1.1. DIVERSITY: AN EVOLVING CONCEPT

The concept of diversity is not a static one—or a new one. The word was first used in the twelfth century to mean "difference, oddness, wickedness, perversity." That origin may help explain the negative perception of diversity that lingers today. Some organizations now avoid the word altogether, using words like "inclusion" instead. By the late nineteenth century, "diversity" had taken on a meaning more consistent with modern political and corporate initiatives. The Oxford English Dictionary defines diversity as "the condition or quality of being diverse, different, or varied; variety, unlikeness." Even today we must continually reiterate that, contrary to our cousins in the twelfth century, "different" does not have a negative connotation.

In the United States, diversity is big business—and a well-established one. Our understanding and approach to diversity has evolved in several ways—moving from a legal and social justice focus on equal opportunity, affirmative action, and assimilation to a more inclusive, market-driven, and business-directed focus. It is now evolving from a purely domestic focus to a more global one, in which culture has become a key consideration.

To more fully understand diversity, it's important to understand the driving forces behind that diversity focus in the first place. According to Lawrence Baytos, author of Designing and Implementing Successful Diversity Programs, there have been three key drivers for diversity work in the United States—the Three "Ds"—Demographics, Disappointment, and Demands.^[]

Demographic changes in both the workforce and the marketplace have resulted in shifts in the talent pool and in markets, according to Baytos. Organizations have been disappointed in traditional methods of using diversity, such as affirmative action. And the demands from employees and for improved performance of the human assets of the organization have all been drivers for the U.S. focus on diversity, he says.

1.1.1. Demographics

The first of these, demographic change, has long been a major business driver for focusing on domestic diversity issues in the United States. Two-thirds of the world's immigrants still go to the United States, and the number of foreign-born U.S. residents is at the highest level in U.S. history, according to the 2000 U.S. census statistics. Workforce 2000, a 1987 report by the Hudson Institute, created a stir in the U.S. business community by documenting the demographic shifts in the U.S. workforce. The report noted that nearly all the growth in the workforce through the year 2000 would come from people who were not white and male. Subsequent reports by the Hudson Institute and others continue to document this ongoing, and accelerating, trend.

Demographic change is a business driver outside the United States as well: In the future, most of the growth in the workforce of the world will be in countries with non-Caucasian populations, creating more diverse human resources to choose from and manage in the global arena. In fact, reports Carlos Cortés, all of European growth in the past twenty-five years has come from immigration, primarily from Asia and Africa.^[] Around the world, the numbers of women in the workforce will continue to increase, especially in developing countries; the average age of the world's workforce will rise, especially in developed countries; and education levels will increase globally as the developing world produces a rapidly increasing share of the world's skilled human capital.^[]

But worldwide labor mobility is not a new phenomenon. Irish stonemasons helped build U.S. canals; Chinese laborers raced against German workers to build North America's transcontinental railroads; Turks work in large numbers in Berlin; and Algerians assemble cars in France. What is different about current labor mobility also relates to Baytos' theory of the Three Ds: the demographics of today's immigrants are vastly different, countries are disappointed by past approaches to immigration; and there are different demands being made by both the immigrant population and their new homelands than ever before.

While some countries are tightening their borders in response, others, like New Zealand, are opening their doors wider to immigrants they believe can bring innovation, global linkages, and social cohesion to their island nation.

In the past, the United States used what has been called a "melting pot" model of assimilation in which immigrants who arrived were expected to give up their own cultural identity and become fully American. But because of modern technology, immigrants around the world no longer have to lose their individual and cultural identity in the "melting pot." The new metaphor being used is that of a "salad bowl" or "stir fry," in which the individual "ingredients" retain their particular taste and texture, but which combined create a greater taste than they would have individually. As William McNeill has noted, "In the nineteenth century and before, moving to a foreign country meant cutting close ties with the homeland for years if not forever. Modern conditions make it possible even for very humble immigrants to keep in touch with their place of origin."^[]

In such a way, it is far easier for immigrants to maintain their cultural identity in a strange land, changing the paradigm of immigration in many nations. In the case of New Zealand (above), immigration is welcomed as a source of economic growth. In Canada's case (later in this chapter), the diversity brought by new immigrants is seen as a tool for tapping new ethnocultural markets.

Pluralism is a more modern (and realistic) way of viewing ethnicity, providing an alternative to assimilation. In a society that embraces pluralism, immigrants maintain their unique cultural identity while existing in a second culture simultaneously. This requires much more cultural awareness, knowledge, options, and action than the assimilation model of the past.

1.1.2. Disappointment and New Demands

Equal employment and access to employment opportunity became a legislated national objective in the United States in the early 1970s. Using an affirmative action model, organizations began focusing less on opening doors to "protected classes," such as people of color, females, people with disabilities, those over age 40, and Vietnam era veterans, and began focusing more on the numbers. Those brought into the organization were expected to assimilate or adapt to the existing norms and practices of the organization, says Baytos, rather than the organization adapting to meet the needs of the individuals. In this way, the organizational response mirrored the "melting pot" model of the country itself.

While affirmative action is still being used and hotly debated in the United States, the corporate approach to diversity has evolved to a less quantitative and more qualitative approach, yet many cynics in the United States still believe that "diversity" is just another name for "affirmative action." The Affirmative Action comparison figure on the next page outlines the major differences between affirmative action and diversity management in the United States.

Effecting social change is no longer enough in the U.S. approach to diversity; companies are increasingly tying diversity goals to the bottom line. To underscore the business implications and benefits of diversity, the following initiatives are present in many diversity strategies.^[]

• Support from the CEO;

• Senior management visibility;

• Compensation tie-in;

• Stronger retention initiatives;

• More mentoring;

• Active vendor programs;

• Diversity training at all levels;

^[] Affirmative Action, Valuing Differences, and Managing Diversity Compared

• Global initiatives; and

• Education/special initiatives.

In other parts of the world, this evolution has taken a different form. For example, in Europe the commercial bottom line was the starting point for managing differences, not the unused potential of disadvantaged people, according to interculturalist George Simons, author of EuroDiversity: A Business Guide to Managing Difference.

In the Netherlands, where diversity management is gaining ground, it is primarily understood to pertain to relations between people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds in work organizations and less to issues of gender and sexual orientation.^[] Because of increasing ethnic populations in the Netherlands, diversity management is being taken seriously, embraced as the "soft" way out of the present debate about the soaring unemployment rate among ethnic minorities.

In Brazil, despite the extremely diversified cultural context in which companies operate in this land of immigrants, the issue of cultural diversity is a new one. Brazilians value their diversified origin and imagine themselves without prejudice. But it is a stratified society, where educational and labor market opportunities are often defined by one's economic and racial origin. In this environment, addressing cultural diversity is more related to the need to create competitive advantage, usually in compliance with policies established by the local subsidiary headquarters, than to the need to follow legal procedures.^[]

Governmental measures to combat employment discrimination are very recent in Brazil and often clash with the Brazilian national ideology to conceive of itself as a heterogeneous country without prejudice. The greatest majority of companies in Brazil that are addressing diversity issues are, in fact, subsidiaries of U.S. companies, and most often the concept of cultural diversity being adopted is quite restricted, dealing with gender and race only.

Understanding the genesis of the focus on diversity—and its context—is important to the success of any global diversity effort. "North American diversity started with social and government initiatives that extended into the private sector; in Europe, economic cooperation among diverse peoples was the starting point," writes Simons.^[]

These differences have a profound impact on how diversity is viewed, managed, and leveraged around the world. Before "exporting" diversity management from the United States to other locations around the globe, it is important to understand that the starting point and area of focus might be quite different, depending on the social, political, cultural, and economic context of the country in which you are doing business. Not understanding this has caused many U.S.-originated diversity efforts to fail overseas because they are perceived as an attempt to make the world over in our own image, rather than truly listen to the prevailing conditions and cultural norms in the countries in which we are doing business.

U.S. Americans have engaged in decades of national conversation about diversity. Yet the word "diversity" has rarely been mentioned in Europe until recently, according to Simons. Equivalent terms such as kulturelle Vielfalt (cultural diversity) and gerer diversite (managing diversity) have been used in Germany and France, he notes, "but almost always to discuss North American diversity."

Why has diversity not been the "hot topic" in Europe that it has been in North America? "The issues have been very important ones, but they have been conceived of and dealt with in a different form of discourse," explains Simons. For example, he notes, the North American approach to highlight and celebrate differences is fraught with danger in Europe, where accentuating differences within and between European nations has created pogroms, mass dislocations of peoples, and the Holocaust. Other differences include the phenomenon of political correctness in the United States, in which we have thwarted our ability to have open and honest conversation about difference for fear of offending others. For example, banning Christmas parties, which has been widely done in U.S. businesses, is seen as culturally destructive by Europeans who "often think that Americans fail to realize that deliberately taking offense is as destructive as deliberately giving offense."^[]

Many firms, particularly those based in the United States, begin at a point of relative employee homogeneity and try to promote greater diversity in racial and gender representation, while multinational firms begin from a point of relative heterogeneity. A key challenge for multinationals, then, is to find ways to benefit from diversity while also forging consistency, says Philip M. Rosenzweig, professor of organization and strategy at IMD.^[]

Lacking cultural knowledge and experience abroad, and armed with a healthy sense of cultural self-esteem about our leadership role in the world, U.S. diversity professionals often err on the side of arrogance and with an export mentality. We tend to forget that 95 percent of the world's population lives outside the United States. "The first challenge," says Ron Martin, "is to define what cultural diversity means in global terms, not just in Western terms."^[]

Martin, director of global employee relations at New York-based Colgate-Palmolive Company, knows first-hand the complexity of dealing with diversity issues across borders. A two-day program at Colgate helps underscore the commitment of the company to diversity, with one day focused on the themes and values of Colgate and the second day focusing on issues within a particular country, such as race, gender, age, sexual harassment in the United States, or gender bias and class discrimination in the United Kingdom. In such a way, companies are beginning to expand their domestic diversity work to include the new global realities they are facing. Use the "What Do You Need to Know?" sheet to help you look at your own diversity initiative.

1.1.3. Suggestions for Using "What Do You Need to Know?"

Objectives

• To understand the kinds of information necessary before undertaking global diversity initiatives

• To assess personal knowledge of the conditions for global diversity

• To prioritize information-gathering needs of the organization

• To identify internal resources for global diversity information

Intended Audience

• Managers responsible for diversity initiatives

• HR professionals with global responsibility

• Diversity council or task-force members

• Managers of international or multicultural teams

Time

• 45 to 60 minutes

Materials

• Copies of "What Do You Need to Know?"

Directions

• Discuss and define the types of information needed (Column 1).

• Ask participants to fill in their answers on the worksheet.

• Have participants share their responses in small groups of three to five people, comparing their prioritization and self-assessment or needs.

• Ask small groups to discuss the implications for the organization of their findings.

Questions for Discussion/Consideration

• How did the priorities of your group differ?

• Were there other types of information that you felt you might need in order to assess your readiness to undertake a global diversity initiative?

• How can you use this sheet as a planning tool for the organization's global diversity initiatives?

• Are the internal resources you identified currently involved in diversity initiatives? If not, how can you best involve them and tap their expertise?

• What resources will you need to gain the necessary information and expertise you need?

• Brainstorm additional internal resources that are not currently being used (such as the legal department or expatriate staff) and that could be helpful in this effort.

Cultural Considerations

• Talking about the self-assessment of knowledge openly may be uncomfortable for some team members. In such cases, have small groups create a composite of knowledge needs that can be shared with the larger group.

Caveats, Considerations, and Variations

• This sheet can be used as a planning tool for a diversity council or team charged with rolling out the diversity initiative overseas.

• Once self-knowledge needs have been identified by individuals, engage the group in a "skill exchange" where those who have knowledge in a particular area are paired with those who need to gain that knowledge.