THE MANAGEMENT OF WORKFORCE DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS IN NIGERIA

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literature that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.

Precisely, the chapter will be considered in three sub-headings:

• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

CONCEPT OF WORK PLACE DIVERSITY

Diversity implies the variety, variegation and multiplicity of characteristics, both visible and invisible, which constitute a phenomenon in both the inanimate and animate worlds. However, we are here concerned with workforce diversity which Kreitner and Kinichi (2001) defined as the multitude of the individual differences and similarities that exist among the people working in an organization. This implies that workforce diversity pertains to everybody in the organization. In other words, it pertains to the host of the individual differences and similarities that make all the workers in the organization unique and different from the others. These similarities and differences are in terms such as age, gender, marital status, social status, disability, sexual orientation, religion, personality, ethnicity, languages and culture (Kossek et al., 2006). Other aspects include life style, tenure, position in the organization, functional specialty or geographical location. This is not an exhaustive list, as we can expect newer categories to be added to the list due to socio-economic, political and technological developments. Some of these categories have grown to include newer dimensions such as the child worker, the aged worker, generation X and Y, and knowledge workers are examples of emerging groups adding to the age dimension of diversity. As noted by Edewor and Aluko (2007), some researchers have gone further to define diversity in primary and secondary dimensions. Primary dimensions are age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/ qualities, race and sexual orientation, which shape an individual’s basic self-image and worldview and have the most impact on groups in the workplace and society (Loden and Rosener, 1991). The secondary dimensions include educational background, geographic location, income, marital status, religious beliefs and work experience. These secondary dimensions of diversity affect an individual’s self-esteem and self-definition. Other ways of classifying these aspects are visible or surface aspects of diversity, pointing to those aspects which are either easily captured such as physical attributes and those that are invisible or deep-level diversity relating to psychological and cultural traits such as life styles, personality characteristics, etc. Furthermore, the significance and importance attached to each or groups of these diversity dimensions vary from country to country and their effects may be conflicting. While gender inequality is considered the oldest and commonest diversity issue worldwide, religion is most important in India and the Middle East, multiculturalism, languages and religion in Africa, racial equality in USA and South Africa and sexual orientation in Western countries and the USA. Indeed, diversity in any many respects has the potential to generate multiple positive outcomes. However, this depends on factors such as the level of diversity awareness, sophistication, experience, education and emotional intelligence, which has been found to be a fundamental determinant of competency if the area of diversity management (Oyewunmi, 2016). Finally, although much talked about and heavily researched especially in the western world, a comprehensive and generally accepted model of diversity is still elusive, but the one proposed by Shore et al. (2009) appears very promising.

IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF WORKFORCE DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

A convergence of several factors such as the internationalization of business, development of world markets, growing workforce mobility, and the increasing awareness of individual differences have reduced the world to a global village, and each nation today is characterized more or less by a world society. Since organisations are microcosms of their societies, we now have a “diverse workforce comprising a multitude of beliefs, understandings, values, ways of viewing the world and unique information,” making it a “hot-button issue” in political, legal, corporate and educational arenas (Shen et al., 2009). However, there is a need to separate the facts from the myths. Quoting Rynes and Rosen (1995), Shen et al. (2009) noted that adoption of diversity training does not necessarily increase top management diversity and overall workforce diversity. In the same vein, they referred to the study by Blum et al. (1994), which found that companies with higher diversity tend to provide lower salaries and have higher employee turnover. On the other hand, to gain the full benefits of diversity management, the authors emphasize that it is not enough to “accept that individuals are different but creating an atmosphere of inclusion and making a commitment to valuing diversity” (Shen et al. 2009. p. 236; italized for emphasis). In other words, diversity management must be made a strategic and competitive advantage and that the appropriate means to achieve this is through the HRM function: “The key to diversity management hinges on strategic thinking and people-centred policies. While diversity management is an approach that revolves around employees, the HRM function is the custodian of the people management processes.” While the authors spoke in glowing terms about HRM being critical in overcoming individual and group processes by increasing organizational learning, flexibility, knowledge creation and the development of a work environment which is conductive to diversity management. They were convinced that diversity management has a place in HRM and should be at the heart of human resource practices and policies. Yet, in spite of their strong faith in this relationship, the empirical support was disappointing, mainly because of the limited scope of treating diversity management only as compliance with AA and EEO and neglecting the practices of appreciating and making use of diversity. It is, therefore, instructive, first, to examine the role and the ability of HRM as an organic function of management, on the one hand and, on the other hand, its ability to advance the process of diversity management in organizations in Nigeria.

MANAGING WORKFORCE DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATION

understanding

The first of this is understanding, the nature and meaning of diversity. Human resource managers must understand that basic differences among peoples do, in fact, exist. Thus, any effort to treat everyone the same, without regards to their fundamental human differences will only lead to a problem.

Empathy:

People in an organization should try to understand the perspectives of others.

Tolerance:

Even though managers learn to understand diversity and empathize with others, the fact remains that they may still not accept or enjoy some aspect of other’s behaviors. They should learn how to tolerate others and respect their individuality.

Willingness to Communicate:

Problem often get magnified over diversity issues because people are afraid or otherwise unwilling to openly discuss issues that relate to diversity. For communication to work, it must be two ways.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING WORKFORCE DIVERSITY

Organizational Policies:

The starting point in managing because diversity is characterised by differences amongpeople, organisations can more effectively manage that diversity by following practices and procedures that are based on flexibility rather than rigidity.

Organizational Practices:

The ideal practice is that because diversity is characterized by differences among people, organizations can more effectively manage that diversity by following practices and procedures that are based on flexibility rather than rigidity [Griffin,1997].

Diversity Training:

Many organizations are finding that diversity training is effective means for managing diversity and minimizing its associated conflict. More specifically, diversity training is training that is specifically designed to better enable members of an organization to function in a diverse workplace [Cox,1991].

Organizational Culture:

The ultimate test of an organizations commitment to managing diversity is its culture. Regardless of what managers say or put in writing, unless there is a basic fundamental belief that diversity is valued, it cannot ever become truly an integral part of an organization. An organization that really wants to promote diversity must shape its culture so that it clearly underscores top management commitment to and support of diversity in all of its forms throughout every part of the organization Carnvale and Stone [1994].

IMPLICATIONS OF MANAGING WORKFORCE DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS IN NIGERIA

At present, the diversity literature is as diverse as the individuals, groups and organizations that are the subjects of study. Much work is needed, both theoretically and empirically, to develop a body of knowledge related to diversity in organizations. Most importantly, scholars need to move beyond old paradigms and limited ways of thinking to develop integrative and practical diversity theories that help organizational leaders create systems in which diverse human beings are able to thrive, and to help their organizations do likewise.” Even though this advice was given close to a decade ago, they are still very relevant to the Nigerian situation today. That much work is needed is borne out by the sparse research done, especially by way of empirical studies and theorizing. Considering the latter, Shore et al. (2009) see a theory as a way of seeing just as it is also a way of not seeing, following Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991); hence they called for more integrative theories to guide both research and practice. Their final theoretical model is based on a careful and extensive review of the literature, looking at key individual dimensions of diversity (race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and national origin), the paradigms applied, their antecedents and outcomes (positive, negative and neutral) for individuals, groups and organizations. Although the findings of Shore et al. (2009) cannot be generalized to other non-western countries, some of their remarks are instructive to researchers in other places. For example, it is appropriate to note that most researchers in Nigeria have tended to concentrate on limited aspects of diversity, namely, race (ethnicity), gender and culture (national origin), to the neglect of other dimensions such as age, disability and sexual orientation and more of surface than deep-level characteristics of diversity. A comment applicable to both western and non-western researchers is that individual level of theorizing, is usually dominated by negative rather positive predictions, calling for newer thinking about the positive aspects of diversity. They, therefore, advocate the use of a wide array of old as well as developing new theories across the social sciences to explain diversity phenomena in order to enrich the body of scholarship. Moreover, they also recommend the use of multiple dimensions of diversity in group and organizational level studies to enable research to explore what dimensions of diversity are most valuable for group and organizational effectiveness (Shore et al., 2009). Furthermore, they advocate methodological diversity in the exploration of diversity issues as this may aid in the development of new diversity paradigms and new insights, leading to the better management of diversity issues. Finally, they felt that the field of diversity would benefit from an appreciative inquiry perspective (Cooperrider et al., 2005) rather than the present pessimism and negativism which characterize research approaches to diversity. Diversity, because of its negative historical connotation, has acquired an odium which prevents managers and researchers from appreciating and valuing diversity in a positive way. However, there is some evidence to suggest that positive attitudes toward diverse others increase the likelihood of successful diversity management (Sawyerr et al., 2005). Researchers have already begun to develop ideas that move in a more proactive and positive direction such as diversity climate and inclusiveness (McKay et al., 2007; Janssens and Zazoni, 2007; Roberson, 2006; Shore et al., 2009), therefore, provoking newer directions that can contribute to the ability of employers of diverse people to promote individual, group, and organizational success.

POSITIONING DIVERSITY AS A HUMAN RESOURCE STRATEGY IN NIGERIA

Diversity principally focuses on managing various individuals with different social characters in an organization (Patrickson and O’Brian, 2004). This is with the aim of promoting individual and organizational development (Kandola and Fullerton, 1998). This aim therefore recognizes diversity as a theoretical influence on human resource development practice in many organizations (Gilley et al., 2002), as human resource development goals aim to develop the career paths of individuals in an organization and increase organizational development (Werner and DeSimone, 2006; McGuire, 2014). To recognize the connection between human resource development and diversity, it is significant to highlight the philosophy of human resource development. Thus, Human resource development as defined by Werner and DeSimone (2006) is:[A] set of systematic planned activities designed by an organisation to provide its members with the opportunities to learn necessary skills to meet current and future job demands. (p. 4) Although human resource development has been an emerging area study, the primary functions of human resource development practices are individual development, training and development, organization development and career development (Swanson, 2001; McGuire, 2014). Nonetheless, the concept of human resource development is not entirely new as it integrates with the well-known human resource management practices (Werner and DeSimone, 2006). These practices include organizational management, work force planning and control, reward system, education and training, and physical and external environment (Becker and Gerhart, 1996). However, Werner and DeSimone (2006) argue that human resource development either can be independent of human resource management or can integrate with the human resource management functions. Similarly, the terminology human resource management in the business world elucidates organizations’ strategies for both development and management practices (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). Hence, most organizations are likely to use the term ‘human resource management’ in relation to exploring diversity management processes within an organization. This is the case with most African countries, as stressed by Anakwe (2002). He argues that Africans have adapted the human resource management practices from Western societies and, to a significant extent, have neglected developing their own management practices, among which he includes developing human resources and suitable processes. Figure 1.1 shows a Western theoretical approach for diversity management adopted by MNCs. This is organization focused. The diagram also illustrates the Nigerian context, which this empirical study has focused on. This context takes a holistic approach as it incorporates the individual, organization and the nation. In order to expound diversity management as an HRD strategy in Nigeria, this paper will also examine HRD in Nigeria. In the Nigerian context as well as in other sub-Saharan African societies (McGuire, 2014), human resource development (HRD) involves access to education and training, equal opportunity, and provision of health and other social services that will enhance the productive capacity of nationals towards national development (Daisi, 2008; Okujagu, 2013). Nonetheless, it is evident that there is a struggle with the implementation of these HRD policies (British Council Nigeria, 2012). This is due to the existence of constraining factors like political instability, political corruption, poor investment in education, lack of infrastructural facilities, poverty, and low technology that inhibit these practices (Okafor and Imohnopi, 2006). At the organizational level, HRD is a recognized requirement for the development of employee competences (Swanson and Arnold, 1996; Appah et al., 2012; McGuire, 2014).

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AS A TOOL FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

From an organization’s perspective, the drive to manage diversity in the workplace links to the organization’s need to have competitive advantage as it draws from a pool of talents globally (Wentling and Palma-Rivas, 2000). Garavan (2007) also stipulates that the development of internal knowledge and skill of any organization can stand as a core competitive advantage for any organization. Hence, a company’s value should correspond to the value of its staff (Garavan, 2007). Most organizations measure staff value in relation to staff performance (Fitz-enz, 2000). I would argue that staff value is a combination of the influence of various variables (Hofstede, 2001); and the recognition, development and management of these values (Cummings and Worley, 2008) within an adequate working environment (Green and Haines, 2011) can lead to best performance.In the HRD context, Holton (2002) defines the performance paradigm of HRD as improving the performance systems and the capabilities of individuals working in a system. He further argues that it is important to understand how and not if HRD needs to improve organisational effectiveness, as this is important for the success of the HRD concept. On the integration of individuals, group and organisational culture, Cox (1991) emphasises the importance of an integrated culture for meeting both organisational and individual goals and objectives. He argues that the existence of a culture-integrated framework in an organisation will encourage the development and management of its diverse workforce at all levels (Cox, 1991). Additionally, Sydhagen and Cunningham (2007) argue that developing skills in an organisation is a major step towards national development, organisational productivity and competitive advantage. Furthermore, examining HRD for the development of individual competencies (Garavan, 2007), it is important to understand the dynamics of how and what influence individuals in the workplace (Hofstede, 2001). This brings me to the structure of social identities – internal, external and organisational dimensions (Sweetman, 2004). The core process of developing a learning strategy in an organisation requires a thorough understanding of the workforce and organizational dimensions, which include values, skills, behaviour, background and environment (Sweetman, 2004). Additionally, Garavan (2007) suggests four levels of context for strategic HRD: global environment; organisational strategy; structure; culture and leadership; value and uniqueness attached to each job function by the organization and the expectation of the individual; and employability and career. I would argue that the evolution of the HRD concept shows more inclusion in respect of the influence of socio-cultural patterns and geo-political characteristics, internally as well as externally (Metcalfe and Rees, 2005; Garavan, 2007). This is essential to understanding and managing the diverse social identities in an organization and its operating environment. I further argue that the significance of diversity management working through HRD strategy, and vice–versa, can be implicitly determined by examining their intended outcomes and determinant factors for achieving these outcomes. The foregoing analysis stresses that diversity management as an HRD strategy should focus on learning, education and the development of the workforce (Swanson, 2001). It should be implemented at all levels of the organizations (Cox, 2001), and should be driven and facilitated by individuals, groups, leadership and management, and the organizational culture (Garavan, 2007).

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Situational theory

In the management literature, situational leadership theory (situational leadership model, Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) has been presented as a behaviourally-based, yet relatively simple theoretical framework for examining the leadership styles of managers. The theory proposes that effective managers possess a range of styles and can vary their style in response to the environmental variables they encounter. Further, the theory maintains that managers can learn to improve their management capabilities through an understanding of the theory itself (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982, p. 171-2). In order to bridge the gap between the theoretical and the practical, thèse authors hâve developed the Leadership Effectiveness and Adaptability (LEAD) Questionnaire. This questionnaire was developed to measure several leadership style parameters of managers. Thus, the situational leadership model has been presented by its authors as a practical tool that managers can learn to use to improve their performance. Some authors (Sergiovanni, 1979; Fiedler, 1979) hâve claimed that the model is an oversimplification of any real situation that a managermay encounter. However, the simplicity of the modelcan be regarded as an advantage for it can be easilylearnedand appliedby a variety of people. An additional advantage is that the model is based on a follower's observable behaviours or "task-relevant maturity" level. A knowledgeable leader/manager or teacher can then respond in an appropriate manner to the follower's behaviour. Thèse features of situational leadership theory make it potentially useful as a tool for teachers. Several studies hâve examined the application of situational leadership theory to the educational milieu; however, thèse studies hâve focused primarily on the styles of educational administrators (Clark, 1981; Edman, 1982; Weston, 1979). The application of this theory to the teaching/learning environment has been very limited (Bogert, 1986; Boucher, 1980; Greenfield & Andrews, 1961; Salter, 1983; Saucier, 1984). The most récent study by Bogert (1986) usessituational leadership theory as a theoretical framework for the analysis of teaching styles at the CEGEP level. In this study the author has developed the theoretical link between managers and higher éducation teachers, in terms of their activities, the skills that are required and the structures within which they work. Â questionnaire that parallels the LEAD, the Teacher Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (TEAD), was developed in this study. Since teachers often feel that they must choose between emphasizing course content and developing the student as an independent learner, a situational leadership model nïay provide a solution to this dilemma. The présent study examines the Hersey and Blanchard claim that leaders, in this case teachers, can learn to improve their management capabilities, in terms of the style range and style effectiveness components, through an understanding of the theory itself.