate best practices in this domain by exploring mechanisms whereby constructive relations among diverse groups in organizations can be fostered. Constructive bonds among diverse organizational members and groups denote respect and tolerance of differences, openness, inclusion, intergroup equality, equitable treatment, and opportunities for expressing unique and authentic voices.5 We consider such benevolent relations as the primary markers of organizational integrity in the context of divided societies.
The chapter is based on the authors’ research and praxis in the area of minority–majority relations in organizations, shadowed by protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict.6 This work has involved two cases: diverse nurses’ teams (Jews, Arabs, and immigrants from former Soviet Union) in medical centers and diverse college students’ population (Jews and Arabs).
The paper commences with framing of the diversity construct and modes of diversity management in organizations. It is followed by a brief introduction concerning the effects of protracted conflict on relations among adversarial and diverse groups in organizations. Then the two cases are presented and analyzed. The concluding section of the chapter integrates the insights from the two cases and delineates best practices model (a theory of practice) aimed at developing and implementing humanistic diversity management, thereby promoting integrity in diverse work teams and academic institutions, especially applicable to the context of divided societies. Critical evaluation of the proposed framework, pinpointing its strengths and pitfalls culminates the paper.
Diversity Management in Organizations
Diversity denotes variation in a wide range of group members’ characteristics, including professional background and expertise, and salient demographic features such as age, gender, race, nationality, and ethnicity.7 These scholars distinguished between surface-level and deep-level diversity. Surface-level diversity refers to the extent of demographic variation in a work unit, whereas deep-level diversity purports to disparities in personality, attitudes, values, and capabilities. We embrace the construal of diversity as a group characteristic, focusing mainly on the surface level, namely, differences in demographic characteristics such as race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, social class, and other markers of social identity which have generated intergroup stereotypes, prejudice, acts of oppression, or discrimination.8 Scholars of organizational behavior attempted to explain the mechanisms whereby diversity exerts an impact on intraorganizational relations. Nationality and ethnicity constitute a significant component of diversity in contemporary organizations, affecting the capacity to manage internal relations and consequently organizational integrity and effectiveness.9
Harrison and Klein distinguished among three different elements of diversity: (a) variety (differences in information, knowledge, and expertise), (b) separation (differences in position or opinion among unit members, which reflect disagreement on a horizontal continuum), and (c) disparity (differences in control of valued social resources such as pay and status among unit members which are distributed on a vertical continuum). The variety aspect of diversity accounts for the benevolent influence on organizational group functioning. Variety in members’ characteristics (such as nationality or ethnicity) brings to the group a potential to view issues from different perspectives and consider greater array of options to solve organizational problems. In contrast with the positive effects of variety, separation, and disparity elements of diversity tend to perturb group functioning and impede its outcomes.10
The disruptive effects of diversity were explained by the theories of social categorization and social identity11 and the notion of faultline.12 According to the social categorization and social identity model people tend to define and distinguish themselves from others based on their group membership. Encountering individuals from different groups sets up the categorization process and gives rise to a tendency to form a more favorable image of one’s own group in comparison to the attitudes toward individuals from dissimilar groups (in-group favoritism). In the context of nationally diverse organizational groups, in-group favoritism may affect the internal climate and dynamics, making it more difficult for “out-group” members to express their voices and exert influence.
The faultline model (hypothetical dividing lines splitting a group into subgroups and giving rise to polarization between in-group and out-group identities) refined the underlying mechanism accounting for the negative impact of separation and disparity in groups with diverse membership. Van Knippenberg, Dawson, West, and Homan explained the contingencies underlying the negative effects of diversity in contrast with its positive impact, maintaining that the actual adverse influence of social categorization depends on its salience, rather than on the mere presence of differences.13 Thus, the negative effects of diversity tend to prevail when categorization salience is high, whereas its positive influence takes the lead when the work group embraces cooperative motivational orientation, team identity, and shared objectives, which in turn facilitate constructive interactions such as coordination and collaboration. As we argue later, the legacies of protracted national conflict tend to obscure the development of such benevolent group climate, instead accentuating faultlines—encouraging in-group favoritism by the majority members, in turn, impeding the advantages of diversity.
To counteract the potential adverse effects of diversity, organizations engage it by means of various management practices on the macro as well as on the micro (group) level.
What are the effects of diversity management in organizations? Which management patterns maximize the benevolent effects of diversity and promote integrity while minimizing the adverse influence of separation and disparity?
An extensive literature review on diversity in organizations by Ramarajan and Thomas revealed positive effects of diversity management in terms of intergroup equality, intergroup relations, and performance of diverse groups, and indicated the organizational level and individual level conditions fostering such outcomes.14
Based on their findings, these scholars maintain that increasing representation of diverse groups (minorities, women, and other excluded groups) in organizations, especially in positions of power and improving their career trajectories, appears to enhance intergroup equality. Moreover, Ramarajan’s and Thomas’ review has indicated that positive interactions among diverse group members and mutual perceptions concerning desirability of such intergroup contact tended to mitigate prejudice, negative attitudes, and enhance intergroup liking (termed allophilia by Pittinsky and Montoya15). Other organizational scholars showed relational benefits of diversity as reflected in intergroup respect, openness, inclusion, minority members’ sense of integration in organization, and majority members’ perception of uniqueness with regard to minority members.16
Ramarajan and Thomas qualify the positive findings concerning organizational diversity, stating that the effects in each of the three domains are independent, so that intergroup equality is not necessarily related to positive intergroup relations or enhanced group performance.17 Research has yet not provided clear findings with respect to the links among the three domains. The other limitation of extant research pertains to differences in measurement levels: intergroup equality has been typically assessed at the macro level whereas intergroup relations and group performance have been assessed at a micro level. Hence, it is not clear whether parallel positive findings can be identified across levels.
Notwithstanding the importance of the positive findings on organizational diversity, another query one might pose concerns the conditions or circumstances underlying such positive effects. Extant research evinced the contingent nature of the positive outcomes. Thus, diversity management at organizational policy level, such as affirmative action, diversity committees, and especially assigned diversity personnel, appear to precipitate intergroup equality.18 Similarly, group-level aspects, such as beliefs concerning the importance of fairness, equal access, legitimacy, integration, and learning tend to foster positive intergroup relations and high group performance.19 Triana, Garcia, and Colella’s research shows that organizational efforts supporting diversity moderate the effects of perceived racial discrimination and thereby enhance employees’ affective commitment.20 However, their findings also indicated that the pattern of relationships may change for different ethnic or social groups. Ethnic or national minorities for whom discrimination experiences have been particularly prevalent, therefore salient, and who maintain strong ethnic or national identity, such as African-Americans, tend to interpret organizational efforts to support diversity as hypocritical. Such attitudes are conceivable in the case of Arab citizens in Israel, especially in situations where they work in joint teams, usually enhancing the salience of social categorization.21
How does diversity management relate to organizational integrity? As argued in the preceding section, constructive engagement with issues of diversity at the macro-policy level and at the micro (group) level in organizations may foster equality and positive intergroup relations. Such effects are tantamount to the expected outcomes within the realm of humanistic management, fostering organizational integrity. We extrapolate from the literature embracing gender perspective in business ethics to other characteristics of diversity and maintain accordingly that equality and equity for minorities and other frequently excluded and marginalized groups should be an explicit priority in organizational practices.22 Thus, practices encouraging integrity entail counteracting the prevailing models of doing business, corporate culture, and organizational management which are fundamentally unjust due to their structural and systematic bias favoring white men and other majority groups. In other words, promoting integrity warrants special attention, reflected in clear policy and actions designed to provide social and economic justice to excluded or marginalized social groups.
The Israeli case with its internal divisions, particularly the Jewish–Arab schism in light of the protracted national conflict, directs the task of humanistic diversity management primarily to the national majority–minority relations. Enhancing integrity in this case entails improving social and economic justice for the minorities and the capacity of both groups—minority and majority—to express their authentic voices. In order to embed our work in the relevant context, the next section of the chapter delineates the anticipated effects of protracted conflict on relations among adversary and diverse groups in organizations.
The Effects of Protracted Israeli–Palestinian Conflict on Jewish–Arab Relations in Joint Organizations
Previous studies have indicated numerous adverse consequences of the protracted conflict on individual motivation and wellbeing, on interpersonal perceptions, and group relations.23 Continuous intergroup discord poses a profound barrier to intergroup relations due to accumulative negative changes in attitudes, feelings, motivations, and behavior. Such protracted conflict tends to intensify, often erupting into violence, and leading to perceptions of intractability: persistence and pervasiveness of the disputes, irreconcilable goals, threatened existential needs, and escalation.24
At the motivational level, each side embraces a highly competitive, intransigent stance, viewing the conflict as a “zero-sum game.” In the emotional arena, parties’ feelings toward one another are progressively transformed from anger to overall antagonism, often turning to hatred inflamed by vengeance. In the cognitive modality, adversaries rely on stereotypes and selective perception, disproportionately weighing negative information while discounting positive data. Increasingly negative perceptions of the other side breeds mutual distrust. At the behavioral modality, adversaries encounter mounting difficulties in communication.25
Changes at the individual level unfold in the social and group context as mounting ethnocentrism and groupthink.26 Each group tends to believe that its own goals are just, whereas the opponent group’s goals are illegitimate.27 Groupthink symptoms include extreme within-group conformity and suppressed dissent.28 At the community level, there is a polarization effect in which individuals and groups tend to join one of the rival camps, strengthening mutual animosity experienced by both sides and sustaining a culture of conflict.29 Although overtly peaceful everyday relationships among Jewish and Arab citizens seem to mitigate these deep divisions, there is a constant potential for conflict eruption, including violent outbursts.
Surprisingly, research on the consequences of this protracted discord on the actual functioning of Jews and Arabs in mixed organizations virtually does not exist. Thus, it is not clear how well members of these joint teams are able to counteract the adverse ramifications of the protracted conflict. In light of the complexity of relations among national majority and minority groups in organizations, the question is how such diversity can be managed in a humanistic manner so as to enhance organizational integrity, offsetting the adverse effects of salient faultlines.
Our work aims to shed light on the actual modes of diversity management—how does it fit with humanistic patterns to engage this phenomenon, in light of the complex reality of protracted national conflict? We seek to elucidate perceptions of Jewish and Arab members in joint organizations concerning national majority–minority relations (micro-level markers of organizational integrity), in joint medical teams and academic institutions, underscoring their attitudes concerning diversity management in their organizations and teams and outcomes of such efforts on the macro level—perceived equality and equity for minorities. We also examine what organizational level (e.g., organizational policies and practices) and group level factors (e.g., team or organizational climate, common organizational identity) geared at constructive engagement with diversity foster equality and equity (mitigate perceptions of discrimination) and positive intergroup relations within mixed groups. Finally, we explore the influence of national status (minority versus majority) on perceptions with respect to diversity management and organizational integrity on both macro and micro level.
We move now to a description and analysis of the two cases in an attempt to respond to the queries presented above. The first one constitutes a “naturalistic” case, portraying naturally evolving dynamics between Jewish and Arab nurses in mixed medical teams, whereas the second case involves premeditated interventions geared at improvement of relations between Jewish and Arab students in academic institutions.
Case 1: Diversity Management in Nationally and Ethnically Mixed Nurses’ Teams
Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel have worked in joint medical teams, delivering healthcare services to both Jewish and Arab patients, from the inception of the state of Israel in 1948 through the present. Medical workers from both sides have experienced all phases of the protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including the most intense escalation stages (wars, terrorist acts, and the two intifada uprisings). Thus, this case demonstrates an exceptional social phenomenon of health professionals from two adversary groups working in joint teams, treating patients from both groups even at times of violent conflict episodes. Maintaining integrity while managing diversity of work teams and delivering healthcare services in the shadow of protracted national conflict, constitutes a significant challenge.
We sketch extant findings of research in progress, which examines the internal dynamics in Jewish–Arab work teams, while tracing the benevolent contribution of team incentives as well as the adverse consequences of the protracted conflict. It underscores the hidden aspects of such processes, such as construal of majority–minority power relations and its repercussions on the work climate and quality (professionally equal, respectful of human rights, and culturally sensitive) of health service delivery to mixed patient population. We explore team members’ awareness concerning the linkage between diversity management and organizational integrity and their evaluation regarding the institutional attention, policy, and actions in this domain.
Specifically, the study explicates the nature of processes within these teams, as reflected in decision making, communication patterns, cooperation, scope, type and intensity of conflicts, patterns of conflict management, and the factors underlying these processes. Drawing on the literature concerning diversity in work teams,30 among the potential factors which presumably account for the dynamics in bi-national work teams of special interest are individual level factors such as members’ emotions toward teammates (notably empathy), mutual trust and joint professional identity. Group level elements are also significant; these include perceived intrateam support and intragroup cohesion especially in the face of adverse events related to the protracted national conflict. The research also examines the subjective outcomes of the dynamics within bi-national teams such as individual members’ perceptions of organizational justice and mutual national images.
The findings presented below have been derived from a pilot study, which employed qualitative methodology. The participants were 12 Jewish and Arab nurses, members of mixed medical teams who work in public medical centers in the northern region of Israel.
The research tools included individual semistructured interviews with nurses, members of mixed medical teams. The findings reported in this chapter are based on interviews with two Muslim nurses and three Jewish nurses (one of them an immigrant from former Soviet Union). The nurses were asked general questions probing their views on the following issues: the climate in diverse work team, communication patterns and cooperation, the impact of diversity on the team functioning (medical care), sense of discrimination and social identity, strengths and weaknesses of nationally and ethnically diverse teams, diversity management at their work organization, and team functioning at times of violent incidents associated with the protracted conflict (terrorist acts of Palestinians or Israel Defense Forces, military acts against Palestinians). Data collection for this research is still in progress, including both individual interviews as well as focus groups with Arab and with Jewish nurses.
The major themes which emerged from the extant interviews refer to the climate in diverse work team, communication patterns and cooperation, the impact of diversity on the team functioning (medical care), sense of discrimination, strengths and weaknesses of nationally and ethnically diverse teams, diversity management at the work organization, and team functioning at times of violent incidents associated with the protracted conflict.
Team Climate
The participants’ ethnic diversity within the work team affects its climate primarily on occasions manifesting differences of opinions between nurses from different social groups. The disparities are viewed as cultural in nature and tend to exacerbate intergroup tensions in the work team, which in turn impede the overall atmosphere and mitigate cooperation. As put by one of the Arab nurses: “When there are cultural differences, such as between Christians and Muslims, they quarrel and the result is bad, they do not talk…do not want to work on the same side…there is an atmosphere of discomfort…you do not feel comfortable to work with someone you do not feel at ease…”
One of the Jewish and one of the Muslim nurses noted tensions arising from the cultural differences between nurses born in Israel (both Jewish and Arab) and nurses who are immigrants from former Soviet Union, as demonstrated in the following quotations: “…They are cold, as if they don’t have feelings, both toward peer nurses and toward patients…not as the nurses from eastern countries, such as Tripoli, Morocco, Iraq and the Israeli born, or Arab nurses; It makes unpleasant work atmosphere”; “They feel superior, patronizing, they think they know everything, they are not nice, do not talk nicely, I had few unpleasant situations with them… and the staff do not like to work with them…”
One interviewee relayed a strong tendency of the nursing staff to interact with peers from the same social group: “sub-groups, sub-groups within the team… let’s say the Russians with the Russians, Yemenite with the Yemenite, Moroccan with Moroccan…it’s very salient….” Such pattern of subgroupings within a single team alludes to the phenomenon of in-group favoritism31 and the salience of faultline phenomenon.32
Communication Patterns and Cooperation
Akin to the impact of diversity on team climate, internal communication processes and cooperation may be disturbed as a result of conflicts between team members belonging to diverse social groups. This is more likely to happen following extreme events, such as a terrorist act, and medical care of the victims (and sometimes the perpetrators). However, according to the interviewees, usually communication and cooperation among staff in diverse teams are quite effective. The common goal of providing high quality care to patients facilitates such constructive interactions. It creates a joint team identity, which serves as a framework for organizing and coordinating behavior.33 Arab and Jewish nurses were quite unanimous in their views about communication and cooperation in their respective diverse work teams. As put by the pilot study participants: “Each nurse comes from different culture and has different values, but our work is different, we need to be cohesive, have consensus… we work for the patient, it’s not a private business, we are here to help others and work here in cooperation even though each nurse has different mentality…”; “There is cooperation all the time, morning and evening… For example if I work with a Druze male nurse, it’s obvious he takes care of the men… I don’t have to tell him anything…”
The Impact of Diversity on Care (Performance)
The interview responses seem to suggest that social diversity is reflected in somewhat different functioning amidst various social groups, which can be attributed to culture-bound customs and norms. Such cultural disparities occasionally cause disrespect, anger, and mitigate cooperative orientation among team members from diverse social groups. One of the Arab respondents relayed an incident which in her view had adverse impact on the team performance:
“I worked with a Russian nurse… I do care not only for the patient but also for his or her family, it’s 90% of a cure. The family members have to feel that their loved one is in good hands… There was an old woman dying and her daughter wanted to stay with her, but the Russian nurse would not let her… she had no empathy, things like that interfere with the team functioning, and assists in treatment when the family trusts you…”
Discrimination Due to National/Ethnic Membership
Both Jewish and Arab nurses indicated instances of patients’ racist attitudes and discriminatory behavior as a result of membership in different social group (especially national minority), as manifested in the following quotation: “…one day a patient approached an Arab male nurse in a clinic in a kibbutz and told him something …that he got a job in a clinic because only Arabs work there…I told him (the Arab nurse) as I tell each of the new nurses—Arabs or Russians that they have to ‘swallow a frog’ when they come to work in a kibbutz… later they became familiar with him, the fact that he is an Arab… but he is an extraordinary nurse…”
The minority members also reported personal experiences of discrimination as medical personnel, reflected in their perceived inability to voice criticism, especially toward superiors, fearing sanctions, as put by an Arab participant: “There is one nurse in my team, an Israeli born Jew…This is personality, this is a character, she has no fear, once she told the head nurse that she is a liar. I as an Arab, cannot tell such a thing, because I know that the next day I am out…” Unsurprisingly, Jewish nurses viewed discrimination from a majority perspective: They felt pressure to refrain from criticism toward their minority counterparts, concede in conflict situations in order to avoid accusations of racism and discrimination, thus preserving intact work relations, as expressed by one of the Jewish nurses: “[…]Concerning a Muslim employee, she because she is also Muslim, when she notices that he refrains from working she get angry at him, no reservations; I cannot let myself to get angry at him. I know that he will right away say it’s discrimination… I need to be careful…”
Regardless of their minority or majority status, both groups at times experience frustration and bitterness associated with perceived racism and discrimination. In line with Triana, Garcia, and Colella’s34 findings, minority members tend to be more sensitive concerning discrimination, thus suspecting the sincerity of majority members’ efforts to engender equitable and mutually respectful relationships.
Strengths and Pitfalls of Diversity in Work Teams
Some of the interviewees maintained that diversity promotes high quality care, culture-sensitive care: It facilitates intercultural understanding and helps to match treatment and care with the culture-bound norms and needs of patients from various cultural backgrounds, as put by one of the interviewees: “Because we have patients from different cultures if we have a nurse from the same culture as the patient, she understands the patient’s behavior, why he behaves that way, for example is hysterical, shouts…”
Diversity can also be instrumental in promoting tailor-made work schedules, such as matching shifts in accordance with national, ethnic, or religious holidays. Another notable advantage of diversity, mentioned by the pilot study participants, was widening horizons and perspectives on various issues. By contrast, the major pitfall of diversity, which emerged from the interviews, was greater odds of conflicts and tensions due to incongruent perceptions. This finding corroborates results of previous research on team diversity.35
Diversity Management at Organizational Level
All five interviewees unanimously claimed that their organization has not adequately addressed the issue of social diversity in work teams in general, and has hardly dealt with the resulting difficulties and predicaments in daily work practices. In most instances, department managers opt to avoid direct engagement with diversity related issues. Instead they prefer to maintain seemingly harmonious work relations (“industrial peace”). The following quotations demonstrate the passive stance of the management with respect to diversity issues: “The organization, I am not sure the management is aware, knows anything. My superior knows, but he hardly deals with the problems… since I am an experienced nurse I am expected to manage these issues…”; “Here it is difficult, I am expected to solve these problems, to ignore the racist thing…for example we had this Moroccan Jew patient, we had to put a Druze patient in the same room, he refused, said he cannot be with a Druze in the same room…”
Refraining from confronting these challenges, not only does not mitigate the tensions, but amplifies frustration and bitterness, which may precipitate escalation of intergroup conflicts, damaging work relations at the team level. In line with the recent findings of Ramarajan and Thomas,36 lack of diversity management may have adverse consequences in terms of performance and work relations.
Team functioning at times of violent incidents associated with the protracted conflict. The pilot study participants maintained that such violent incidents exacerbate tensions, consequently impinging on the team functioning. It is worth noting that when the event constitutes a war which can adversely affect all social groups in Israel (majority and minority alike), it may breed temporary intergroup solidarity, nonetheless, traces of intergroup tensions remain. Most cases of either party’s violence (Israeli or Palestinian) produces highly tense team atmosphere, lack of intergroup tolerance, and impedes motivation for cooperation. The following quotations demonstrate such harsh experiences of members in diverse teams: “I feel tensions, I feel we refrain from talking, some employees boil inside and later burst on another issue, not the violent incident…”; “… we try not to look at each other, to hide these things, not to bring your personal feelings to work, there is no place for politics, you cannot be detached from your feelings, it’s very difficult, you have difficulty to concentrate, but you do it, you do your work…” ; “…These tensions between Jews and Arabs burst during violent events, like war, terrorist acts…”
In sum, our initial findings with respect to the case of mixed Jewish–Arab nurses’ teams appear to corroborate previous evidence showing the adverse legacies of protracted conflict on the emotional, cognitive, and motivational modalities at the individual level as well as at the group level.37 Although demographic characteristics such as nationality and ethnicity denote surface level diversity,38 the study suggests that these features also act as deep level diversity. Thus, the negative effects of the prolonged national discord are by and large hidden, somewhat mitigated by the positive impact of the variety aspect in diversity and masked by the apparent harmony in teamwork on the overt level. This dual effect of a surface and deep diversity reflects a difficulty experienced by both Jewish as well as Arab nurses in authentically expressing themselves.39 Such a latent facet significantly impedes recognition of employees’ predicament and consequently, development and implementation of humanistic management practices, especially at the micro (group) level. This, in turn, has a potentially adverse impact on organizational integrity in terms of social and economic justice (equality and equity) and the capacity of expressing an authentic voice.
Case 2: Diversity Management in an Academic College
The second case entails several endeavors of conflict education programs involving Jewish and Arab college students. The projects were designed to promote a transformation of the intergroup relations in the shadow of protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict, by means of raising awareness with respect to repercussions of intergroup conflict, mitigating mutual negative images of the participants from the two groups, promoting mutual cross-cultural understanding and empathy, and fostering motivation for cooperation. Major findings obtained from a follow-up research on this praxis are explored, underscoring their potential contribution to models of practice fostering humanistic management of diversity and thereby promoting organizational integrity in academic institutions.
As indicated earlier, protracted national conflict affects the region’s residents’ (including young people’s) perceptions and attitudes of conflict and intergroup relations.40 A marked proportion of the young population constitutes students at academic institutions, who may become the future leaders, thus shaping policies concerning diversity management in organizations, while dealing with the repercussions of prolonged national discord. Following an underlying social–psychological principle, ascribing to perceptions a central role in molding attitudes, intentions, and actual behaviors, various academic institutions conduct programs aimed at conflict education and engagement with intergroup tensions.41 This assumption concerning the centrality of perceptions as determinants of attitudes and behavior constituted our point of departure in launching the program at the college. It also addressed the characteristics of the specific sociopolitical context. The rationale for the project rested on the working assumption that while the college’s campus has remained outwardly tranquil, before, during the period of the Al Aqsa uprising and after the second uprising, there were lingering tensions which needed to be addressed openly in a constructive discussion (lest they erupt in a negative, even violent, fashion during times of stress). Hence there was a need to create positive forums for such interaction.
The conflict education program was based on a systems approach designed to engender changes in five modalities, infected by protracted conflict: motivation, cognition, affect, behavior, and environment. It entailed an action science focus42 reflected in two aspects: (a) it has evolved from a theoretical framework attempting to operationalize its tenets within the intervention; (b) the program incorporated a systematic follow-up research within the intervention process so that the effectiveness of its operation could be examined. Such monitoring fostered learning, allowed to adjust the program according to the participants’ needs, to the changing circumstances and unexpected effects, and nourished the conceptual models.
The theoretical framework of the project pooled together three streams of knowledge:
• Social identity, its complexity and diverse subjective representations; its dynamics and implications on the relationships between individuals and groups; and the phenomena of prejudice (its dynamics and implications).
• Social conflict with an emphasis on intergroup tensions in organizations (the meaning of intergroup conflict, its perceived sources and dynamics).
• Power relations, underscoring majority–minority relations and their effects on the parties’ relationships in joint organizations.
The program was designed to assist the students from both groups in becoming aware and gaining an understanding of their own multiple identities and grasping their dynamic nature, encouraging them to become familiar and recognize the identities of their counterparts in the context of protracted conflict. Thus, the project aimed at fostering legitimization and acceptance of the adversary group and moderate negative feelings. Moreover, it was intended to engender hope by means of breeding and nourishing a dialogue between the two groups of students, focusing on active listening, allowing them to agree to disagree on certain issues, while creating a joint agenda for other problems of common interest. The program also attempted to empower the participants, equipping them with relevant knowledge and skills so they could become potential leaders of Jewish–Arab dialogue in joint organizations, thereby fostering humanistic management and organizational integrity. In terms of diversity management, it endeavored to enhance the variety aspects of diversity while minimizing the negative elements of disparity and separation.43
The program described here was conducted in an academic college in northern Israel in 2005, incorporating insights from other projects conducted at the same college.44 The methodological approach entailed interfacing theory and practice—combining acquisition of knowledge and skills by means of theoretical and experiential learning, using a workshop format. This design was implemented in small groups and plenum discussions associated with current episodes, simulations and exercises, and mini-lectures aimed at summarizing the major concepts and theoretical models. Formative evaluation and action research accompanied the planning and implementation of the program. Data collection comprised observation and documentation of all of the class-meetings, content-analysis of the participants’ diaries, and individual interviews with the participants. The individual interviews were conducted with 18 of the 20 participants and focused on the participants’ feelings, perceptions, and thoughts concerning the Jewish–Arab relations and regarding the effects of the workshop on these sentiments and attitudes. The next section presents the major findings relevant to diversity management in organizations. The following thematic categories emerged from the research data: construal of the national conflict, motivation for intergroup contact, intergroup communication capacities, and majority–minority relations.
Construal of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
The participants evinced two main significant inclinations. First, members of both groups grasped the conflict as an intractable discord, lacking a feasible and foreseeable solution.45 This tendency is intriguing in light of most participants’ relative readiness and openness for contact with members of the other group. Yet, they appeared skeptical with respect to the benevolent impact of intergroup contact on resolving the national conflict at the macro-political level.
The students conceived the encounters in the course of the workshop as effective at the interpersonal level, namely changing their relationships locally at the college, despite the national conflict. This tendency was demonstrated when the participants were asked to formulate and present their personal vision regarding the future relationship between the parties. The students attempted to offer potential solutions to the national conflict, but each proposal was subsequently confronted and contradicted by other students (Jews and Arabs). Overall, most of the participants experienced a great difficulty to conceive and devise possible solutions. As expressed by two of the Jewish students: “my problem was that I tried to solve the global problem… and I understood that we need to focus on the local level” (C.) and “we need to focus on the steps and pathways we have at hand, and not to try to get to the mountaintop”(R.)
The second tendency, which emerged in the participants’ construal of the national conflict, purports to their perceptions with respect to the centrality of the conflict and its salience. In this regard we identified some differences between the participants from the two groups. All of the Arab students tended to attribute a high salience to the national conflict, whereas the Jewish participants’ attitudes were mixed. Some of them, mostly students with a leftist orientation, perceived the conflict as very salient and central in the lives of Israelis, as put by one of the students: “where I live, there is nothing else you can do (besides learning to live in peace with the Arab). Your life is intertwined with theirs, whether you like it or not” (G.t). By contrast, others viewed the conflict as relatively insignificant. Moreover, some even argued that the actual relationships between the two groups are more harmonious than as they are presented in the media, as illustrated by the following quotation: “it seems to me that we express perceptions that we see in the media, and that actually things aren’t that bad.” (R.)
Interestingly, the Jewish students who described the relationships as relatively calm were those who exhibited a rather low tolerance for the members of the other group. Conceivably, this apparent dissonance reflects an attempt to deny or conceal the conflict (“to sweep it under the carpet”) as was demonstrated in the individual interviews: “people don’t really think that way. They are just trying to look like they care” (I.); “if there was a majority of people with the same opinions as mine, I’m sure that I would be feeling more confident to say the things I really thought’ (H.)” “as long as it’s within the limits of talking, so I can spare myself and just be silent and everybody smiles” (R.)
Notwithstanding the “deadlock,” the workshop seemed to affect some changes on the Jewish side with regard to understanding the Arabs’ perspective on the national conflict. Specifically, it made them more aware of the importance of the identity-related components. While exploring the identity issue from the perspective of the Arab citizens in Israel, the Arab students had an opportunity to explain the complexity and conflicting sentiments they experience regarding their social identity. The following quotations vividly illustrate their predicament:
“I was visiting in an Arab country, and they call us Jews, or even worse, dogs of Jews, no one accepts us, they don’t want to understand… it’s a hard feeling,” (S.); “we don’t have an identity… the Palestinians don’t accepts us, the Lebanese don’t accept us… we put our identity on the side and we are moving on” (N.). At this phase, the Jewish students listened very carefully, and then reacted: “here is the conflict we have with them... There is a misunderstanding” (M.); “we don’t understand them… this is our mistake...” (N.)
Following the joint discussions, the Jewish students appeared to gain a better grasp of the Arabs’ conflicting identities and their different perspective on the national conflict.
Motivation for Intergroup Contact
The prolonged national conflict has eroded the students’ motivation for intergroup contact. Notwithstanding the general tendency, there were differences between the two groups in their motivation levels: overall, the Arab participants exhibited a higher motivation for contact in comparison to their Jewish counterparts.
The groups not only differed in their motivation levels, but also in the reasons underlying this inclination. The Arab participants indicated their wish that the members of the other group would get to know them better, presumably regarding the workshop as an opportunity to develop positive contacts with members of the Jewish group. When asked about the reasons for participation in the workshop and their expectations concerning the project, the responses were: “to have an opportunity to state my opinion” (R.); “that they (the Jews) hear me, I really like those Jewish-Arab encounters… because in the workshop we can change things,” (R.); “maybe we could change their (the Jews) opinions” (S.). The quotations suggest that the Arab students regarded the workshop as an opportunity to tell their own story, to reduce the social distance between them and the Jewish majority and to change the Jews’ attitudes toward them.46
In contrast, the Jewish participants, including those who expressed high motivation for contact, expressed their desire to hear the other side, get to know them and to enrich their knowledge in general, as illustrated by the following quotations: “the contribution is in that I can hear what they (the Arabs) think... what they feel” (M.); “I wanted to broaden my knowledge… for my personal enrichment.” (N.).
Overall, the Jewish participants showed greater variance in their motives and expectations concerning their contact with members of the other group, underscoring the need for contact on an individual level. By contrast, the Arab participants revealed a collective need for contact with the Jewish party and were quite uniform in their motives and expectations regarding this contact.
Finally, regarding the workshop’s impact on the participants’ motivation for contact, it seems that the workshop can barely ignite such an inclination among those lacking such a motivation in the first place. The workshop fell short in elevating the willingness for contact while impeding the capacity for creating transformations on other dimensions, such as emotions and behavior. These findings bear important ramifications with regard to promoting humanistic management of diversity in organizations. Such practices need to take into account gaps between the members of majority and minority in their sense of inclusion, respect for their identity needs, and capacity to express unique and authentic voices. Consequently, humanistic diversity management actions should provide primarily the minority members with resources for enhancing these perceptions and feelings, thereby improving organizational integrity.47
Intergroup Communication Capacities
The long-lasting conflict has impaired communication capacities, so that even those with high motivation for contact experienced difficulties in maintaining a discourse. Another communication problem, evident among the Jewish participants, focused on their difficulty in listening to the Arab participants’ conflict narrative. The overall atmosphere in the workshop was relatively positive, seemingly allowing the participants to communicate openly and on a relatively comfortable basis. However, when the Arab participants attempted to directly express their perspective on the national conflict, the good atmosphere abruptly changed: the Jewish students revealed much less tolerance in listening to them.
The Arab participants revealed a difficulty in expressing their concerns and, particularly, criticism of the Jewish side in plenary discussions, presumably due to their minority status.48 Instead, they exposed their opposition and divergent views in the individual interviews, while having a captive audience (the interviewer), as indicated in the following quotations: “what disturbs me is that the other side doesn’t like to broaden their perspective... they don’t want to hear positive things. Always from the negative side” (N.); “no, not everyone were o.k. some of them are racist” (R.)
Majority–Minority Relations
The Arab participants revealed tendencies which could be attributed to their minority status: the conflict appeared highly salient in their perception, they attributed a central weight to their national identity, exhibited a higher motivation for contact in comparison to their Jewish counterparts, their impetus for contact revolved around the need to voice their narrative so that the Jews get to know them, and they experienced a great difficulty in openly expressing their concerns and criticism toward the Jewish party.
By contrast, the Jewish participants showed prototypical inclinations of the majority: They appeared much more diverse in their construal of the conflict, referred to the national conflict by and large using concrete terms (the problem of land and environmental resources), exhibiting lower motivation for contact, with their major motives resting on broadening their knowledge and getting to know the other, and they experienced a considerable difficulty in listening to their Arab counterparts.
In addition to the above tendencies, the imbalanced power relations affected the workshop dynamics and the participants’ behaviors in other areas:
• The Jewish participants, who expressed high motivation for contact, embraced an orientation of patronage, tended to express willingness to help their Arab counterparts due to this sense of superiority rather than as a consequence of developing mutual goals.
• In discussions concerning the national conflict, the Jewish students appeared to control the situation—they posed the questions, the Arab students responded and provided information, which the Jewish students, in turn, interpreted and analyzed.
In sum, the findings with regard to case 2 clearly indicate the negative residues of the protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with some differences in its impact between the Jewish and Arab participants as members of the majority and minority groups, respectively. However, they also reveal some transformations, particularly in the awareness of the majority concerning the minority and in the perceptions of both groups with respect to the consequences of the conflict on diversity management in joint organizations, such as academic institutions and workplaces. Humanistic diversity management practices in the context of a divided society need to address the hidden residues of the protracted intergroup conflict, particularly its impact on a sense of inclusion and the capacity to express a unique and authentic voice, especially by the national minority. The results also validated the assumption with respect to the centrality of perceptions in shaping attitudes, intentions and actual behaviors, and corroborated the hidden facets of diversity effects in the context of protracted national conflict.49
Enhancing Organizational Integrity: A Proposed Model of Practice in the Context of Divided Societies
This section of the paper integrates the insights which have emerged from the two cases, subsequently delineating the proposed action model designed to improve humanistic diversity management and thereby promote organizational integrity. Notwithstanding the differences between the two cases, both substantiate our argument that cooperation, teamwork, and joint interactions constitute a particular challenge in divided societies, such as those ridden by protracted national or ethnic conflicts.50 Both medical staff and students in demographically diverse institutions do indeed grapple with such complex reality. The narratives sounded by the participants in both projects point to intergroup biases and tensions due to the salience of social categorization and faultline phenomenon.51
Perceptions of discrimination appear prominent among both national minority and majority groups, but each one of these social groups constructs and interprets this phenomenon from a different perspective. Members of minority embrace a victim identity, presumably due to past experiences of racist attitudes and discrimination, whereas majority members attempt to behave in a politically correct fashion to avoid accusations and leave work relations or dealings among Jewish and Arab students, at least superficially intact. It is worth noting that both groups tend to experience predicament as a result of alleged racism and discrimination, although the intensity of these difficulties appears to be higher for the national minority.52 Differential construal of discrimination and racism by minority in comparison to majority and the emotional burden associated with this experience warrant group-sensitive approach while managing diversity at a work place or academic institution. Such approach is compatible with humanistic diversity management and tenets of social responsibility.53
Despite the clear need to address diversity issues at the workplace and academic institutions, no organizational policy or practices directed explicitly at diversity management enhancing organizational integrity exist in the respondents’ organizations. Our intervention in the college was a unique initiative, undertaken occasionally in this and other academic institutions. Thus, medical employees and students are generally left to their own devices, personal resources, informal coalitions, or assistance of informal third parties.54
Traces of protracted conflict become visible when asking directly about expected outcomes of diversity, such as perceived organizational justice—equality and equity versus discrimination due to national or ethnic category. The adverse legacies of the ongoing national conflict are accentuated with the occurrence of violent external incidents, associated with the protracted discord.55 Both nurses and students expect effective engagement of diversity issues, including the unique features resulting from the context of protracted national conflict. They consider organizational integrity an important facet, however, barely identify any organizational level efforts to materialize relevant practices at the overall organizational or group level.
The parties in both cases experience difficulty in directly engaging in diversity issues related to the national conflict, such as subjectively perceived lack of equal opportunity, disrespectful treatment, and actual acts of discrimination. Thus, the nurses’ and students’ predicament remains by and large hidden, masked by the seemingly harmonic relations on the overt level.56 This manifestation of the dual effect of surface and deep level diversity in everyday work life and student life hinders Jewish and Arab nurses’ and students’ opportunity to present authentic self or sound genuine voice.57 Such a latent facet significantly limits recognition of employees’ and students’ predicament and consequently impedes organizational integrity, especially at the micro (group) level.
What can be done to alleviate the quandary of employees’ and students’ in diverse organizations in the context of divided societies so as to foster genuine organizational integrity?
Based on the insights drawn from our research and praxis associated with the two cases, we propose a model of practice, focusing on minority–majority relations. It underscores the role of subjective perceptions and the need to move them from the hidden sphere to the overt level—to the “center of the stage.” Such a transformation would not only increase the odds of authentic expression of voices and identities, but would also prepare the ground for positive interaction and genuine dialogue by increasing awareness with regard to each side’s needs and difficulties.58 The model also ascribes a central role to negotiation, construed broadly as processes designed to define cultural identities and intergroup positions, or in general terms—negotiating relationships.59 In addition, the proposed framework embeds the intervention in the specific organizational context. Finally, the model stresses the need to interface and coordinate diversity management at the micro (group) level and the macro (national policy) level.
The main components of the action framework:
1. Micro (group) level
Relationship building actions
• Negotiating reality and terms of engagement in joint small groups
• Power-balancing (empowerment)—special attention directed to the national minority (work done separately with each national group)
• Reflection and learning in joint small groups and periodical organizational plenum, and revising the activities accordingly
• Contextual conditions in organizations
• Positive Diversity Climate
• Common minority–majority organizational identities
• Professional and Academic Norms Supporting Equality and Cooperation
2. Macro (national policy) level
• Legislation—legal safeguards
• Implementation, monitoring, and follow-up of humanistic diversity management actions in organizations, by governmental institutions and authorities, such as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
• Coordination between macro and micro level actions
• Partnership building between work organizations, academic institutions, and government.
The format of the micro-level actions of humanistic diversity management can be based on the approach undertaken in academic institutions. To prepare for the interface with the macro-level components, we propose establishing a steering committee in organizations, composed of senior representatives from human resources division (in work organizations) and from the students’ dean office, representatives of employees (including representatives of senior management), and students from both groups and academic department chairs. This joint forum needs to build a genuine partnership.60 Research has demonstrated that engagement with diversity issues, particularly those emanating from prolonged national discord, necessitates a collaborative alliance, reflecting upon power relations.61
It is worth noting that implementation of the micro-level component in academic institutions calls for special attention and sensitivity with regard to the needs of the minority due to differential motivational inclinations for contact and cooperation. In joint work places, especially based on teamwork (such as nurses’ teams), superordinate goals, task and outcome interdependence tend to equalize the motivation for cooperation.62
Concluding Thoughts
Diversity has always been a component of organizational life in divided, conflict ridden societies such as in Israel, yet its ramifications on human relations in organizations have not been explored.63 Consequently, there were no policies designed to manage diversity in a humanistic fashion so as to promote organizational integrity, reflected in actual and perceived economic and social justice, a sense of inclusion and the capacity to express a unique and authentic voice. Nowadays, corporate social responsibility and humanistic management constitute a bon ton of organizational practices. As our research and praxis demonstrate, such practices deem particularly important in organizations operating in the context of divided societies, saturated with protracted intergroup conflicts.
The proposed model of action constitutes a first step in this direction. Its strength resides primarily in the micro-level intervention, particularly the emphasis on the hidden facets of protracted conflict legacies and implementation of the negotiation component, both resting on the scholars’ and practitioners’ experiences in similar actions, particularly in academic institutions (albeit sporadic). Yet, this potential advantage needs to be qualified. Sustainability of the micro-level element of the proposed model of practice depends to a large extent on a continuous and active involvement of a committed expert third party.64 The latter needs to facilitate the recurrent highly challenging, negotiation of relations between the majority and minority parties, monitor reflection and learning, activities of the steering committee and constantly muster support of the internal management. Those are extremely demanding tasks, which can hardly rely on voluntary actions. Providing such human resource by organizations for extended periods remains questionable, undoubtedly calling for difficult negotiation between the initiators/entrepreneurs and the organizational management, even in cases of organizational commitment to humanistic diversity management and promotion of integrity.
The major weaknesses lie in the implementation of the macro-level elements, including monitoring these processes. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission is still in infancy in Israel, charged with ample missions however equipped with limited authority and resources to both implement as well as enforce its actions. This leads to another potential pitfall in our framework—coordination between the micro- and macro-level humanistic management of diversity. Finally, the need to deal with the adverse influence of the sociopolitical context on implementation of the micro-level intervention constitutes a significant challenge, thus a potential limitation of the proposed model of practice. Despite the reservations, we would like to end on a positive note, drawing on Mary Parker Follett’s quote with regard to peace, as we consider organizational integrity an essential component of building peace and constructive minority–majority relations in nationally diverse organizations:
“We have thought of peace as passive and war as the active way of living. The opposite is true. War is not the most strenuous life. It is a kind of rest cure compared to the task of reconciling our differences. From war to peace is from the futile to the effective, from the strategic to the active, from the destructive to the creative way of life…. The world will be regenerated by the people who rise above these passive ways and heroically seek, by whatever hardship, by whatever toil, the methods by which people can agree.”65
Key Terms
Diversity—variation in a wide range of group members’ characteristics, including professional background and expertise, and salient demographic features such as age, gender, race, nationality, and ethnicity.
Surface level diversity—the extent of demographic variation in a work unit.
Deep level diversity—disparities in personality, attitudes, values, and capabilities
Elements of diversity:
Variety—differences in information, knowledge, and expertise.
Separation—differences in position or opinion among unit members, which reflect disagreement on a horizontal continuum.
Disparity—differences in control of valued social resources such as pay and status among unit members which are distributed on a vertical continuum.
Divided Society—a society split by deep schisms among its social groups, each having distinct cultural, religious, and political identities.
Faultline—hypothetical dividing lines splitting a group into subgroups and giving rise to polarization between in-group and out-group identities.
Markers of Integrity—respect and tolerance of differences, openness, inclusion, intergroup equality, equitable treatment, and opportunities for expressing unique and authentic voices.
Negotiation—processes designed to define cultural identities and intergroup positions, or in general terms, negotiating relationships.
Protracted Conflict—a lengthy, intense, identity-based dispute, coupled with uncompromising parties’ goals.
Study Questions
1. What are the similarities and differences between the two cases in the difficulties encountered by the minority and majority group members in diverse organizations in the context of Israel’s divided society?
2. How can the proposed model of practice mitigate the difficulties faced by each of the two groups (in particular by the minority members) and enhance organizational integrity? What specific practices should have the highest priority? Why?
3. How could you implement the proposed model of practice in your organization? Please show what adaptations need to be made in the model in order to tailor-make it to your organization and its socio-political context.
Further Reading
Kolb, D. M. (2004). Staying in the game or changing it: An analysis of moves and turns in negotiation. Negotiation Journal 20(2), 253–268.
Kolb, D. M., & Williams, J. (2000). The shadow negotiation: How women can master the hidden agendas that determine bargaining success. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Li, M., & Sadler, J. (2011). Power and influence in negotiation. In M. Benoliel (Ed.), Negotiation excellence: Successful deal making (pp. 139–161). Tuck Link, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Stephan, W. G. (2011). Improving relations between residents and immigrants. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 11(1), 1–16.
Tjosvold, D. (2006). Defining conflict and making choices about its management: Lighting the dark side of organizational life. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(2), 87–95.