![[object Object],[object Object],Demystify Diversity](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/demystifydiversityresearchmodel-100711043819-phpapp02/85/Demystify-diversity-research-model-1-320.jpg)
![Background ,[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Demystify diversity research model
Similaire à Demystify diversity research model (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Demystify diversity research model
- 10. Individual (behaviour) Group (dynamics) Organisation (strategy) Worldview (how you think and feel) Diversity: relevant characteristics (who you are) Diverse group composition Innovativeness
Notes de l'éditeur
- as there are more immigrants, the world is globalising, women are participating in the labour market, diversity is a fact. Organisations may traditionally be male oriented, but should stop hiring people (and developing them) based on any ‘just like me’ effect (social categorisation bias).
- This is another argument for a diverse workforce – beside the ‘forced’ diversity that is occuring in society in general, and therewith also changes customer markets into a more diverse group.
- Based on the Appreciative Inquiry approach: if organisations can use the talents of all employees optimally they will also enable the organisation to perform optimally. Diversity should therefore not be a goal on its own (leaning more towards the societal perspective of equality and inclusiveness), but a means to achieve more business success: the fact that people are different does not mean they are not equal, yet if you treat different people as though they were similar (maybe because you fear you might be blamed of discrimination), they may not actually contribute to the organisation’s success with their specific strenghts / talents.
- Linking organisational & societal perspective Identify moderator variable(s) between diversity and innovation
- Example: if having brown or blue eyes does not relate to a specific thinking style, we should not select people based on that indicator. But if men and women tend to think differently on aspect X (if gender is an indicator of mindset), it could be a useful selection criteria for certain teams or jobs. We should therefore let go of the idea that saying someone is different means that there is a hierarchy, one of the two must be ‘better’; it’s not about right or wrong, better or worse, but about specific mindsets that leads to different talents that organisations could use if they can be measured and linked to specific indicators.
- The dotted line represents the simple view such as ‘diversity leads to innovation’ and ‘we need more women/immigrants/handicapped’ in the organisation. It is not about the individual characteristic itself, but about the influence of that characteristic on someone’s mindset that affects the group dynamics and therewith the organisation. The idea: we need to start defining the relevant diversity aspects (relevant in terms of those aspects that predict mindset or thinking style). Those thinking styles influence individual behavior. When we create mixed or diverse groups, with people with different thinking styles, a specific type of group dynamics is necessary in order to allow the different preferences/strengths/talents of the team members to be ‘used’by to the organisation, in order to become more successful/innovative/profitable.
- The individual construct is where we focus on: what aspects of diversity are relevant for someone’s thinking style; does it matter if you’re in your twenties or fifties for example? We categorise the relevant thinking styles in the MOF (first on dimension scores, later on orientations or clusters, if possible based on data outcomes). Finally, we can use the orientations to predict strategy perspectives, as I have reason to believe these perspectives can be clustered in the MOF. Then, we need to look at group dynamics and what is needed for a diverse group to optimally use their diversity of thinking styles: for their own benefit and that of the group, what I called: Personal social responsibility. This means that the individual needs to support the group (for example by not immediately judging other group members with different ideas), and can expect the group to support his/her own ideas; nothing is right or wrong, but everything can be discussed and thought through so every strenght is brought to the surface before making a decision. Finally, such groups or teams should – is my hypotheses – enable the organisation to be more innovative, and therefore more succesful in terms of profitability compared to peers. If the organisation is able to ‘use’ diversity in this way, the organisaiton does not only benefit directly itself through this increased performance, but also serves society where ‘diversity management’ and ‘inclusion’ are hot topics; the community is becoming more diverse (because of globalisation, technology, etc) and all these people need a job too. We can use the thesis of success through using diversity by measuring in two directions: the first starting with the individual in organisations that claim they aim for effective diversity management, the other from the organisational point of view, from an organisation that already is successful and than reason backwards.