Role Of Hr Managers

EURAM, Stockholm, 9th-11th May 2002

The role of HR managers in managing equality and diversity

C. Cabral-Cardoso (School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal)

Abstract: The issues of equality and diversity have emerged in the last two decades as the most controversial, debated and researched topic in the HRM literature. Different perspectives and concepts were translated into different management policy measures, ranging from equal opportunities, to affirmative action and diversity management. These views are briefly examined and their implications for HR management explored. The paper reports the preliminary findings of a study of HR views on diversity and equality in the workplace and the role played by the HR function in dealing with those issues in the particular context of a culture described in the literature as high on femininity.

1. Different views of managing equality and diversity

In the nineties, the management of diversity emerged as an alternative model to equal opportunities. It emphasises the difference rather than the ‘sameness’ and values the individual’s contribution to the organisation for its own merit regardless of the individual characteristics, backgrounds, orientations and religious beliefs. But many steps have been taken before diversity management came to taking into account the multiple identities in the workplace. The initial approach became known as equal opportunities and was to a large extent a product of the civil rights movement of the sixties and the liberal political philosophy (Webb, 1997). This perspective relies on legislation, statutory codes and internal formalised procedures intended to ensure, along the lines of the political action that resulted from the civil rights movement, universal justice and equal opportunities for all. Legal measures were taken and discrimination based on gender and ethnic origin was ruled out by new labour legislation. Such legal instruments were progressively extended to the disabled, the older (over 40) and other social groups who tend to be discriminated against in work settings. The 1

purpose of equal opportunities is to adopt fair procedures and create a ‘level playing field’ at work where individual members of disadvantaged groups, primarily women, ethnic minorities and the disabled, are to be treated the same as members of the demographic ‘dominant’ groups. Overt discrimination was to a large extent prevented, thanks to the implementation and enforcement of equal opportunities regulations. However, the evidence to date suggests that the legalistic approach to equality is far from effective. In fact, despite all the regulations, law enforcement and court settlements, it is generally agreed that equal opportunities did not meet the expectations and failed to make substantive changes in the labour market. Because the roots of discrimination go very deep and are embedded in the prevailing culture, those procedures are frequently ignored in routine practices and can easily be evaded by neglect or by design. Reflecting social and political forces in society, the equal opportunities perspective was therefore challenged by a more radical view, rooted in the feminist theories. Such a view argued for a positive discrimination of the demographic groups that were traditionally underrepresented or less favoured in the distribution of jobs and resources (Webb, 1997; Shappiro, 1999), through the adoption of a transformative agenda, one that is interested in equalising outcomes, rather than opportunities (Richards, 2001). This perspective was translated into affirmative action programmes intended to increase the representation and facilitate the career opportunities of women and members of ethnic minorities through instruments such as quota hiring and preferential treatment. The overall balance of the implementation of affirmative action programmes is still a matter of dispute. It is believed that these initiatives have contributed to the increasing number of women in the labour market, and an increasing proportion of them becoming established in professional and executive occupations. But it is also acknowledged that the majority of women have not benefited in a direct sense from these policies since the occupational segregation and differences in remuneration remain largely unchallenged (Anker, 1997; Marini & Fan, 1997). Above all, these programmes were criticised for unfairly discriminating members of the majority or demographic dominant groups and for stigmatising their intended beneficiaries by making inferences of substandard competence (Heilman, Block & Lucas, 1992). “It seeks to put right old wrongs by means which themselves are felt to be wrong...” admits one of its strong supporters (Cockburn, 1989: 217). The politics and controversy surrounding the implementation and effectiveness of those programmes run high at times, particularly in the U.S. (Skrentny, 1996). They do not fit into the current liberal policies in Western societies and have been gradually abandoned. 2

In contrast with the former approaches, the management of diversity that emerged in the nineties tries to emphasise the difference rather than suppressing it. Whether that perspective is an evolution or extension of equal opportunities or a new management paradigm remains controversial (Kandola, 1995; Liff & Wajcman, 1996). A major difference between the two concepts appears to lie in the fact that equal opportunities starts externally and is enforced through legislation, whereas the diversity starts internally through the efforts to create an atmosphere of equality at work. Further, it is adopted voluntarily and is based on the advantage of cultural pluralism (Gordon, 1995). Diversity management considers people as individuals and not as members of certain social groups (Liff, 1999). It was initially presented as a reaction against the view of organisations as made of unified groups within which each and every individual facing the same problems in the workplace. Such a homogeneous approach led to a biased view of the workplace environment by missing some important aspects of organisational life. Liff & Wajcman (1996: 80) put it quite clearly: “discussions about whether women are the same as, or different from, men construct unitary categories which suppress differences between men and between women and ignore similarities between men and women...” In the diversity perspective, the individual's contribution to the organisation is valued for his/her own merit regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or religious faith. It takes better advantage of the growing cultural pluralism that results from the internationalisation of business organisations, the development of world markets, the growing workforce mobility, and the increasing awareness of individual differences (Lawler, 1996). As pointed out by Thomas (1990), competence counts more than ever, and today’s nonhierarchical, flexible, collaborative management requires an increase in tolerance for individuality. The question is not, therefore, one of accepting that individuals are different but creating an atmosphere of inclusion and making a commitment to valuing diversity (Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000). “Far from pretending workplace differences do not exist, managers should be trying to actively manage and value diversity”, argue Liff & Wajcman (1996: 80). The popularity of the diversity approach comes from the assumption and increasing empirical evidence that valuing the diversity may become a source of competitive advantage, increase the quality of organisational life and ultimately be good for business (Cox & Blake, 1991; Herriot & Pemberton, 1995; Thomas & Ely, 1996; Cassell, 2000). Besides, developing policies on equal opportunities and promoting diversity programmes may also be positively perceived by the public opinion and, therefore, contribute to enhancing the company's reputation. By transmitting an image of a caring, respectful, good organisation to work for, the company is able to attract more and better employees and 3

improve its competitiveness. It is no surprise, therefore, that equal opportunities became part of the (HR) management discourse. There is a certain instrumental character in this approach in the way that the adoption of equal opportunities practices and policies does not translate a genuine concern with the issue but it is merely regarded as a means to obtain strategic competitive advantage. Similar criticism has been pointed out to HRM. But regardless of the view adopted, human resource (HR) managers have a crucial role to play in dealing with issues of equality and in promoting and valuing diversity.

2. Current views on human resource management

Human resource management (HRM), originally an American concept, sees human resources as valuable assets and a key source of competitive advantage. By making full use of its human resources through the extensive adoption of teamwork, careful recruiting and selection, commitment to training and development, a new approach to quality, flexibility of the workforce, among other features, a company will gain competitive advantage, a claim that constitutes the apparent novelty of HRM (Legge, 1995). John Storey (1995: 5) defines HRM as a “distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural and personnel techniques”. Particularly where the unions were powerful players in industrial relations, the relative decline in union membership and union influence in the workplace is considered a decisive element in facilitating the implementation of the new HRM practices (Legge, 1995). Although the extent and depth of change to management practices introduced by HRM remains controversial, leading some authors to argue that academic rhetoric has run far ahead of reality (Guest, 1998), there is growing evidence that effective human resource management practices are associated with the company’s performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996) and play a key role in gaining competitive advantage (Pfeffer, 1994). These results provide encouragement to those who had been advocating the case for a distinctive approach to the management of people in organisations (Guest, 1999). Strategic integration and the promotion of employees’ commitment are key features of the HRM model that bring about a new role and scope for the personnel function in the organisation. Human resource managers are required to be more business-oriented and part of the HR function is devolved away to line and general managers. In that sense, the HRM

4

model may also be seen as a way of reconceptualising and reorganising the role of the personnel function in the organisation. Despite an obvious common ground, it should be stressed that different theoretical perspectives on HRM are available in the literature and much is happening in the name of HRM (Mabey, Clark & Skinner, 1998). In fact, HRM has been used meaning different things to different people and used in different contexts to describe a wide variety of management practices. The prospect of a single HRM model has, in fact, long been abandoned, in favour of multiple perspectives. Differences of approach to people management have been identified between the two sides of the Atlantic and between the two sides of the Channel. And despite the process of economic and political integration, Europe still is a continent of diversity when it comes to employment practices and traditions, and the social and economic contexts (Sparrow & Hiltrop, 1994; Mayne, Tregaskis & Brewster, 2000). HR practices remain largely identified with the national cultures, industrial relations practices, institutional backgrounds, and the business structure. They also depend on the skills and competencies available in the HR function. All these factors lead to distinctive patterns of HR management across Europe (Hiltrop, Despres & Sparrow, 1995). Different traditional roles and demographics of HR managers have also been identified in specific European contexts (Cabral-Cardoso, 2001a and 2001b), stressing the contextual nature of HRM (Brewster, 1999).

3. HR management and diversity management

As pointed out above, it is increasingly acknowledged in the literature and within the business community that non-discrimination policies and a diverse workforce are good for business. The perspectives on diversity and on the management of people in organisations have evolved along the same business-oriented lines. Since the main goal of HRM is to get the best out of each and every member of the workforce taking the individual to his/her full potential with the ultimate aim of improving organisational performance, it would not make sense to ignore the contribution of important sectors of the workforce. HRM and diversity management share a considerable common ground. HRM, as it is understood since the eighties is mainly concerned with the contribution of the personnel function to the competitive strategy of the business. So is diversity management. HRM, particularly in its soft version (Truss, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, McGovern & Stiles, 1997), takes into account individual differences and is concerned with the development and well being of each and every individual. So is diversity management. Both are rooted in the U.S. thinking, and both have been the objects of a long 5

debate about the adjustments required in order to fit into the European context. Gender issues have prevailed in Europe where discrimination based on ethnic grounds have not received the level of attention it received in the U.S. HR managers have, therefore, a crucial role to play in defining the way the organisation deals with equality and diversity. In practice, equal opportunities and diversity issues are at the heart of human resource management practices and policies (Storey, 1999). Cox (1991) argues for the so-called multicultural approach to human resource management, defined as the extent to which an organisation values cultural diversity and is willing to use it and encourage it. In the promotion and development of cultural diversity, particular attention is paid to the operational level in which vulnerable individuals may easily become victims of subtle forms of discrimination. In recruitment and selection processes, for instance, the barriers to women and minorities in the access to employment appear to remain. The reason is that in general candidates that fit the ideal stereotype for the job have better chances of being selected. In other words, candidates who conform are welcome, because conformity is expected and reinforced by the management practices. Diversity management requires a considerable shift from this traditional view of organisations as a “homogeneous group which should be managed with the accent on conformity – standardised job practices, employment packages, standardised reward systems and so on” (Lawler, 1996: 163). Similar issues are raised with regard to other HR operational practices. Take training and development, for instance. Despite the importance of training to the individuals' development and the business effectiveness, there is some evidence that training programmes present lower rates of female participation, therefore becoming an obstacle to women’s career advancement and access to management positions (Powell & Butterfield, 1994; Tharenou, 1996). Other mechanisms of discrimination can be pointed out in performance appraisal processes, in which women seem prone to get lower ratings, according to some studies (Ohlott, Ruderman & McCauley, 1994). The women's exclusion from informal networks (Ibarra, 1993; O’Leary & Ickovics, 1992), and their greater difficulties in the establishment of mentoring relationships (Ragins & Scandura, 1994) can also explain extra difficulties in reaching top positions, a process that has been described as the ‘glass ceiling effect’. As members of a disadvantaged group in most workplaces, women face powerful barriers to their professional advance simply because they are women, and not because they lack the adequate competencies to occupy positions of greater responsibility and power, according to a number of studies (O'Leary & Ickovics, 1992; Powell & Butterfield, 1994).

6

Human resource managers are increasingly aware of diversity issues and can do a lot to overcome those barriers. A good example is the relationship between work and family and the influence of the latter on individual’s performance, job satisfaction, involvement and organisational commitment (Scandura & Lankau, 1997). Some business organisations have been committed to developing and adopting family-friendly programmes and policies that help to accommodate the balance between work and family obligations and promote the fit between these two conflicting spheres of an individual’s life (Cox, 1991). This is achieved through the introduction of new work arrangements, such as flexible work schedules and telework, thus contributing to overcome at least part of the problem while helping the company to remain competitive (Lewis, 1997). Such policies can also play a major role in reducing the impact of gender stereotyping and the segregation of women to subordinate and peripheral jobs (Jacobs, 1995).

4. Studying the role of HR managers in managing equality and diversity

The literature shows an increasing interest in equality and diversity issues and in the HR practices and policies that promote them, though it remains largely speculative rather than empirically based. On the other hand, the literature is mainly of American or Anglo-Saxon origin, and not much in known about what happens elsewhere. But bearing in mind the contextual nature of these issues, it casts doubts on the extent to which the conclusions drawn from those studies are also valid in other rather distinct contexts. To explore these issues further, a study is being conducted among HR managers in Portugal. The Portuguese context is a good example of an organisational environment rather distinct from the ones most often described in the literature. According to the Hofstede (1991) studies, it scores rather distinctly from the US and the UK cultures in all four dimensions. In one dimension in particular, masculinity-femininity, Portugal scores among the highest on femininity, which may be influential in shaping the individual’s behaviour and attitudes towards gender, equality and diversity. It is worth pointing out that such a score is in clear contrast with the very masculine cultures found in the Anglo-Saxon world where most of the studies reported in the literature have been conducted. And the background data available appear to support this assumption. In the mid-nineties, Portugal had the highest percentage of female students in higher education in Europe, and twice the European average of women in management positions in public administration (Cunha & Marques, 1995). The relevance of studying those issues elsewhere is, therefore, fully justified. It also draws on what Brewster 7

(1999) calls the contextual paradigm, in the sense that it tries to understand what is contextually unique and why in the role played by Portuguese HR managers in dealing with equality and diversity. This on-going study seeks to identify the HR views and practices with regard to diversity and equality in the workplace in the particular context of a culture described in the literature as high on femininity. A mail survey has been conducted of a sample of business organisations from all sectors and sizes. The assumption is that HR managers play a key role in shaping the company’s policies on these matters, which makes them privileged informants in a study of this kind. Where the human resource function is not formalised, the questionnaire was addressed to the individual in charge of personnel matters. Preliminary findings are based on data obtained from over one hundred replies, followed by a set of fourteen in-depth interviews of HR managers. Both respondents and interviewees were basically asked to describe their personal views on equality and on the role of the HR function, as well as their perceptions of the company’s policies towards equal opportunities and the management of diversity. In the interviews, the unstructured format with broad open-ended questions was considered the most adequate. Interviewees were encouraged to reply using their own words in order to avoid the kind of ‘politically correct’ discourse with plenty of media jargon. The results obtained so far are not clear-cut. Briefly, they seem to portray a very dynamic picture of the composition and role of the HR function and of the views on equality and diversity that go with it. The change in the role played by HR managers, which became increasingly clear during the 1990s, is also associated with a considerable swing in the demographics of the HR function, as reported in previous papers (Cabral-Cardoso, 2001a and 2001b). According to those studies, HR management is increasingly a feminine occupation and one in which the legalistic background of its members is quickly becoming residual. The diversity perspective is clearly the dominant rhetoric, widely shared by most informants. Concern for the minorities and for ensuring equality is clearly part of the management discourse. However, the general concern for equality matters does not reflect an equal concern for the different diversity matters. In other words, the management discourse reveals the political influence of the different constituencies in the organisation, with the gay, the lesbian and the elderly loosing out in the internal power struggle in favour of the more powerful and visible groups such as ethnic minorities and, particularly, women. The political nature of these issues is pretty clear. On the other hand, men seem to show a slightly broader view of diversity than women, the latter appearing to favour gender matters in their actions. Previous studies had already 8

detected a gendered view of equal opportunity issues among HR managers (Cabral-Cardoso, 2001b), with women showing narrower but less homogeneous attitudes towards equal opportunities than men. In that study, some women showed a high level of awareness and were quite outspoken about it, while others were quite dismissal of its relevance and spontaneously rejected the assumption that equal opportunities was a major concern for HR managers in Portugal. On the other hand, women who were aware of equal opportunities tended to reduce the problem to gender issues whereas men equally aware were also concerned with other groups such as the disabled and the ethnic minorities. In the current study, results seem perhaps less clear, but they still appear to go along the same lines. Another interesting finding worth exploring further is the general preference to deal informally with issues of diversity, which appears to confirm the strong political nature of equality and diversity issues. And again in this case, differences seem to emerge between men and women. Male HR managers appear to have found more effective mechanisms to get their diversity message across to the top management. If that is the case, it reveals an unequal distribution of political influence between genders. In other words, when it comes to the very top, management still appears to remain mainly a male game. The unions, on the other hand, and this is rather puzzling, do not even take part in the diversity game...

Their role is

perceived as irrelevant as far as equality and, above all, diversity is concerned, which has some interesting implications for industrial relations academics and practitioners. In sum, two major preliminary conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, HR managers appear to be the key elements in determining what goes on in the organisation in terms of equality, and particularly diversity. Second, the political nature of diversity management comes out very clearly from the analysis with the outcomes determined, to a large extent, by the relative influence of each constituency. Further analysis is required in order to shed some more light on the role of HR managers in the management of equality and diversity.

References

Anker,R. 1997. Theories of occupational segregation by sex: an overview. International Labour Review, 136(3): 315-339. Becker,B. & Gerhart,B. 1996. The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 779801.

9

Brewster,C. 1999. Strategic human resource management: the value of different paradigms. In R.S. Schuler & S.E. Jackson (Eds.) Strategic human resource management: 356-372. Oxford: Blackwell. Cabral-Cardoso,C. 2001a. The European HRM debate revisited: a southwestern perspective, presented at the Founding Conference of the European Academy of Management, Barcelona, 18th-21st April. Cabral-Cardoso,C. 2001b. HRM in the Portuguese context: challenges and contradictions, paper presented at the HR Global Management Conference, Barcelona, 19th-22nd .June. Cassell,C. 2000. The business case and the management of diversity. In M.J. Davidson & R.J. Burke (Eds.) Women in management: current research issues (vol.II): 250-262. London: Sage. Cockburn,C. 1989. Equal opportunities: the short and long agenda. Industrial Relations Journal, 20(3): 213-225. Cox, T. 1991. The multicultural organization, Academy of Management Executive, 5(2): 3447. Cox,T. & Blake,S. 1991. Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3): 45-56. Cunha,R.C. & Marques,C.A. 1995. Portugal. In I. Brunstein (Ed.), Human resource management in Western Europe: 211-229. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Gilbert,J.A. & Ivancevich,J.M. 2000. Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1): 93-105. Gordon,J. 1995. Different from what? Diversity as a performance issue, Training, 32(5): 2533. Guest,D.E. 1998. Beyond HRM: commitment and the contract culture. In P. Sparrow & M. Marchington (Eds.), Human resource management: the new agenda: 37-51. London: Financial Times/Pitman Publishing. Guest,D.E. 1999. Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. In R.S. Schuler & S.E. Jackson (Eds.) Strategic human resource management: 177-190. Oxford: Blackwell. Heilman,M.E., Block,C.J. & Lucas,J.A. 1992. Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 536-544. Herriot,P. & Pemberton,C. 1995. Competitive advantage through diversity: organizational learning from difference. London: Sage. Hiltrop,J.M., Despres,C. & Sparrow,P. 1995. The changing role of HR managers in Europe. European Management Journal, 13(1): 91-98. 10

Hofstede,G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Ibarra,H. 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 56-87. Jacobs,J.A. (Ed.). 1995. Gender inequality at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kandola,R. 1995. Managing diversity: new broom or old hat? In C.L.Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol.10. Chichester: Wiley. Lawler,J. 1996. Managing diversity at work. In C. Molander (Ed.), Human resources at work: 159-185. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Legge,K. 1995. Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Macmillan Business Liff,S. 1999. Diversity and equal opportunities: Room for a constructive compromise?. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(1): 65-75. Liff,S. & Wajcman,J. 1996. ‘Sameness’ and ‘difference’ revisited: which way forward for equal opportunity initiatives?. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1): 79-94. Lewis,S. 1997. ‘Family friendly’ employment policies: A route to changing organizational culture or playing about at the margins?. Gender, Work and Organizations, 4(1): 13-23. Marini,M.M. & Fan,P. 1997. The gender gap in earnings at career entry. American Sociological Review, 62: 588-604. Mabey,C., Clark,T. & Skinner,D. 1998. Getting the story straight. In C. Mabey, D. Skinner & T. Clark (Eds.), Experiencing human resource management: 237-244. London: Sage. Mayne,L., Tregaskis,O. & Brewster,C. 2000. A comparative analysis of the link between flexibility and HRM strategy. In C. Brewster, W. Mayrhofer & M. Morley (2000). New challenges for European human resource management: 72-96. London: Macmillan Press Ohlott,P.,

Ruderman,M.

&

McCauley,C.

1994.

Gender

differences in managers’

developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1): 46-47. O’Leary,V.E. & Ickovics,J.R. 1992. Cracking the glass ceiling: overcoming isolation and alienation. In U. Sekaran & F.T. Leong (Eds), Womenpower: Managing in times of demographic turbulence: 7-30. Newbury Park: Sage. Pfeffer,J. 1994. Competitive advantage through people: unleashing the power of the work force. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Powell,G.N. & Butterfield,D.A. 1994. Investigating the “glass ceiling” phenomenon: An empirical study of actual promotions to top management. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1): 68-8.

11

Ragins,B. & Scandura,T. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4): 957-971. Richards,W. 2001. Evaluating equal opportunities initiatives: the case for a ‘transformative’ agenda. In M. Noon & E. Ogbonna (Eds.) Equality, diversity and disadvantage in employment: 15-31. Houndmills, Hamps.: Palgrave. Scandura,T.A. & Lankau,M.J. 1997. Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4): 377-391. Shappiro,G. 1999. Quality and equality: Building a virtuous circle. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(1): 76-86. Skrentny,J.D. 1996. The ironies of affirmative action: politics, culture, and justice in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sparrow,P. & Hiltrop,J.M. 1994. European human resource management in transition. New York: Prentice Hall. Storey,J. 1995. Human resource management: still marching on, or marching out? In J. Storey (Ed.), Human resource management: a critical text: 3-32. London: International Thomson Business Press. Storey,J. 1999. Equal opportunities in retrospect and prospect. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(1): 5-8. Tharenou,P. 1996. Influences on women´s managerial advancement. In P.D. Dubeck & Borman (Eds), Women and work: 351-354. New York: Library of Congress. Thomas,D.A. & Ely,R.J. 1996. Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5): 79-90. Thomas Jr.,R.R. 1990. From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68(2): 107-117. Truss,C., Gratton,L., Hope-Hailey,V., McGovern,P. & Stiles,P. 1997. Soft and hard models of human resource management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1): 5373. Webb,J. (1997). The politics of equal opportunity. Gender, Work, and Organization, 4(3): 159-169.

12

13