A Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public Relations

Sandra Oliver

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781134314478
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

A bold addition to existing literature, this book provides an excellent overview of corporate communication. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, it offers readers the in-depth analysis required to truly understand corporate communication, corporate strategy and corporate affairs as well as the relevant public relations issues.With a refreshing ne

PART I CORPORATE COMMUNICATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL

CHAPTER 1

Diversity programmes in the contemporary corporate environment

Don R. Swanson

Diversity programmes have become an essential element of the modern corporation because of the varied demographics of organization members, stakeholders and potential clients. But what are the attitudes toward, and the focus of, contemporary corporate diversity programmes? The discussion of this question is addressed through the observations of diversity personnel, middle managers and corporate communication managers who carry responsibility for monitoring diversity programmes.

This chapter examines diversity programmes from a number of direct research resources developed and conducted by the author. From focus groups made up of diversity personnel, interviews with middle managers and executive management personnel, observations of interviews with corporate diversity directors, through to observations from interviews with human resource managers and corporate communicators. The study, and the essence of this chapter, shows the emergence from the observations of corporate personnel of some major corporate communication issues. These issues include the lack of dialogue regarding diversity, the nature of diversity training and performance evaluation, the complexity of diversity issues, the managers’ role, and the move to integration and learning as the perspective to bring about effectiveness in corporate diversity programming.

A glance around corporate America quickly reveals new and diverse faces and the fact that successful corporate entities cross many cultural and international boundaries in the conduct of their business. Most estimates of future employment indicate that 75 per cent of new workers will be other than white males and that in 2010 white males will represent less than 40 per cent of the American workforce (Arai, Wanca-Thibault, and Shockley-Zalabak, 2001). Corporate diversity programmes and attitudes toward workplace diversity have evolved since the 1990s. Although this seems to be an age of increasing idenlightenment regarding cross-cultural realities, there are numerous instances of concern.

In the later part of the decade of the 1990s it became clear that diversity is not a buzzword. Those corporate managers, in the 1980s and early 1990s, who believed diversity management was just another human resources management fad were sadly mistaken. Diversity management as a concept and an aspiration for management has ‘become deeply rooted in the US federal government and has received bipartisan support from both political parties’ (Ivancevich and Gilbert, 2000: 75). The economic statistics and demographic profile of the potential customers and the new additions to the workforce mandate corporate awareness of the realities of diversity. Workplace 2000, published by the Hudson Institute in 1987, was widely quoted in the 1990s to predict the shifts. But a powerful sense of presumption for the status quo workforce still persisted in the subconscious of many middle-aged executives. It took the reality of market shifts, and an increasingly diverse set of job applicants to force awareness of the ‘demographic imperative’ that required corrective action in the form of diversity management programming (Cox, 1991). Many corporations have found it difficult to maintain a diversity friendly image in the wake of harsh criticism of past abuses. By 1995 The Economist reported that 75 per cent of the fifty largest US companies had diversity directors or managers. Consequently a macro view of diversity programming indicates it has become an inherent part of corporate environs.

This discussion examines attitudes toward, and the focus of, contemporary corporate diversity programmes. Managers and their influence on diversity programming are at the nucleus of this discussion. It develops from a number of direct research resources developed and conducted by the author. Those resources include: six focus groups, made up of ten diversity personnel in each group, conducted in a business financial services unit of an investment bank; interviews conducted with twenty-six middle managers and eight executive management level personnel in one of the largest and most successful international investment banks; observations from interviews with corporate diversity directors who have a responsibility to keep diversity firmly on the agenda of corporate policy; and observations from interviews with human resource managers and corporate communication managers who carry the responsibility for monitoring diversity programmes.

Study of diversity personnel

At a micro level a focus group study of diversity personnel and an interview based study of mid-level managers, from two different units of a large investment banking firm, provide a snapshot of the attitudes and perceptions of personnel in a white-collar industry that espouses a commitment to diversity programming. The units in these studies are a part of one of the oldest American investment banking institutions, and it has historically been a leader that defined the nature of that business. As such, the firm conveys and maintains an image that has developed over a rich history. The image of being a leader in the investment banking industry has been exceptionally important to the firm. It defines itself as a world-class company operating in the fast-moving, highly competitive financial services marketplace, and realizes that it must attract, keep and develop the very best people. The CEO explains that: ‘We are building for the next generation, not the next transaction. To do this we must be an undisputed employer of choice.’ The firm appears to be committed to developing and maintaining diversity at every level of the company.

The data in this study was gathered over a period of three months with the conduct of six one-half-day focus groups. Each focus group was composed of a group of approximately ten members of the banking group that provides financial services to businesses. The focus group participants were selected because they fit into a protected category, i.e. historically minority status. Consequently this sample included the minority personnel and a cross-section of female personnel and represented approximately 10 per cent of the employees in this nationwide unit of the bank. This sample was intended to be inclusive of diversity personnel in order to focus on airing all the major issues that concerned these protected groups. Personnel were brought to the focus group location from across the United States. Two focus groups were conducted in Princeton, New Jersey, and four groups were conducted in Chicago.

The executive in charge of the financial services business unit that the focus groups were drawn from made a point of coming to each group and expressed his support for the diversity management project and this fact-finding research. Participants were impressed with his support. This was a key element to making the focus groups successful. It is clear that visible executive support is an essential element for success.

The participants in the diversity focus groups seemed to appreciate the cathartic experience of talking about a subject that they had some uncertainty about. Many lacked even a basic knowledge of the diversity mission of their corporation. They were both interested and generally pleased to discuss this topic. Several said they ‘never expected to have an opportunity to discuss these sensitive issues’.

There were no major complaints that could be labelled as unique to this corporate unit. Some participants, who had worked in other units of the firm reported that this unit was much more diversity friendly than their previous group. Although this was a long-standing unit of more than six hundred members, there have been no catalytic events in recent memory in the unit that would serve as a flash point for concern over diversity. The incidents reported by the participants were generally not egregious nor widely discussed by coworkers. The negative incidents seemed to be considered as isolated incidents and not representative of the attitudes and behaviour of the majority of unit personnel.

Most of the persons in the focus groups were quite ignorant of what their company had done or not done with diversity initiatives. They had queries for information and in a sense the focus groups became a form of action research because the participants’ questions were answered and they received new information on what was happening. Eden and Huxham (1999) point out why action research has become ‘increasingly prominent’ in the study of organizations when they indicate it is: ‘research which broadly, results from an involvement by the researcher with members of an organisation over a matter which is of genuine concern to them and in which there is an intent by the organisation members to take action based on the intervention’ (see page).

Developing and conducting the focus groups was a prelude to further action research. It should be noted that this focus group process was a catalyst for an evolving diversity initiative that included the establishment of a ‘diversity council’ to suggest and monitor future actions. In this way the participants had a sense of outcome from the focus group project.

Affirmative action was a frequent, but not particularly comfortable subject in these groups. They appreciate the goals of affirmative action but it can produce a somewhat uncomfortable paradox. All of the participants believe that the firm hired them because of their skill and experience. To these personnel endorsing affirmative action might connote that their hiring may have been the result of some preference. Most of these people indicate that if in a pool of equally qualified candidates there is a minority, at this point in the history of firm, the minority person should be selected. Focus group participants emphatically express the position that ‘no one should ever be hired who cannot do the job’.

Discussants often mentioned the fact that traditional methods of recruiting may not reach many persons who could be in a qualified minority pool. It was frequently noted that investment banking is dominated and staffed almost completely by white males.

The dynamic in the groups was stimulating because participants were eager to make constructive action proposals. The following is a list of major suggestions made by the focus group participants. They are included in no particular order, but represent the major reactions of the sixty participants:

1. Work to maintain respect, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or race.
2. Maintain commitment to diversity and work to increase heterogeneity.
3. To assume that the whole group has a problem is not fair. Don’t try to fix what is not broken. Get in with the workforce and fix the real problems that are there.
4. Provide meaningful diversity training. This should be a part of the orientation process for new employees. Continually reinforce the principles and behaviours taught in the training.
5. Managers must be well and extensively trained in diversity management.
6. The managers’ performance review should include how well they manage diversity. This task of reinforcement and maintenance of effective diversity management falls upon the managers and the respective styles that they model for everyone else in the group.
7. The firm needs to do a better job of performance reviews. Managers need to do a better job of letting you know what to do to get promoted. Help us with what we need to learn and accomplish so that we perform more effectively.
8. In the interest of trying to promote diverse people, don’t just promote people because of their diversity status, forgetting their qualifications. Don’t put someone somewhere just to have a minority in that position.
9. Career planning is important to everyone. Career counselling and advising is important and it should be done. This could solve some of the problem we have with a high turnover rate. The people we tend to lose will be minorities who have excellent opportunities elsewhere. What are their opportunities here? They need to know.
10. As this unit grows we need to do more mentoring. It is essential to have more training and mentoring for those who want to move up to management.
11. This unit must deal more effectively with the problem of attrition. If we lowered the attrition rate there would be fewer personnel problems.
12. As a matter of course do exit interviews and listen to them. Learn from the reasons people leave.
13. Improve recruiting – go beyond putting advertisements in the paper. Be more visible at career fairs. Go to a wider range of universities to recruit.
14. Take time while hiring. Don’t do it too quickly. ‘Emergency hires’ can’t be done carefully. Go slow and get somebody really good for the job. Go past the typical criteria for hiring. Only using referrals won’t accomplish the diversity goals. Instead of looking at educational background, look at their talent. Look creatively at the past history of candidates’ work. Even though I am at a lower level let me do some hiring or at least be more involved in the hiring process.
15. Maintain, embrace and apply more of the quality of work–life policies that the firm brags about. Don’t offer policies, if managers don’t intend to use them. Walk the talk.
16. Establish a diversity council and define what it will do. It’s not going to work to just talk about diversity. This group should be very active.
17. Get individual groups of particular minority categories together for sessions like this. Blacks, Asians, women, etc. See if they have more ideas to share when they are only with persons with the same category. If you want to get to the truth, do this to get a definite sense of the peer groups.
18. Do a quarterly newsletter that highlights diversity features, and initiatives. If it is put online attach it in an easy to find and read manner. Overall we are in a growth mode and we need to be able to get to know the new people.
19. Report to us. We want to hear the results of what the groups said in these focus groups.

Study of mid-level managers

The second study that provides a view of the attitudes and perceptions of personnel in a white-collar industry of investment banking is based upon a focused set of ninety-minute interviews with twenty-five mid-level managers in the mutual funds division of the firm. The sessions focused both on information gathering and coaching the managers. This again was a form of action research because the interview provided an opportunity to conduct a constructive dialogue on some of the issues of concern to the interviewees. The focus of the interviews was on both the process of evaluation and the impact of dealing with a diverse workforce. Topics included discovery of diversity sensitivity, coaching people through difficult performance evaluation sessions, working for candour, honesty, openness in performance management sessions, maintaining a climate that is nondefensive, and the general problems the supervisors faced in dealing with those who reported to them.

The performance evaluation issues reported by the managers were as follows:

1. Adapting performance appraisals to different types of people is a challenging process. Many are not sure of how their perceptions fit within the context of the cultural background of those who come from very different cultures.
2. It would be beneficial to receive more feedback regarding the nature of my leadership style. I’m not sure how it fits a range of different people.
3. Dealing with someone who used to be a peer and now I am her/his boss.
4. Discussing issues that are team issues with individuals.
5. Working to define clear and measurable critical objectives.
6. How to continue to motivate someone who is evaluated as an exceptional performer. Helping them to see how they can add value.
7. How to motivate people who are in a dead-end job.
8. Understanding the motivation, or lack thereof, of the new generation of staff.
9. How to sincerely communicate a positive sense of morale to persons who have low morale.

In this sample group the managers also had concerns about their personal performance for which they sought discussion and advice:

1. Finding ways to get better feedback from my boss.
2. Giving my boss feedback about how he/she provides feedback to me.
3. Working on personal impression management and knowing how to ‘build your skills and your personal franchise’.
4. Communication/leadership aspects of forming a new team.
5. How to reinforce and maintain the communication things I am doing that are effective with my team.
6. How to encourage the culture to open up the conversations? Can we motivate by other than fear?
7. How to approach further personal development as a supervisor.
8. Dealing with cross-cultural communication differences.
9. Managing meetings.

This set of interviews demonstrates that in addition to concerns about personal and team performance, equity and accuracy in the conduct of performance evaluation is a significant issue for managers. To mid-level managers performance evaluation is where they are challenged to ‘overlook differences’ and treat everyone the same.

Directors of diversity programmes

Diversity directors from six organizations were interviewed for their impressions of the status of diversity management programming today. It was interesting to note that half of this group were ‘professionals’ in the sense that they had worked with diversity management in more than two corporations or government entities. The others were moved to this position in their corporation because of their understanding and sensitivity to the issues. In all cases they were African–American female or Hispanic, or a combination of these features. Although never directly queried, there seemed to be an implicit question: ‘Does it require a person who is of minority status to be in this position?’ All would probably assert it as an advantage because they talked about how they could relate from personal experience to the subtle difficulties that diversity personnel in their organization were facing.

There was a feeling among the diversity directors that legality provided the genesis of the department they worked in: ‘We saw a problem, noted the increase in litigation over issues of equity and fairness and responded with this unit. As the tendency increases for employees to sue when they believe they are wronged, our unit is considered as a part of the remedy.’ They observe however that that reality is both reassuring, for the continued existence of their unit, and troublesome because the legal perspective is only a portion of the rationale for their programming. One director said that: ‘We are trying to do the right things for the wrong reasons.’ He goes on to explain that legal issues and court orders need to be addressed; however the real impetus for his unit is the economic reality the corporation must face: ‘There is an entire segment of the population who are potential clients that we are not reaching. Suddenly management has realized that to ensure the future of the...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures
• Tables
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part I Corporate Communication at National Level
• Part II Corporate Communication at International Level
• Part III Managing Image, Identity and Reputation
• Part IV The Future is Now