half pages
Unit 8: Dealing with Difference
--Draft--
This week’s readings are all about difference.
A major theme is that the world continues to change rapidly and so does the workforce. Now, more than ever, you are likely to work with people from different cultures, nationalities, religions, and ethnicities, among other differences. These encounters can be sources of learning and opportunity, but they can feel risky too. You may be surprised and discomfited to learn that your coworkers speak your language only as a second tongue or that your organization’s chief competitors are from an unfamiliar country where labor laws and workplace values differ dramatically from those of your own country.
In the U.S., changing cultural norms and new economic realities are transforming the workforce. You are less likely to retain your job because you are affiliated with a dominant sector of society. The color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation – these factors matter less than your job-related knowledge, ability to communicate well, and your capacity to adapt to change.
If you are part of the majority in your organization, it can be hard to understand this attention to difference. Aren’t we all basically in the same boat once we step into our work roles? Well, perhaps not. I remember experience from one of my earliest jobs. I was invited to a reception with other employees, each of whom had a skin color different from mine, most of whom spoke a different first language, and nearly all of whom were “minorities” in other work settings. I immediately became aware of my own difference in that room. I became self-conscious about the way I looked and spoke, and a bit like an “outsider”, even though no one explicitly rejected me. Later, several of the people in that room admitted that they felt that way frequently at work. I was struck by how “invisible” difference is until you are the one who is different!
Why it matters to organizations: Advantages and challenges
Organizations can develop an appreciation for difference, just as they appreciate employees who conform to their expectations. They can “manage difference”, by questioning the status quo, actively seeking talented employees of divergent backgrounds, expecting and managing conflict, and helping employees respect those who are both different and similar. Doing so may help organizations recruit better employees, diversify their customer base, adapt their services to changing demographics and cultural expectations.
Of course, there are challenges too. A diverse workforce brings more opportunities for misunderstanding. When organizations actively seek diverse employees, other employees may feel overlooked or discriminated against. Diverse workforce may require additional training in intercultural understanding and conflict management practices.
A few key concepts:
WK & introduces several research studies on managing difference and some associated terms. Take some time to understand the notion of cosmopolitan communication and how it differs from other approaches. To be cosmopolitan is to start with the assumption that difference can be a good thing. It involves a “learning attitude” and a willingness to take the perspective of people who are different from you. It also recognizes the potential similarities across people and cultures. It explores similarity and difference in an open-minded way.
Important note: By the way, to be cosmopolitan does not mean that all viewpoints are considered equally meritorious, productive, or just. It does mean that you avoid the mistake of assuming that perspectives similar to your own are necessarily best.
So, what would that mean for you and your workplace peers? Which perspectives would be hardest for you to understand? If you are a male, could you adopt the perspective of a female employee? If you are a first-generation immigrant, could you adopt the perspective of an third or fourth generation American? If you are straight could you imagine what it would be like to be a gay employee? If you are not religious, what would it be like to be very religious employee of your organization?
Another key concept is the assimilation/accommodation/separation options faced by those who are different. Assimilation is an effort by the dominant group to eliminate or suppress difference. So, for example, an American manager working in China would be expected to leave behind the work values and practices that they brought with them from the U.S. In contrast, accommodation is an effort to make allow different values or approaches to co-exist. Some features of the new organizations are embraced in an effort to facilitate cooperation and mutual learning. For example, the American manager might retain his or her commitment to American quality control practices. At the same time, he or she might embrace core Chinese values, such as the importance of the collective good (over individual recognition) and honoring older workers.
Separation is the rejection of any dominant culture in favor of divergent and separate group identities. Employees who take this approach might find it easy to identify with other female (or male) colleagues or fellow members of an occupation (e.g., other faculty members at a university; nurses at a hospital). They may find it hard to unite around organizational goals, sometimes because those goals seem so divergent form the goals of the subgroup.
A general working principle here is that organizations should require employees to embrace core values (e.g. productivity) but accept differences in values that are not central (“peripheral values”) to the organization’s success and identity. For example, the religious preferences or sexual orientations of employees are not typically connected to the success of the organization. However, they are central to the identities of many employees and can typically be accommodated rather than assimilated.
AS WK note (p. 150), our communication behaviors and interaction patterns signal the degree to which we seek assimilation, accommodation, and separation. We do so by signaling (sometimes unconsciously) our preference for the status quo (conforming ideation) or using language, jokes, or stories that place whole groups of employees (e.g., males or straight employees or ethnic minorities) in a negative light – the process your text refers to as negative evaluation.
Although we considered gender in an earlier unit on organizational romance, I want to mention it here as an importance source of difference. Our understandings of gender are shaped by our socialization as a member of a larger culture and unique organizational cultures. These understandings can have practical consequences for men and women. This become evident in cases of sexual harassment. For example, an organizational culture that normalizes sexual banter and flirtation can work to the disadvantage of female employees, particularly if women are a minority or hold lower power positions. In such cases, women have limited means of protesting or resisting behavior which emphasizes their sexuality over their job-related competencies. Although gender is often simplified in popular culture (“boys will be boys”) it is unwise to assume that all men (or all women) share certain positive or negative features. So we have to be aware of our cultural biases that advantage men or women at work, but (not surprisingly) each employees needs to be considered as an individual, a unique source of difference in the workplace.
The Risk Negotiation Cycle
Applying the cycle means first of all becoming aware of practices and values that are considered “normal” or “best” in our organization. Are these really most meritorious, or just most familiar? Attend to your own identity and that of others. How important is your ethnicity or gender or occupation to your identity and how does it put you in alignment with some fellow employees and out of alignment with others? Would it be possible to learn from those with different identities?
The sense making step involves checking with others about your own understandings. That might require you to approach employees you don’t ordinarily talk with. It could arise from traveling abroad or attending the cultural or religious events that fellow employees find important. Certainly it involves observing and listening to determine how fellow employees are advantaged or disadvantaged by organizational norms.
Risk transforming is the process of taking action to make the organization less risky for those who are different, and that may include you! Can you use communication that is more inclusive or more respectful of differences? Would it be possible to allow more freedom for employees to preserve core elements for their own identity, even as you encourage adoption of core organizational values? What behavior would (safely) prompt discussion of the privileges enjoyed (but perhaps not earned) by some members of the organization? For example, it is a good idea for your organization to consistently hire new employees form the same small group of “chosen” colleges. Could you suggest alternatives? Do promotion criteria really measure excellence in performance or do they simply replicate outdated ideas and result in promotions of similar-thinking, “safe” employees?
Maintaining means establishing ongoing procedures that make the workplace safe for employees who differ from the dominant group. This could include aggressive recruitment practices designed to broaden and diversity the pool of job candidates? Another example is the creation of safe procedures for negotiating conflicts and differences of opinion – the recognition that differences are inevitable and welcome in an organization committed to continuing improvement and constructive relationships. Many organizations provide organizations provide clear statement of the organization’s support for employees of all genders, ages, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations.
