Fall 2003 IMQ

Integrating Culture and Management in Global Organizations

INSIDE Like Us 3 People

by Frank Landy

6 Generational Diversity

by Carol Ochs

Review: 7 Book Generations at Work: Managing the Clash...

12

Announcing the IMI Spring Conference

Volume 4, Number 2

Fall 2 0 0 3 Edition A quarterly publication produced by the Intercultural Management Quarterly and the Intercultural Management Institute, School of International Service at American University

High PPerformance erformance Hiring Acr oss Cultural Lines Across

by Britta Stromeyer A firm’s reputation is often a result of the employees it recruits and the people it retains. Cultural and generational differences affect not only the hiring process, but also the process of doing business, including daily management. Today’s media has broadcast that we should understand and value individual differences. “Valuing Diversity” has been the slogan for the past decade.

We must ask then..How does valuing diversity affect the hiring process? In short, by stating that we should value diversity, it proves that our society has moved far beyond affirmative action programs!

We must operate on a number of different cultural levels at any given time. These levels arise from our own cultural heritage, the prospective employee’s cultural background and the organizational culture of the firm that employs us. The same product or service may have a different meaning for each person in the organization, depending upon each person’s cultural perspective. The focus of high performance hiring today, in addition to a detailed job description, must be on an awareness and sensitivity to cultural and generational differences.

To succeed in today’s competitive 21st century market of high performance hiring, we must first develop an awareness of our own culture, before we can be sensitive to other individual cultures and know how to transfer that sensitivity to the organization.

Culture is a shared system of meanings. In an organizational context, it indicates what we pay attention to, how we manage our workforce and what we value. Culture is like an onion. A thorough and well conducted

Continued on page 4

A Model for Div ersity Manag ement: The “Business Case” Diversity Management: and the Bottom Line

by Emily Gildersleeve

Managing the diversity of the American workforce has become an economic imperative for companies who wish to stay competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. Recent demographic shifts have increased the number of minorities in the United States and in the American workforce: currently, one in four Americans is a “minority,” which will increase to one in three by 2050, and “minorities” are the majority in six out of the eight largest metropolitan areas in the United States. If these demographic shifts continue along their current trajectory, non-Hispanic whites will fast become a minority group.

The purchasing power of minorities has grown in turn: it is estimated that minorities buy more

than $1 trillion worth of products and services annually. In order to “tap in” to these growing markets, organizations need diverse viewpoints to give their products multicultural appeal.

Several American companies have made strides to manage diversity more effectively.

Ford Motor Company, recently named the number one company for diversity in the United States by DiversityInc magazine, recognized the rapid growth of the U.S. Latino population and responded accordingly. By targeting advertising towards Latinos, they increased sales in the Latino market by 50

Continued on page 10

IMQ Update

IMQ STAFF Publisher • Dr. Gary R. Weaver Managing Editor • Sherry Zarabi Publication Manager • Anna Lee

Editor’s Welcome

Welcome to the Fall 2003 edition of the Intercultural Management Quarterly (IMQ). This issue of IMQ explores the dynamics of managing workforce diversity while continuing our tradition of combining original research with the applied perspective of industry experts.

Contributing Writers Emily Gildersleeve Frank Landy Carol Ochs Britta Stromeyer Maria Trujillo

As Emily Gildersleeve points out, in her article “A Model for Diversity Management: ‘The Business Case’ and the Bottom Line”, recent demographic shifts have made managing workforce diversity “an economic imperative for companies who wish to stay competitive in an increasingly global marketplace.” This development has encouraged professionals to review their hiring and training practices to ensure compliance with their goal of workforce diversity. Hiring managers can utilize Britta Stromeyer’s article “High Performance Hiring Across Cultural Lines” as a tool for determining some of the affects of cultural differences on the hiring process.

Editorial Review Board Dr. Gary R. Weaver, Sherry Zarabi, Anna Lee, Heidi Ashton, Darrel Onizuka,

The Fall 2003 edition presents authors with diverse backgrounds.

Emily Gildersleeve’s article is based on her substantial research on diversity training programs. Her article illustrates a model for managing a diversity plan. Frank Landy’s article “People Like Us” is based on his extensive experience as an industrial psychologist. He challenges readers to understand that our “view of the world is simply one of many alternative views.” In her article, “Generational Diversity,” Carol Ochs illustrates current issues in a generational diverse workforce, and Maria Trujillo reviews a book on managing generational diversity, entitled “Generations at Work: Managing the Class of Veterans, Boomers, Xers and Nexters in Your Workplace.” We believe this collection of articles will be useful and of interest to trainers, professionals and students.

Thank you for your interest in the IMQ. As always we welcome your comments and suggestions. Without your feedback we cannot become your knowledge source on intercultural management.

EDITORIAL POLICY The Interculutral Management Quarterly (IMQ) is published by the Intercultural Management Institute at American University. IMQ combines original research conducted in the field of interculutral management with the applied perspectives of industry experts, professors and students.

SUBMISSION POLICY IMQ submissions are open to all students, professors, and professionals interested in the integration of international relations and business.

Contributing authors are expected to submit articles- no less than 1000 words and no more than 1500 words-focused on related topics. Article submissions are refereed by the editorial review board. Articles and materials accepted for publication are subject to editing by the editorial review board and become property of the Intercultural Management Quarterly.

REPRODUCTION POLICY All articles, advertisements and other materials published in the Intercultural Management Quarterly may not be reprinted without the express written permission of the Publication Manager. All article reprints should include a printed reference to IMQ. Intercultural Management Quarterly School of International Service IMQ Phone: (202) CONTACT 885-1846 Fax: (202) Management 885-133 Intercultural Quarterly E-mail: School imqeditor@american.edu of International Service 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016-8177 Phone: (202) 885-1846 Fax: 885-1331 AMERICAN U(202) NIVERSITY W

Best Regards,

A

S

H

I

N

G

T

O

N , D

C

4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016-8177

Sherry Zarabi Managing Editor Subscriptions/Submissions: E-mail: imqeditor@american.edu © 2003 Intercultural Management Quarterly

2

People Like Us

by Frank Landy In the September issue of the Atlantic Monthly, in a piece called “People Like Us,” David Brooks highlights the tendency of like-minded individuals to form homogeneous clusters. He makes the generally accurate observation that neighborhoods, educational institutions, even whole cities tend to attract people with similar values and interests. He presents the example of Boulder, Colorado (where I happen to work) as a haven for politically progressive mountain bikers who “made the place so culturally pure that it has become practically a parody of itself.”

By inference, he implies that Boulder (I realize that Boulder is simply an example he uses to make his point) talks the diversity talk but does not walk the diversity walk, because it is a city of “politically progressive mountain bikers.” To be sure, there are some politically progressive mountain bikers in Boulder, there are also reactionary construction workers, politically regressive real estate agents, and determined “know nothings” who work in the administration of various educational institutions ranging from preschool centers to the University of Colorado in Boulder. In fact, in choosing Boulder for one of his examples, he managed to pick one of the few communities in which the wheels are still on the “diversity wagon.” In the endless meetings of authorities, boards, and commissions that are used to “run” the city of Boulder (affectionately known as the Soviet Socialist Republic of Boulder by many of its politically non-progressive residents), one can see both the strengths and the burdens of diversity. People disagree – about anything and everything.

What’s worse, they think that disagreement is good and are willing to keep coming back week after week to disagree about the same issue until there

is some common understanding of the issue, if not consensus.

Nevertheless, Brooks makes a good point about the natural tendency of people to avoid the hard work of disagreement by clustering with those of similar values. And it is remarkable how quickly and easily we can do this.

Brooks uses the example of friends who have advanced degrees by citing the example of Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve. If you think of your twelve closest friends, the chances of six of those twelve having advanced degrees is less than one in a million.

It is a safe guess that most of the readers of this article would have six close friends with advanced degrees. But the examples can be even simpler. Waiting at the local quick-shop to pay for gas, two strangers watching the young cashier with blue hair and various rings protruding from parts of her face and head trying to make correct change exchange a knowing glance, roll their eyes, and silently agree that the younger generation has gone to hell – well maybe not their kids who are part of that generation, but most other kids.

I would agree with Brooks that cultural and intellectual and political “segregation” will often occur when people or institutions do not acknowledge the tendency and recognize the inherent value in simple disagreement and discussion. Of course Brooks, anxious to make the unsurprising leap to demographic and political diversity, talks about housing patterns and zip codes and liberal college faculties. But this issue is not about race, or color, or gender, or even political affiliation — it is about how much disagreement people are willing to endure for the sake of a “better” life (“better” can

be translated as interesting or productive or even morally fulfilling but it cannot be translated as peaceful in this context).

I would like to take Brooks’ observations one step further, to the working world. Brooks’ view of this natural human tendency to hang out with people like yourself is a somewhat passive phenomenon, made active by occasional choices of where to live, where to shop, and where to go to school. In the work setting, one finds a much more aggressive strain of this tendency toward homogenization.

Applicants for jobs, and the organizations to which they apply, often go through an elaborate dance to determine if they are compatible. This dance is performed through recruiting, plant visits, interviews, and so forth.

If a compatibility of values is apparent (assuming, of course, that the basic credentials/ abilities/skills are also present in the applicant), an offer is made and often accepted. But things are not always as they seem. Organizations do not always portray their values accurately, and applicants have a tendency to provide a view of themselves that would most likely result in an offer. Then the fun begins. In most cases the organization takes increasingly direct steps to eliminate the nonconforming hire. This might take the form of withholding information from the new hire to limit accomplishments, or providing stultifying or doomed-tofailure assignments. If these tactics don’t work, the strategies become more direct—poor performance reviews, public criticism, and so on.

Eventually the new hire “gets it” and leaves. This often occurs within the first 12 months of employment.

Continued on page 8

3

High Performance Hiring continued from page 1 interview process helps us to peel off onion layers one by one and learn more about an applicant’s different experiences and essentially determine whether a candidate will be able to contribute to our organization.

What is your culture?

As hiring professionals in today’s market we must raise our own cultural awareness to enable us to recognize cultural differences and allow us to compare different communication styles effectively. The “cookie cutter approach” does not work anymore.

order to advance quickly within the organization. Generally speaking, Generation Xers value knowledge, whereas Baby Boomers value experience.

To develop your intercultural awareness you need to be able to recognize the behavioral expectations of different generations and learn to apply them to your organizational context. Intercultural awareness helps us to recognize and appreciate a variety of attitudes, values and expectations. This awareness will give you the competitive edge required to establish a rapport with your applicants and interview them effectively.

As an interviewer you should ask yourself what are your basic values, When cultures collide beliefs, assumptions and worldview and how do they correspond to the interviewee’s cultural background?

What is your firm’s business culture? During an interview we have to What are the dominant management identify and evaluate different styles styles, manager’s expectations and of verbal and non-verbal how do they correspond communication. Body to the expectations of the language and facial prospective employee? expressions such as “The ‘cookie What is the firm’s smiling, eye movements cutter approach’ hierarchical structure and and gestures can vary what is the decisionfrom culture to culture. If does not work making process? the cultural context is not

4

Being German myself, I cannot resist presenting the following example of cultural adjustment that I experienced when I moved to Washington, D.C. American informality and the habit of calling each other by the first name makes most Germans uncomfortable.

This is particularly evident when young people or junior staff address the elders or their superiors by their first names. In Germany it takes a very long time to get on a first-name basis.

Using someone’s first name is a matter of respect and is a process involving trust and should not be rushed.

Generally speaking, Germans are much more serious than Americans.

Germans do not expect to have fun at work; work is serious business and should be separated from one’s personal or social life. In fact, for these reasons I am still uncomfortable with the concept of small talk in the office. Small talk does not fit into the seriousness of business. Consequently, if you had interviewed me six or seven years ago and started your interview with a casual chat about the weather to calm my nervousness, you would have, in fact confused me and made me more nervous.

Cultural differences are evident in the understood, some gest- resumes of Americans and Europeans. ures may be misint- Typically, Americans load their erpreted or be considered offensive. resumes with great detail and as many education credits as possible. In fact, For example, as interviewers we value often Americans resumes are so direct eye contact. Eye contact gives inflated that they are to some extent us the impression that the applicant is discredited. European resumes, on the attentive, interested and respectful. other hand, provide very little detail.

However, some cultures consider Europeans believe in a modest resume direct eye contact with an elder or to avoid appearing braggadocious. In someone in a superior position (such the United States, the behavioral style as an interviewer) as rude. Unless we interview focuses on past experiences. understand such cultural differences, The European applicant, however, we may completely misinterpret a expects questions about his or her

anymore”

For example, if you consider yourself a member of the “Baby Boomer” generation and you interview a member of “Generation X,” your expectation of the position and career path differs significantly from those of your Generation X candidate.

While you value the time you have spent in a particular position to build your expertise, the Generation X candidate likely wants to know what he or she needs to do and know in

candidate’s abilities and truthfulness.

extracurricular activities with the assumption that the US interviewer will automatically fill in the missing information on the resume.

hiring a candidate whose focus is more on relationships and collective achievement.For instance, Chinese culture places a significant emphasis on relationships. Team work and collective decision making are highly valued. From a “cookie cutter” perspective, in an interview you may perceive a lack of ambition or even a lack of expertise when evaluating a candidate from this cultural background.

view and know how to use them to work effectively and accomplish the business goals of the firm.

Intercultural awareness gives you the ability to set the performance bar higher on two dimensions: quality of The Cross-cultural Hiring Skills life and business success. There are Inventory numerous concepts of communicating across cultures today. When selecting candidates in the workplace, we We follow a certain structure and techneed not only be aware of cross-culnique in the interviewing and hiring protural differences; we must be able to cess, but do we ask ourselves if certain integrate these differences into the It may appear that hiring a diverse questions or frameworks that we work with actually translate across cultural workforce takes more effort; hiring organization and its hiring practices. someone from lines? Do you ask a different culyourself what your “All too often cultural tural backperception or interground may repretation of a quesdifferences, rather than the quire different tion or answer is applicant’s job competence, management compared to somedominate the hiring practices and one else’s? stronger interdecisions.”

Our cultural diffpersonal skills erences are based on from the team a variety of different and the organization as a whole. All notions, such as the meaning of power too often cultural differences, rather and competition, our time orientation, than the applicant’s job competence, our notice of space (physical proxim- dominate the hiring decision. As ity), individual-ism (relationship with you decide if this candidate is a others), our performance, our needs for match, take into consideration the formality, and structure, etc. cultural framework your applicant works from and how he or she can We need to modify our hiring practices add value to your team, your orgaand interviewing techniques to accomnization and your clients so that your modate different perspectives on how firm can become a more successful we relate to each other, to time and and truly global organization. space, and to our environment. For instance, when managing your employees is your emphasis on individualism Communicating and or community? Do your team members Interviewing Across Cultural regard themselves as part of a group or Lines Britta Stromeyer is the non-legal as individuals? If the team for which recruitment coordinator at Shaw you are recruiting values individual Pittman LLP. She is a frequent speaker achievement, how could that team ben- As hiring professionals in the new on the subjects of communication skills efit by adding a more collective perspec- global market, we must be aware of and recruitment. Ms. Stromeyer tive and thereby benefit from a team and exhibit the sensitivity and skills received her M.A in International member who values relationships and to identify attitudes, values and ex- Communications at American group efforts? If you decide to add a pectations in the cultural context of University. diversity of perspectives consider that those being interviewed. We must a very task oriented team may experi- be able to recognize cultural and Re-printed with permission from Capital ence significant adjustment stress when generational differences in the inter- Connection.

5

Generational Diversity

6

by Carol Ochs

Diversity is not a new concept to us.

Diversity simply means the condition of being different. Our most obvious difference is whether we are male or female. After all, that is the very first thing we hear when we enter this world (although, of course, we don’t remember)- “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” As we grow up, we become aware of many more qualities that make us different from one another.

Our differences are most commonly described in terms of gender, age, race, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and educational background.

These differences were once considered a real challenge in the work environment. Many of us remember a time when our mothers (and certainly our grandmothers) were restricted in their choices. How many older female doctors, lawyers, engineers or architects do we know? Thankfully, we have come a long way. We have faced and conquered so many of these earlier challenges of diversity. But there is a very great force descending upon us and this may present the biggest challenge yet in the work place. It is Generational Diversity.

or hierarchy. The newest group in the work force is the Millennial Generation. Although we are just now seeing members from this group, they will undoubtedly have a tremendous impact in the future. Born between 1981 and 1999, they number 76 million.

They are best described as realistic.

For the first time, we now have four separate and distinct generations in the work force the Traditionalists, the Baby Boomers, and Generation Xers and the Millennial Generation. The Traditionalist number about 75 million. They were born between 1900 and 1945 and can best be described as loyal. The Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. They remain the largest group in the populationabout 80 million. They are best described as optimistic and are often idealistic as well. The smaller group is the Generation Xers. Born between 1965 and 1980, they number only 46 million. Skepticism describes how they view things. They believe employees should be judged on merit, not status

one was from New Jersey. In the early 1950s, 99.9 percent of the workers were male and predominately white.

When the Baby Boomers entered the work force in the 1960s and 1970s, the concept of diversity began to include women and people of color. The definition of diversity took on a whole new meaning with the Generation Xers.

Because of their exposure to many different people, through television and daycare programs, this generation did not distinguish between male and female, and the differences in race expanded to include Asians and Hispanics and countless ethnic groups. According to the American Federation of Teachers, in today’s classrooms in America there are over seventy differ-

To get some understanding of the differences between each of these generations, let’s take a look at the way each group looks at diversity itself. A few decades ago, when the work force was composed almost entirely of Traditionalists, your work group was considered diverse if four workers were from Manhattan, three were from the Bronx, two were from Brooklyn, and

“ We will shortly be confronted with both a battle for limited talent and a clash of culture along generational lines.”

ent languages spoken daily! Up until now, however, diversity has been a gradual evolution. That is about to change with the Millennial Generation. In their book “When Generations Collide,” Lynne C. Lancaster and David Stillman write: Millennials have spent thousands of hours watching every imaginable type of person sashay across their television screens.

They have mixed with one another in day care, in classrooms, in after-school programs, and in enrichment sessions. Even their families have become more diverse than any we’ve seen in history.

Never mind what they see in their classrooms or on TV in their living rooms; stop and think whom they are meeting in chat rooms.

This generation is traveling first class via the World Wide Web and is talking to citizens in all corners of the globe. Even Iran now boasts a thriving Internet cafe culture! Imagine what this does to the Millennials’ definition of diversity.1

Lancaster and Stillman also predict that the Millennials “will not limit diversity to just race, ethnicity, or even sex anymore, they will also define diversity by thinking style, educational background, geographic location, generation, avocation, lifestyle, sexual orientation, work experience, and more.” This future generation of workers will go beyond merely accepting diversity; they will expect it.

As employers, we will shortly be confronted with both a battle for limited talent and a clash of culture along generational lines. The majority of Traditionalists have already retired. Even those born at the end of the Traditionalist generation will be retiring within

Continued on page 9

Book Review Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace

By Ron Zemke, Claire Raines, Bob Filipczak Review by Maria Trujillo Generational diversity is upon us and is only going to grow as more Nexters join the job market. Managers across industries are going to find that they not only to have to manage one but four generations simultaneously. It will be necessary for the average manager to understand the unique perspective of each generation and how to tap into their individual strengths and skills in order to manage effectively.

Any manager who is faced with the challenge of effectively bridging the generational gap in their office will find the book Generations At Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace a significant resource.

Zemke, Raines and Filipczak apply several of the principal diversity training techniques and models to provide a guide on how to manage a generational diverse work force.

Before attempting to manage generational diversity, the book clearly defines the generations today’s managers are facing. The U.S population is divided into four generational cohorts, the Veterans (1922-1943), the Baby Boomers (1943 – 1960), Generation Xers (1960-1980), and Generation Nexters (1980-2000). The authors divisions differ slightly with other researchers, but are made based on the “face and the feel” of the generational cohorts, which is based upon further research and interviews conducted by the authors. For example, the Baby Boomer generation is typically considered by demographers to range from 1946-1964; however, based on their research the authors realized that people born between 1943-1946 share far more values and beliefs with the

Baby Boomer generation than with the Veteran cohort.

The book is divided into three wellorganized sections that can be used as a quick reference. Part one is divided into four chapters, one for each generational cohort. Each chapter provides a historical background of the generational culture, a summary of the differences between people born at the beginning of the generations versus those who were born towards the end, personality characteristics of the generation, fictional characters that represent a typical person from that generation (such as George – the veteran and Li – the Gen Xer), a summary of their working style, key principles on managing the generation and future predictions.

These chapters provide an overall framework for each generation, which helps the reader understand the generational perspective. These chapters also include tidbits of information from the generation such as cultural sayings (“Hell, No, We Won’t Go” – Baby Boomers), cultural memorabilia (Beanie Babies – Nexters), heroes of that era (Franklin Delano Roosevelt – Veterans) and defining events in history (Fall of the Berlin Wall – Gen Xers). These additions provide the reader with a better sense of events and cultural phenomenon that shaped the values and thought patterns of each generation.

Part two of the book provides the methods for creating a comfortable cross-generational working environment. One of the author’s methods for illustrating how to create a comfortable cross-generational working envi-

ronment is referred to as the ACORN imperatives: Accommodate employee differences, Create workplace choices, Operate from a sophisticated management style, Respect competence and initiative and Nourish retention. After laying the foundation for their method, the authors present case studies of several real-life companies that have successfully applied these ACORN imperatives within their company. The companies state that they, “…are tapping into the positive potential of their generationally diverse workforces, [and are able to] harness the power in the convergence of diverse viewpoints, passions and inspirations” (155). The companies that the authors highlight represent several different industries, providing the reader with a variety of viewpoints from a boomer driven company, such as Ben & Jerry’s, to a veteran run company, such as the West Group (a large legal information firm).

The case studies are helpful in that each of the companies illustrate a real world application of one or more of the authors’ ACORN imperatives. The case studies give managers several examples of how companies modified their working environments in order

Continued on page 12

7

People Like Us Continued from page 3 This model has been dubbed the attraction-selection-at- comes at a cost. This cost includes the willingness to actrition model by behavioral scientists—most prominently knowledge the value of “other” ways of thinking and doBen Schneider and his colleagues at the University of ing and the possibility of dealing with the complexity of Maryland. Their model identifies the personality of a life rather than simplifying it by creating ideological walls. founder or a strong leader as the “core” of the homogene- It is tough work to sit and listen to others with whom you disagree, to suspend disbelief and ity. A founder or CEO surrounds him Q who o share t hise entertain the possibility that someor her self with people one else might just have an idea or or her values. These deputies, in turn, solution to a problem equal to or betrecruit and hire people who are simi“What actually happens is ter than yours. Brooks suggests that lar to them (and, by extension, to the more like corporate cleansing the simple act of “experiencing” the founder/CEO). Thus the organizathan a Herculean effort by a diversity of the human condition (for tion becomes populated by people example, go to Branson, subscribe with the same interests and values, single person to persuade to The Door, go to a megachurch) who tend to think alike (the incumbents to change their might be the first step—like trying “groupthink” phenomenon). While way of thinking” a new cuisine. Values, interests, and paying lip service to “diversity,” the ways of thinking are not that easily organization sets about creating and modified. What is more likely to maintaining homogeneity. happen is that this cultural “slumSome implications of this model are interesting. Organi- ming” will simply strengthen the ties to one’s own group. zations commonly endorse changing their “culture” No. What is necessary is the confidence to shut your pie through various interventions (organizational change and hole, really listen to what one of the “others” is saying, development programs, seminars, workshops). In fact cul- and entertain the possibility that your view of the world is tures change with new leadership. The legendary “turn- simply one of many alternative views. Demographic diaround leader,” credited with single-handedly changing versity is simply a boxcar for values, interests, and more the culture, actually sweeps in like the lead biker in a pack generally “culture.” Like the movie Field of Dreams, build of Hells Angels, collecting trusted (that is, like-minded) it and they will come. If any institution – a corporation, a deputies from earlier corporate lives. So what actually school, a city, a neighborhood – can set up a forum for a happens is more like corporate cleansing than a Herculean civil exchange of values and interests – i.e. culture – deeffort by a single person to persuade incumbents to change mographic diversity will follow. their way of thinking; for example, Bill Bratton became the new police chief in Los Angeles earlier this year. When he arrived, he announced that he was the “new sheriff” in town, and that anyone who didn’t sign on to his vision of a reformed department should “put in their papers” (retire or quit). A similar phenomenon occurs with a merger or an acquisition. Two organizations vow to form a stronger union from the diversity of approaches and opinions of the leaders of those organizations. Six months later the weaker of the two leaders is gone, along with his or her deputies.

Schneider asserts that “people make the place.” He appears to be right. Brooks observes the same phenomenon in non-work settings. Central to both settings is the desire to associate with people who share one’s values. Without the random variation of diversity, social groupings and organizations will inevitably succumb to external forces and fail to realize their respective potential. Diversity

8

Frank Landy is an industrial psychologist by training.

Mr. Landy has also taught Applied Psychology at Penn State University. Currently, Mr. Landy directs a litigation support practice for SHL North America.

Generational Diversity Continued from page 6 the next decade. Within the next decade, the first of the Baby Boomers will also be retiring. Those who will be ready and able to replace the Traditionalists and the Baby Boomers (Generation Xers) number just a little over half the population of the Baby Boomers. And while the Millennials are strong in number, they are still a decade or more away from having the experience to fill many higher level positions. The result is that employers will have to fight harder to recruit and retain good employees. Here’s an interesting fact-Over the next thirty years, the demand for bright, talented thirty-five to forty-five year olds will increase by 25 percent, while the supply is predicted to decrease by 15 percent2 The economic downturn has created a tight job market, but economic conditions do not change the fact that employees of different generations have different perspectives and motivators. Understanding these generational differences in attitudes and behavior is going to be essential if an employer wants to attract and retain the best employees. In the BridgeWorks Survey that Lancaster and Stillman conducted, they asked people from the different generations whether they thought they could make more money if they changed jobs.

Those that answered yes were then asked why they stayed in their current job when they knew they could make more money elsewhere. Among the Traditionalists surveyed, the top two reasons for staying were loyalty to customers and the amount of time that they had off. The number one reason that Baby Boomers stayed was “making a difference.” There were three main reasons given by Generation Xers for staying in their current job-

first was autonomy; second was having a good schedule; and third was time off.3 Clearly, Generations Xers value freedom and control over their work and their schedules. Most Millennials are not yet in the work force and those that are have just begun working. If the predictions turn out to be true, it is the Millennials who will provide the biggest challenge for all of us- Traditionalists, Baby Boomers and Generation Xers alike.

It is predicted that the Millennials will go through as many as ten career changes, not job changes, in their lifetimes.

Imagine this scenario for a moment.

The year is 2010. You have just been promoted and are now the Director of Human Resources for an international law firm, with offices throughout North America, Europe, the Far East and the Middle East. You are 39 (a Generation Xer). You look forward to your new position where you will be in charge of HR. To you that means that you will be totally autonomous and can work the hours you feel you need to. Your report to the firm’s Chief Operations Officer, who is 59 (a Baby Boomer). She expects that this will be her final position before retiring and really wants to make a difference at the firm in the next few years. She has a number of initiatives that she wants to put into place in the next 12-18 months. The CFO of the firm is a Traditionalist who is old enough to retire but doesn’t want to. He has been with the firm for over 20 years and feels a sense of loyalty to the attorneys and clients. He also stays with the firm because he is comfortable there. He thinks that everything runs well and really doesn’t want to have to go through any major changes at this point in his career. Your newest mem-

ber of the management team is the Director of Marketing. She is 29 (a Millennial) and an MBA graduate of the University of Tokyo. This is her third career since graduating. She worked for two years for the Tokyo Stock Exchange but grew tired of the early hours, so she returned to school (Harvard this time) for a degree in Middle Eastern languages. For the past four years she has worked as an interpreter for the State Department. You suspect that this will not be a permanent home either, since she plans to enroll in law school as a night student.

All I can say is GOOD LUCK!

1

Lancaster, Lynne C. and Stillman, David. When Generations Collide.

New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 2002.

2

See id. at 6.

See id. At 245-46.

3

Carol Ochs is the Legal Assistant Coordinator at Thelen Reid & Priest LLP. Re-printed with permission from the Capital Connection.

9

are unsure about how to go about A Model for Diversity.. firms doing it. Given past problems and cur-

Continued from page 1

percent in the last five years.1 Companies have also recognized the importance of diversity training in affecting the way employees interact with each other and with customers. A recent study found that the percentage of companies that have, or plan to have diversity training increased from 40% to 75% between the years of 2000 and 2002 alone.2 Despite these statistics, however, some companies remain skeptical of diversity. Many of their concerns stem from misconceptions about diversity that are rooted in the movement’s past. The diversity movement stemmed from Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action legislation in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, which caused organizations to look at diversity as a legal obligation rather than a source of potential gain. In the late 1970’s and 1980’s, the focus changed to “valuing” the diversity of each employee. Rather than seeing diversity as a requirement, it was seen as “the right thing to do.” Employees “discovered” their feelings about race and ethnicity through training programs that encouraged open discussion. Problems arose, however, when some inexperienced diversity trainers changed training sessions into white male bashings in environments charged with racial and ethnic tension.

A wave of reverse discrimination suits followed.

In order to distance itself from its controversial past, today’s concept of “managing diversity” focuses on the “business case,” that is, how the effective leverage of diversity within a firm leads to a more committed, productive, and creative workforce, increased organizational flexibility, and increased financial performance. Although the business case for diversity management continues to grow, many

10

rent criticism, a model is needed to guide companies through the difficult, but ultimately rewarding process of managing diversity. The remainder of this article will focus on such a model developed by the author, based on research from several diversity scholars.

The first step for organizations is to develop realistic expectations of diversity management’s effects, especially what it cannot accomplish. Diversity programs cannot wipe out historical inequities, eradicate racism or sexism, or force employees to get along. Although training might focus on changing attitudes as well as behavior, these attitudes are deeply rooted and will not change easily. In addition, companies need to realize that diversity should not be added just for diversity’s sake, but only if it is clear that performance will be enhanced as a result.

The second step for organizations is to develop a broad and inclusive definition of diversity. Diversity not only includes age, ethnicity, race, mental/ physical abilities and gender, but also other characteristics such as sexual orientation, education, family/marital status, religion, geographic location, income, work style, and organizational role/level. It is important that all employees, including white males, feel included within the organization’s definition of diversity in order for the initiative to be a success.

Once these steps have been accomplished, experienced diversity consultants should be hired to assess the organization’s “readiness” for diversity. It is important to establish where the organization lies along the “diversity continuum”: Does the organization equate managing diversity with affirmative action? Have steps been taken to implement diversity into recruitment, hiring, and promotion processes? The consultant should survey

employees and managers to gain important quantitative data, as well as observe workplace relationships firsthand to gain qualitative knowledge.

Understanding the organization’s starting point can allow the consultant to work with management to develop a realistic diversity management plan.

Close cooperation between the diversity consultant and management is essential to the creation of a diversity plan: without the full support of leadership, the plan will most likely fail.

When leadership is committed to diversity, employees are more likely to “participate in training wholeheartedly, apply its lessons, and generalize to situations training did not specifically address.”3 Management can show this commitment in several ways. First, they should be clear about the rationale for diversity in their organization and decide their role in communicating the message to employees. Because managers are often unwilling to give up the dominant culture of the organization, it is important that they think about how far they are willing to go. Second, management needs to communicate commitment through symbolic moves that will signal their seriousness, such as attending diversity training programs, writing memos to employees, or acting as head of a diversity council.

After a diversity plan has been developed and management has clearly shown its support, it is time for implementation and institutionalization.

Diversity is “institutionalized” into an organization when it becomes part of all its practices and processes. Training and education are the crux of any diversity initiative, planting the seeds of corporate change as they inform employees about diversity and its importance. History has shown, however, that diversity training can often cause more harm then good. It is essential that training is carefully planned, led

by trainers who are experienced and knowledgeable about the organization’s needs, and is followed by short-term and long-term assessments of its effectiveness. Some questions management needs to ask before training begins are: “What are the goals of the training? Do we want to teach skills or change attitudes?” “Who should participate in the training?”

“Should our trainers be representative of the diversity in our organization?”

“How will we evaluate the effectiveness of the training?”

In addition to training, institutionalization occurs in recruitment, hiring, and promotion policies, as well as programs aimed at retention. Biases in recruitment and hiring processes often prevent minorities who do not fit the dominant organizational culture from entering organizations.

Schneider’s Attraction-Selection-Attrition hypothesis suggests that “organizations tend to attract, hire, and retain similar types of people.”4 As Frank Landy explains, “A founder or CEO surrounds him or her self with people who share his or her values.

These deputies, in turn, recruit and hire people who are similar to them...Thus the organization is populated by people with the same interests and values...While paying lip service to “diversity,” the organization sets about creating and maintaining homogeneity.”5 This tendency to associate with people who share one’s values is not only evident in the workplace, but in the neighborhoods in which we live, contends David Brooks in his recent Atlantic Monthly article. In his opinion, “people show few signs of being truly interested in building diverse communities,” and new neighborhoods tend to develop ethnic “personalities” as they age.6 According to Landy, however, “In the workplace this homogenization is a great deal less benign,” as “old boy networks” create barriers

to minorities affects their financial success and ultimately their quality of life. Managers and recruiters must understand how institutionalized racism, stereotypes, and biases have influenced these processes in the past, and make concerted efforts to see diversity as a strength and something to look for in future employees.

Stereotypes and biases also influence the promotion of minority groups, as they often cloud a manager’s judgment in objectively assessing the qualifications of each individual. Organizations may choose to tie a rewards system to the achievement of diversity goals, which gives managers an incentive to consider minorities for promotion. Once minorities are recruited and hired, retaining them is often very difficult. Although the aforementioned changes will help, minorities need to feel valued in their organizations. One way to do this is to create affinity or diversity network groups, which enable employees with similar characteristics to meet and support each other.

Microsoft’s “employee resource groups” range from those based on race or cultural identity to gender, disability, sexual orientation, and family status.7 It is important that membership in these groups is voluntary and the groups are not allowed to become too autonomous. Programs assisting minorities in career planning, skills training, tuition remission, and mentoring with senior employees are also advisable.

number of reported incidents of inappropriate remarks, and glass ceiling reports, among other sources.8 Qualitative data can be measured through assessing behavioral changes in staff, looking at the integration of diversity into recruiting, hiring, promotion, and retention processes, and monitoring the workforce through employee surveys and focus groups. It is important that such qualitative assessments occur not only immediately after training programs, but several months afterward in order to see whether training had lasting effects.

As the “business case” for diversity has developed, organizations are eager to reap the benefits of managing diversity while avoiding the pitfalls of diversity’s past. By following a model such as the one presented in this article that focuses on organizational assessment, careful planning, support from management, institutionalization, and long-term monitoring and modification, diversity management initiatives will be more likely to succeed, and organizations more likely to see a clear connection between diversity and the bottom line.

1 “The Business Case for Diversity: Findings from the Fourth Edition,” DiversityInc, Jun/July 2003: p. 20

2

CW Von Bergen et. al., “Unintended negative effects of diversity management,” Public Personnel Management, 31, No. 2 (Summer 2002): p. 240.

3

Mark Bendick, Jr. et. al., “Workforce diversity training: From anti-discrimination compliance to organizational development,” Human Resource Planning, 24, no. 2 (2001): 16.

4

Orlando C. Richard and Nancy Brown Johnson, “Understanding the impact of human resource diversity practices on firm performance,” Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, no. 2 (Summer 2001): 178.

5

The final step for effective diversity management is constant monitoring of the initiative’s effectiveness and modifying the process where needed.

How can companies know if their diversify efforts are paying off? Evidence can be found by looking at quantitative evidence such as lower turnover and absentee rates, increased profitability and productivity, retention of staff, reduction of the

Landy, Frank, “Letters to the Editor: People Like Us,” Atlantic Monthly,( November 2003): 14

6

Brooks, David, “People Like Us,” Atlantic Monthly,( September 2003): 29-32

7

Microsoft Corporation, “Employee Resource Groups,” available from http://www.microsoft.com/diversity.dac.asp

8

Katrina Jordan, “Diversity training in the workplace today: A status report,” Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 59, no.1(Fall 1998): 48.

Emily Gildersleeve received her M.A in International Communication at American University. She works at the Foreign Service Institute.

11

Generations at Work..

Continued from page 7 to meet the needs of several generations.

The last section entitled Advice-O-Plenty provides just that, plenty of advice on how to effectively manage generational diversity through the use of case studies and answers to the most frequently asked questions that managers have posed. This section is helpful in providing real-life examples to compliment the methods and generational background that are given throughout the book.

In reading the sections profiling each generation there is a sense that the profiles will become a bit outdated.

This is disheartening because the book was published just three years ago. This is most noticeable in reading the sections regarding the Nexters. Since the Nexter generation is still quite young, it is difficult to predict how their generational values will change and form due to an ever-rapidly changing world (i.e. 9/11, and the second war in Iraq). Their depiction of this group was slightly amiss due to the fact that the generation is still very malleable and has not yet taken complete form.

The author’s approach is subject to job market conditions. The book is directed at an economic period when jobs were widely available and employees had their pick of employers. The way generations approach work and the way employers try to manage generational diversity

in today’s job market has changed significantly because of a tight job market. Unfortunately, the book does not address such issues.

Although generalizations are a necessary starting point in understanding a different culture, the authors should have given real-life depictions of each generation rather than the fictional characters that are found in the book.

Since generalizations are often used, it is important the reader understands that there are always people who do not fit within the authors’ created generational picture.

As managers and trainers utilize this book when developing training on generational diversity, it is essential that they realize that there are always exceptions.

Generations At Work can be used in a variety of ways.

For the manager who is just beginning to work with the generational diversity of his/her employees, Part One of the book is a great place to start. The generational profiles allow the manger to start understanding the cultural perspective of each generation. For the manager who is ready to create a more generational friendly office, the company case studies are the place to find some helpful advice. The last section can be used as a point of reference for the manager who is working through specific generational diversity problems. In conclusion, this book is a useful guide for managers who are faced with the challenges that generational diversity creates.

Maria Trujillo is an M.A Candidate in International Communication at American University. She is currently doing an internship with Health Volunteers Overseas.

Announcing the Intercultural Management Institute Spring 2004 Skills Institutes and Annual Conference To be held on the campus of American University in the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.

Global Human Resource Research March 9-10, Tsila Zalcman, Partner and Managing Director, Dynamic Systems Design

ANNUAL CONFERENCE: The Global Diversity Advantage: A Forum for Business, Education and Training Professionals March 11-12, Gary Weaver, Executive Director, Intercultural Managment Institute

Diversity in the Workplace March 13-14, Robert Carey, President, RPC Associates, Inc.

For more information or to register, contact Anna Lee at imi@american.edu or 202-885-6439.

Registration forms and additional information available www.imi.american.edu

12