Managing Diversity as a University Strategy
Introduction
Universities often have staff members originating from all around the world, as academics tend to have global mindsets and academic specializations often cross-national borders. However, diversity can be found everywhere in any university as there are different departments, studies, students, and often staff members. How this diversity is being handled within universities can make a huge difference for the ranking of universities, as universities can greatly profit from the diversity they have to offer. Specifically, diversity in universities can create unique international networks in academic fields, whereby they can outperform other universities. Furthermore, when diversity is fully integrated in a university, students from all around the world are attracted to such a university, whereby diversity is increased, and therefore becomes a value-added asset. Thus, this chapter is of great relevance for universities who want to manage the present diversity, small or large, in their university and benefit from this diversity. In addition, if a university wants to use diversity as a university strategy in order to reach outstanding teaching and excellent research capabilities, this chapter will provide guidelines on how to set up such a strategy.
Universities that are ranked as the best universities in the world typically have staff members originating from all around the world. Dealing with diverse staff members may mean that you will need to deal with different cultures. However, diversity at universities can also be caused by gender and race.
In this chapter, the main diversity elements at universities are discussed. Consequently, two models explaining how to implement diversity are discussed. These models can be used as main guidelines when considering the management of diversity as a university strategy to reach outstanding teaching and excellent research capabilities.
Diversity Elements at Universities: Gender, Race, and Culture
The main diversity elements found at universities are gender, age, race, and culture. While at universities in most developed countries the male–female ratio of students is very evenly balanced, the female–male ratio of university teachers is often not well balanced. Most universities still have more male teachers than female teachers. On a higher management level, we find that the majority of school heads, deans and university presidents are male. Concerning race, most universities still have far more Caucasian university teachers than non-Caucasian university teachers. Even though, the origin of this finding may be linked to the fact that university students in general are also more of Caucasian origin, we still do not find an equal and well-balanced representation of university staff members for most universities. Furthermore, as academic scholars often need to cross borders in order to find other academic scholars with similar interests, most universities prefer to recruit staff members of the same nationality of the country where the university is based. An HR university department may explain this fact by the extra expenses linked to relocation costs. Often, only rich and well-known universities are able to attract academics from abroad for exactly this financial reason. However, in this way famous and rich universities will provide in their own sustainability while unknown and poor universities will not be able to flourish. Diversity can actually make a difference for universities, but the university management needs to see the value of diversity for their university.
The three diversity elements can be referred to as gender diversity, racial diversity, and cultural diversity. In universities, the representation of staff members should include each of these diversity types in order to make use of diversity in an advantageous manner.
Implementation Practices: Two Models
There are several existing models of diversity management. However, none of these models have actually been remodeled to be implemented in a university setting. In this chapter, the model of Ely and Thomas (2001) based on three main perspectives of diversity is explained and elaborated. Furthermore, the model based on a diversity-based organizational identity developed by Rink and Ellemers (2007) is mentioned (Table 11.1).
Model 1: Diversity Perspectives
Universities can have three major implementation practices based on three diversity perspectives developed by Ely and Thomas (2001). Ely and Thomas (2001) have distinguished three main perspectives on diversity.
The first perspective is called the discrimination-and-fairness perspective. According to this perspective, diversity is considered as a “moral imperative to ensure justice and fair treatment of all members of society” (Ely & Thomas, 2001). The value for diversity is low, and it is used only as an argument of why they do not discriminate. There is a limited connection between diversity and work. An indicator of progress for organizations following this perspective takes place when there is an increased amount of diversity, even in invisible or irrelevant positions. Universities who follow this diversity perspective have almost no or only a handful of non-Caucasian/female/young/non-national full researchers and university teachers. If they do appoint under-represented group members in their faculty, they will most likely aim to do this on a temporary basis or for courses that demand extra time and effort. Deans, heads of schools, and full professors are all male, Caucasian, and citizens of the nationality where the university is based.
Table 11.1 Models for Diversity Strategy in Universities
The second perspective is called the access-and-legitimacy perspective. This perspective is based on the idea that diversity is not a core element of the organization, but diversity is only marginally active as diversity is only used as a means to access specific markets and legitimize the representation of their staff diversity. Diversity is moderately valued, and merely an indirect connection between diversity and work takes place. An indicator of progress of organizations following this perspective is when they have an increased amount of diversity in boundary or visible positions. Universities who follow this diversity perspective have some (i.e., less than 30–50%) non-Caucasian/female/young/non-national full researchers and university teachers. They do appoint some of these under-represented group members in their faculty, but are more likely not to give these staff members tenure or try to let them work harder than non-diversity members. A qualified person of a minority group needs to show a lot of extra talent and experience than a similarly qualified majority group member in order to get appointed at university. A university would perhaps appoint several full professors from diversity groups. However, deans, heads of schools, and full professors are still mostly male, Caucasian, and citizens of the nationality where the university is based.
The third perspective is called the integration-and-learning perspective. According to this perspective, diversity is used as way to perform and innovate work in organizations. Diversity is strongly valued, and is considered a main asset of the organization. There is a clear direct connection between diversity and work as it is completely integrated in work processes. Furthermore, an indicator of progress for organizations following this perspective is when diversity is visible in top positions of people who are in charge of the organization, and when there is a shared value among staff members that diversity is a resource for learning. Unfortunately, universities who follow this perspective are rare. Universities who follow this diversity perspective have a good and healthy representation (i.e., about 30–50%) of non-Caucasian/female/young/non-national full researchers and university teachers. University directors appoint quite some of these under-represented group members in their faculty, and will provide tenure positions to diversity members. A qualified person of a minority group needs to show an equal amount of talent and experience as a similarly qualified majority group member in order to get appointed at this university. A university would appoint several full professors from diversity groups. In some cases, deans, heads of schools, and full professors can be female/from a different nationality. For example, since 2007 Harvard has its first female president. Thus, world-leading universities may set an example to other universities of which diversity perspective may be the best for universities who would like to show excellent performance.
Model 2: Management of Diversity Based on Creating a Diversity Identity
Next to the implementation practice of diversity at universities, the management of a university needs to think about how to achieve benefits of diversity, while reducing the risks of diversity. Benefits of diversity are creating more innovation (Sastre, 2015), an increased productivity (Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009), and being able to fulfill a wider range of tasks (Northcroft et al., 1995). Risks of diversity can consist of low commitment (Jehn et al., 1999) and task conflict (Pelled et al., 1999). In order to manage diversity in such a way to create benefits, one needs to take into account some main principles: time, trust, and togetherness. These elements are needed to create a diversity identity.
Rink and Ellemers (2007) developed a model with a diversity-based organizational identity. According to Rink and Ellemers (2007), “differences among team members in organizations are congruent with norms and expectations, diversity can become a basis for organizational identifications.” They stress the importance of creating a common and higher goal for all members in an organization, especially for diverse members. In this way, members may be diverse, but they all have something in common: the goal of their organization. Thus, in a university the goal may be to create excellent teaching modules and publish outstanding research for all university staff members. In order to reach the latter goal, they may actually need diversity as it can create excellence and therefore, enable them to reach the goal. As a consequence, diversity may become a key element for their identity as it will motivate them to reach a higher goal.
However, in order to reach this diversity-based identity, they will need time, trust, and a feeling of togetherness.
It will take time before diverse members in an organization get to know each other. Therefore, one needs to take into account the time element when expecting positive outcomes of benefits. It has been found that heterogeneous team members are more able to produce innovation and productivity compared with homogeneous teams when taking into account the time element (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Harrison et al., 1998; Schippers et al., 2003; Watson et al., 1993).
Furthermore, time may be needed to create trust among diverse members. As members trust each other, they are more loyal to each other and are more committed to what they all want to achieve. Trust is also needed in order to create transparency and space for communication. Only in a trusting atmosphere, open communication is possible, and finally a feeling of togetherness can be the result.
Thirdly, a feeling of togetherness can be created both by trust, over time, and by open communication. As diversity often implies the existence of a majority and a minority group, the in-group bias can act as a threat to the shared commitment and identification among members (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to social identity theory, the in-group bias appears among majority members who consider out-group/minority members as a threat in their organization. Therefore, they will give a preference to other majority members compared with minority members in the organization. For example, in a university, the majority of staff members in an economics department may be male, as there are 18 male university teachers and 2 female university teachers. In this case, when the department needs to democratically choose a new departmental head, the male university teachers may prefer to have a male departmental head as they identify more with men than with women. Therefore, the feeling of togetherness is not very strong among all members of the department as the in-group bias inhibits this feeling. In sum, to ensure a suitable management of diversity at universities, one needs to take into account also the elements of time, trust, and togetherness.
This chapter is aimed to create awareness for managers of universities that the quality of teaching and research can be strongly influenced by the diversity of university staff members. In order to deal with diversity at universities, a strategy needs to be employed in such a way so that benefits of diversity can flourish while the risks are mitigated.Figure 11.1 highlights the process for deciding diversity strategy for universities.
As shown in Figure 11.1, the management of diversity should be aimed at identifying which type of diversity needs to focused on. Secondly, a specific perspective on diversity needs to be chosen. Thirdly, the management of diversity needs the presence of a university culture in which time, trust, open communication, and a reduced in-group bias are leading to a diversity-based identity. If these steps are taken, universities can use diversity as a way to fulfill their organizational strategy and lead to excellence in their research and teaching capabilities.
Figure 11.1 Process for deciding diversity strategy for universities.
References
Earley. O.C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26–49.
Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.
Gonzalez, J.A., & Denisi, A.S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21–40.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., & Bell, M.P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.
Jehn, K.A., Northcroft, G.B., & Neale, M.A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.
Northcroft, G.B., Polzer, J.T., Neale, M., & Kramer, R.S. (1995). Diversity, social identity, and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams. In S.E. Jackson & M.N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace (pp. 69–96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Xin, K.R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 1–28.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2007). Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: The norm congruity principle. British Journal of Management, 18 (1), 17–27.
Sastre, J.F. (2015). The impact of R& D teams’ gender diversity on innovation outputs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(1), 142–162.
Schippers, M.C., Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L., & Wienk, J.A. (2003). Reflexivity and diversity in teams: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 729–802.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction processes and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.