Diversity
Week 2 Lecture 1 –
From this week onward, you will get the opportunity to study specific elements of strategic OB. After reviewing each of the topics, I encourage you to reflect on your place of work and ask, “Does my organization measure up?” If not, that topic might become part of your final project paper. This week brings two topics that are sure to be interesting and spark debate…diversity (chapter two) and globalization (chapter three). For this lecture, we’ll focus on diversity in the workplace. This lecture coupled with the reading in Chapter 2 this week should provide the backdrop for an enhanced understanding of diversity and the current topics facing our country today.
Let’s begin with the Presidential election of 2008. Why is this a significant event in our country’s history with respect to diversity? We, as a nation, elected the first African-American President, Barack Obama. From the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties to the election of our first African-America President, our country has grown over the last several decades and continues to evolve with respect to diversity and inclusion. Before moving further into this lecture, please take a moment to read the Experiencing Organizational Behavior article on page fifty of the text titled, “Diversity at the Top”. Noted below is one particular excerpt from the article worth reinforcing:
“President Obama’s intrapersonal diversity and strong beliefs that diversity in governance is necessary is reflected in the diversity of his cabinet. Thirty-four percent of his officials are female, eleven percent are black, eight percent are Hispanic, and four percent are Asian. While these do not seem like large numbers, they reflect more diversity than was present in past administrations’ cabinets. This diversity is expected to increase as President Obama’s tenure in office lengthens and he brings in new officials.”
As you know, cabinet changes can happen at a moment’s notice. For purposes of this discussion, let’s take the article at face value and assume the diversity stated is what exists in present day. While some would argue that the cabinet is not diverse enough, it’s definitely apparent that the cabinet is no longer a Caucasian Boys Club. A quote by John Maxwell best summarizes President Obama’s vision with respect to leadership diversity, “A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.” (Kruse, 2012) President Obama “knows the way” because he is biracial himself and has a very diverse extended family as noted in the article within the text. He effectively “goes the way” by selecting a diverse set of cabinet members. What about “shows the way”? Well, let’s take a look at a few initiatives that the President has supported while in office.
*Gays in the Military --- The policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, or DADT, was repealed and gays can now openly serve in our armed forces (Lee, 2010).
*Same-Sex Marriage --- While same-sex marriage is in a state of flux and varies across the nation, there are a number of states currently that have come to recognize same-sex marriage in recent years. The President has shown public support in the media for same-sex marriage and supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA (Civil Rights, 2014).
*Increasing Employment of Individuals with Disabilities --- This Executive Order focuses on employing disabled persons within the Federal government and outlines recruitment and hiring flexibilities (Obama, 2010).
Regardless of your personal beliefs and based on the evidence, it’s fair to say that President Obama has made progress on a national level when it comes to diversity and inclusion.
Further food for thought...unfortunately, there are organizations serving the public in some cities across America that do not reflect the diversity within their areas of responsibility. A recent example gained national attention in Ferguson, MO where an unarmed, black teenager was shot and killed by a white police officer. The ensuing protests nationwide sparked much-needed debate and catalyzed the conversation about race and diversity in America. While I’m sure you each have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether the shooting was justified, let’s look beyond that and analyze the situation from a diversity perspective. Sixty-seven percent of Ferguson is black, however, blacks make up less than six percent of the Ferguson Police Department. (Firozi, 2014) What’s wrong with this picture from a diversity perspective? Ideally, a public organization’s membership should reflect the demographics of the people it supports. Failure to achieve this balance can result in public perceptions and sometimes actions that are not in line with the values of the United States.
References
Civil Rights. (2014). Retrieved December 29, 2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights
Firozi, P. (2014). 5 Things to Know about Ferguson Police Department. Retrieved December 29, 2014, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/08/14/ferguson-police-department-details/14064451/
Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. (2015). Organizational Behavior (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kruse, K. (2012). 100 Best Quotes on Leadership. Retrieved December 29, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/10/16/quotes-on-leadership/
Lee, J. (2010). The President Signs Repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell": "Out of Many, We Are One" Retrieved December 29, 2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/22/president-signs-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-out-many-we-are-one
Obama, B. (2010). Executive Order 13548 -- Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities. Retrieved December 29, 2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-increasing-federal-employment-individuals-with-disabilities
Week 2 Lecture 2 –
Culture Context & Dimensions
This week’s second lecture focuses on understanding the difference between high-context and low-context cultures. First, let’s define both so we have a common understanding before covering the nuances of each. On page eighty-four of the text, Hitt, Miller, and Colella provide the following definitions:
*High-Context Culture – A type of culture where individuals use contextual cues to understand people and their communications and where individuals value trust and personal relationships.
*Low-Context Culture – A type of culture where individuals rely on direct questioning to understand people and their communications and where individuals value efficiency and performance.
Generally speaking, Western cultures, the United States as an example, tend towards low-context whereas Eastern cultures, Japan as an example, tend towards high-context. Before we talk about the benefits of understanding the differences and ramifications of not understanding the differences in the global marketplace, let’s take a simpler example to ensure you understand the distinctions.
Martial Arts Example
Let’s look at a martial arts class taught on American soil by a Japanese instructor. For purposes of this example, this is an adult class with students from eighteen years onward. For those of you Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan fans out there, you’ll savor this teaching moment :) If you’re not sure who either of these famous martial artists are, don’t sweat it. It’s not necessary to know those folks to understand the teaching point here. Most martial arts classes begin with a stretching and warmup routine followed by instructional elements. Once an instructor demonstrates a technique or a drill, students are then given the opportunity to practice with their peers. This gives the instructor an opportunity to identify technical issues and provide feedback.
Picture this…the Japanese instructor has all of his students kneel down while he calls on an American student, eighteen years of age, to be his partner in front of the class for demonstration purposes. The Japanese instructor asks the student to put him in a standing headlock so he can demonstrate a defense against such a move. Instead of a standing headlock, the student puts the instructor in a headlock and drags him to the ground.
Now, before telling you what happened next, let’s analyze this situation from the contextual perspective. First, operating under the aforementioned contextual definitions, the American student is obviously from a low-context culture. As we know, low-context cultures value performance and efficiency. This student, as odd as it sounds, was living up to his culture stereotype. He wanted to test the instructor and see if he was talented enough to get out of a headlock variation. The Japanese instructor is just the opposite and from a low-context culture. He values trust and personal relationships. The instructor’s goal was to demonstrate in a controlled environment for the other students to discuss the finer points of the defense.
What happened next? Well, let’s just say it was not a good outcome for the student. The instructor diagnosed the situation and responded with an escape and very quick chokehold from which the student “tapped out”, or in simple terms, gave up. Now let’s bring this situation into focus and relate it to the global business environment. What happened “on the mat” with the Japanese instructor can very easily happen across an organization that exists on a global level. Associates and managers from different cultures can easily misunderstand situations leading to uncomfortable outcomes for not only those involved but the entire organization.
Culture Dimensions
Delving even further into the dimensions of national culture, I call your attention to Exhibit 3-4 on page eighty-eight of your context. While there are nine culture dimensions listed on that graphic, four of those were developed by Dutch social scientist Geert Hofstede as noted by Hitt, Miller, and Colella on page eighty-eight of your text and listed below:
*Uncertainty Avoidance – degree to which members of a society wish to avoid unpredictability.
*Power Distance – degree to which members of a society expect power to be unequally distributed.
*Individualism – degree to which members of society are comfortable focusing on personal goals and being rewarded for personal efforts and outcomes.
*Assertiveness – the degree to which members of society are aggressive and confrontational.
Looking at these dimensions and applying them to our martial arts example discussed prior, which might easily apply to the American student? I believe it’s safe to say that the American student has a high degree of individualism and assertiveness. He showed that by attempting to test the instructor in front of other classmates rather than going through the demonstration so the instructor could teach the specifics of the technique. What about the Japanese instructor? The instructor, on the other hand, identifies at the other end of the spectrum with a low degree of individualism and assertiveness.
A final note…in the business world, most high-profile, global organizations have some type of cultural training to help prevent misunderstandings from happening in the workplace. If your organization does not do something of this nature, I encourage you to reach out to your Human Resources and see if they might be interested in doing so. If not, I encourage you to personally research the elements of various cultures that you might encounter.
References
Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. (2015). Organizational Behavior (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
