Description
Diversity management and diversity management is mostly used in the sense of "social diversity constructive use." Diversity management is not only tolerated the individual differences ( Engl. : diversity ) of the employees and staff, but also highlights this in terms of a positive appreciation particularly prominent and tries to utilize them for the company's success.
Case Study of Diversity Managers in Organizational Change
Abstract The paper presents a conceptual framework charting the agency of diversity managers in organizational change. Evaluating and critiquing the contemporary models of organizational change management, we identify three concepts, which are situatedness, relationality, and praxis, for understanding the diversity managers' agency in the organizational change process. Each orienting concept is explored in the context of current diversity management literature and their combined explanatory power is discussed. Keywords: diversity management, change agency, situated, relational, praxis Diversity management has emerged as a popular management philosophy of recognizing and valuing het- erogeneity with a view to improving organizational per- formance in the workplace (Cassell & Biswas, 2000; Kandola & Fullerton, 1994). Despite the increasing amount of management research on the issue, diversity
managers as agents of organizational change have remained a largely neglected topic of research. Due to their professed role in the design and implementation of diversity management policies and programs, diversity managers are the most visible actors in the process of managing diversity. In this paper, we seek to understand the agency of diversity managers in organizational change and, in other words, to provide insight to the question: "can diversity managers engender the organi- zational change which they envision?" We examine the role and impact of diversity managers as organizational change agents and individuals who assume the leading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
roles in coordinating organizational change interven- tions. We turn to the literature on change agents and diversity managers with a view to offering a three- dimensional analytical framework of situatedness, rela- tionality, and praxis, situating the agency of diversity managers within the relational scope of organizational change as triggered by either diversity management poli- cies, programs, or the diversity managers themselves. The diversity management process is often associated with organizational change in the academic litera- ture (Dobbs, 1996; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000; Liff, 1996; Mighty, 1991). However, in practice there is variation in terms of the extent to which organizational diversity approaches incorporate the promised forms of inclusiveness or indeed achieve the level of effectiveness that is sufficient to initiate organizational change (D'Netto & Sohal, 1999; Kalev, Kelly, & Dobbin, 2006). There can be a spectrum of roles afforded to diversity managers based on organizations' different approaches to equality and diversity, which can range from rejection of any concerns, to legal compliance, and to more sophisticated diversity management perspectives (Cox, 1991). Not sur- prisingly, the role of diversity manager as change agents may also vary from transactional to transformational, or it may be devolved to the level of line management, centralized in a unit, or assumed by a single person. We focus on the agency of diversity managers who assume the leading role in the strategy making, design, delivery, implementation, and monitoring of diversity initiatives, which affect organizational change. Our aim is not to "unpack" the interplay between various configu- rations of organizational approaches and personal inter- ventions in the process of diversity management, but rather to explore the scope and content of the diversity managers' agentic power, resources, and strategies which manifest in their organizational change efforts. In the field of diversity research there is sparse interest in the agency of diversity managers as the few available refer- ences on diversity managers are in the form of personal accounts (e.g., Cornelius, 2002; Jones, Jerich, Copeland, & Boyle, 1989). This situation holds true also for the equal opportunities field, which is a longer established area of research, and in which there has been little inter- est in investigation of equal opportunities officers and their role in transforming organizations. In the literature on equality and diversity, much attention has been devoted to distinguishing between equal opportunities and diversity management. Equal opportunities professionals are implicitly tasked with operational coordination of equality of opportunity drawing on moral and legal arguments while diversity managers are assigned strategic roles in improving organizational performance drawing on business case
arguments (Morrison, 1992). However, the boundaries between the roles of equality and diversity professionals may be more blurred in actual organizational settings than suggested in this literature. Therefore, it is useful to explore earlier works on equal opportunities officers' agency as the legacy of diversity management is built on these foundations. Kandola, Milner, Banerji, and Wood (1991) have noted that equal opportunities officers suffer greater levels of job related stress than their peers. In addition, there are other remarkable works in the field of equal opportunities that may provide important insights into the nature of equal opportunity officers' jobs (Cockburn, 1989, 1991; Jewson, & Mason, 1986). However, the focus of these studies is not necessarily on equality and diversity officers as change agents either. For instance, Jewson and Mason (1986) distinguished between liberal and radical approaches to change, where the scope of the former is limited to equality of opportunity while the latter aims for equality and fairness in outcomes. Further- ing this debate, Cockburn (1989, pp. 214-215) put forward the terms short agenda and long transforma- tional agenda. Short agenda of change focuses on mini- mizing the bias in human resource management (HRM) procedures and the long agenda targets the transforma- tion of employment relations to dissolve inequality in the workplace (p. 218). Cockburn (1991) illustrated that the job of equal opportunities officers is embedded in orga- nizational politics. Their role involves strategic manipu- lation of the organizational rules and power relations among organizational actors such as minority and major- ity group employees, unions, and middle and senior management. Focusing on equal opportunities officers in the UK, Lawrence's (2000) study revealed that senior management support and seniority of equality officers are decisive for their in?uence in engendering organizational change. Similarly, Parker (1999) studied equal opportunities officers in Australia's financial sector. The study uncovered the dual strategies used and dual identities held by equal opportunities officers to initiate organiza- tional change. Parker claimed that as double dealers, equal opportunities officers based their strategies on slipping between public values of equality and justice and private concerns of business and profits as well as between their own dual personal commitment to public ethical norms and private corporate duties. Similar research on diversity professionals is in its infancy. Healy and Oikelome (2007), having focused on health services in the UK, illustrated that diversity professionals both compete with and complement the work of trade union actors. On the other hand, Kirton, Greene, and Dean (2007) revealed that the radicalism of diversity
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
professionals is tempered between competing demands of organizational objectives and their commitment to equality. Finally, a recent study based on a national survey of diversity management in the UK identified that diversity managers' agency is constrained by the virtue of their organizational position, access to strategic resources, and organizational support for diversity (Tatl?, Özbilgin, Worman, & Price, 2006). However, due to their specific foci, these works provide only partial accounts of diversity managers' change agency.
A Critique of Change Agency Models The survey of the literature on change agency revealed an over-fragmented research area crowded with disconnected works, which suffer from a lack of theoreti- cal rigour and empirical grounding. As Huy (2001) noted, most of the works offer prescriptive models. It is possible to identify three problematic areas: (1) a rational, autonomous, and individualistic conceptualization of change agency, (2) an a-contextual and disembodied focus on change agents' competencies and traits, and (3) a lack of consideration for power dynamics in the change process. There are several competing models of change agency that treat the concept as an individualized phenomenon. Change is conceived as a linear and rational process, which takes place in relatively stable organizations, and change agents are conceptualized as unbiased consultants (Beckhard, 1969; Tichy, 1974). Such rationalized and individualized conceptions of the change process and change agency were later identified as main weaknesses of this literature (Caldwell, 2003). Another strand that presents this linear process of change focuses on the tempo of change (e.g., Weick & Quinn 1999). These works tend to analyze the strategies and activities of change agents as linear processes, which are coordi- nated by autonomous individuals, who act on their ratio- nal calculations, drawing on "perfect" information on resources. This approach is insufficient to capture the complexity of a change process characterized with layers of negotiated and politicized forms of access to resources. Our second concern is over the decontextualized and disembodied understanding of change agency. In this literature, change agents' attributes such as stamina, courage and vision, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, ?exibility, and risk taking are identified as markers of effective leadership (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). This approach was criticized due to its reliance on a single individual and its extraordinary qualities of a charismatic leader as the foci of the change process, as well as for
failing to recognize other contingencies that may impact organizational change (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). Caldwell (2003) asserted that the inclination to associate change agents with extraordinary qualities endures in different models of change agency alike. As a result, change agents are ontologically situated as disembodied and as a-con- textual individuals, whereby the level of exploration is reduced to that of individual psychology. This in turn leads to the omission of contextual analysis of change and an in?ation of prescriptions for competences and traits of change agents, including skills in specific areas such as forecasting, anticipating, counselling, consensus building, coaching, and facilitating (e.g., Bass, 1995; Weick & Quinn, 1999), or the in?ation of prescriptions for professional competences such as training in work process analysis, organizational development, or process consultancy (e.g., Huy, 2001; Tichy, 1974). In other times, personal traits such as desire to lead, honesty, integrity, problem solving, self-confidence, ?exibility, and risk taking (e.g., Kanter, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Munduate & Gravenhorst, 2003) as well as inter- personal skills such as team-building, negotiation, effec- tive communication, building trust, and being sympathetic (e.g., Buchanan & Boddy, 1992; Muir, 1996) are included in the ever growing list of competences. Lastly, studies that have sought to contextualize change agency have often overlooked the power dynam- ics involved in the change process. An example of this is Huy's (2001) change agency model, which furthered the debate on change agents by pointing out various competencies and styles of leadership required for intervening in different aspects of the organization. However, the model shares the change agency tradition's myopic tendency to focus on constructing ideal types and making lists of traits and competencies. Similarly, Muir's "system readiness approach" (1996, p. 478) situated the change process in extra- and intra-organizational contexts. The author also noted the importance of assessing the impact of different ranks of organization on the change process. However, change agents are again depicted as a-political individuals with some skill and ability requirements. Alternatively, Munduate and Gravenhorst (2003) drew a model for exploring the power bases of change agents and their impact on change targets' reactions to the change process. The model overemphasizes the interper- sonal relationship between the change agents and change targets, which renders it deficient in explaining the change at wider organizational structures, processes, and culture. Furthermore, it assumes that change leaders would act as rational decision makers while utilizing and deciding between different power bases. However, change agency involves what Buchanan and Boddy (1992, p. 27) called "backstage activities," since
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
negotiation with different interest groups in the organization is a crucial part of change agents' role. This inher- ently political dimension of change management is often ignored. Meyerson and Scully (1995) also noted the depoliticized nature of change and change agents in orga- nizational studies. In final analysis, owing to these implicit assumptions on change agents, which reduce them to a-political, disembodied, decontexualized, autonomous, and rational actors, the main thrust of the literature is on the key traits of change agents. Consequently, the political nature of the organizational change process is overlooked, and the role and capacity of change agents is over-simplified. However, there is a stream of scholars including Acker (2006), who deal with power with respect to manage- ment, trade unions, and individual organizational actors. The political nature of the change process and the con- tradictory status of change agents are acknowledged by critical approaches to organizational change (Acker, 2000; Lawrence, 2000; Meyerson, 2001). Agocs (1997) argued that organizational change is political since the exercise of power and control is central to the process. In contrast with mainstream literature, which focuses on skills and competencies, Agocs ( p. 925) explained that "it is not the knowledge or expertise in itself that is the source of power and a resource for organizational change: it is the knowledge upon which authorities have con- ferred legitimacy and assimilated into the organization's ideological framework." Similarly, Acker (2000) empha- sized that competencies and capacities of the change agent are only a few among many factors that affect the outcome of the change process. In addition to the politi- cal nature of organizational relations, change agents themselves are also political beings who strive to act according to their personal values (Jones, 2007). Meyerson (2001) introduced a new type of change agents—tempered radicals who are both insiders and outsiders to the organization due to the con?ict of their personal values with the dominant organizational culture (p. xi). Being an insider in the organization equips tempered radicals with information regarding the dynamics of the organizational system and the ability to act confidently within that familiar system (Meyerson & Scully, 1995, p. 596). Moreover, tempered radicals are aware of the importance of gaining allies among majority, which will provide them with legitimacy (Meyerson, 2001). This new understanding of change agency allows an explora- tion of power relations not only to situate the role of change agents, but also to examine their potential power sources. Similarly, Ledwith and Colgan (1996) explored strategies used by women to challenge the status-quo in their organization and argued that women as change agents need to be aware of organizational power rela-
tions. Both of these studies conceptualized change agency, not as it relates to diversity managers, but as a general quality, which is dispersed through different levels of organization. Having provided a brief review of the literature on conceptual frameworks of change agency, we turn ourattention to the role of diversity managers in the organizational change process. In the next section we propose a framework for understanding the phenomenon of change agency as related to diversity managers. Rather than offering another prescriptive model of change agency, we provide a comprehensive analytical frame- work, which can be employed in empirical research in order to explore and understand the change agency of diversity managers.
Diversity Managers in Organizational Change: A Proposed Framework Attending to the implicit assumptions of the change agency and diversity management literatures alike would lead us to a notion of diversity management as bound up with the convenience and timing of the strategies and actions of the diversity manager who is equipped with abstract competencies and traits and whose actions are assumed to be determined by the principle of rationality and free will. We argue that both organizational change and the role of change agents within it are much more complicated than are depicted in the literature. Accord- ingly, we propose an analytical framework that embeds the agency of diversity managers in the process of orga- nizational change. In this respect, we find Bourdieu's (1977, 1990, 1998) conceptual framework very appropri- ate for studying change agency in the field of diversity management. The potential contribution of Bourdieu's theory to management and organizational studies is also cited elsewhere (Everett, 2002; Özbilgin & Tatli, 2005). Bourdieu (1977, 1990, 1998) used three concepts, field, habitus, and capital in addition to other notions such as dispositions, praxis, doxa, and symbolic violence as the building blocks of his theory of human agency, which is generated through situated relationality between differ- ent levels of social reality. The Bourdieuan formulation of habitus, capital, and field offers a resourceful frame- work to explore the role of individual agency in the process of social and institutional change. Diversity managers' change agency can be studied along three dimensions: situatedness, relationality, and praxis. Situatedness relates to the contextual nature of agency and points to how the actions of diversity managers, and the choices and constraints that generate these actions, are embedded in an historical trajectory of social
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
and organizational contexts. Relationality refers to the interconnected character of the actions and decisions of diversity managers with their own selves, others, and structures. Whilst situatedness demarcates the context of human agency, relationality frames agency in a web of relations. Finally, praxis brings out the dynamic nature of the agency across dimensions of re?ection and action, revealing the interplay between different forms of capital, discourses, identities, and strategies. Our model is based on an understanding that any attempt at exploring diversity managers' agency requires a combined atten- tion to individual, structural, and relational dynamics. The dimensions of agency are symbiotically projected onto each other and each exists through its enactment in the other two dimensions. Situatedness Situatedness refers to framing of diversity managers as real individuals in their historical, economic, social, and organizational settings rather than free-?oating prac- titioners abstracted from their context. Diversity manag- ers' agency is situated within the context of the society and organization in which they operate. In order to operationalize the situatedness of the change agency of diversity managers, we borrowed one of Bourdieu's most important concepts—the field. The field denotes the universe of partly preconstituted objective historical relations between positions (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 16). Jenkins (1992, p. 85) interpreted the concept as:
a structured system of social positions. . . . It is also a system of forces, which exist between these positions; a field is structured internally in terms of power relations. Positions stand in relationship of domination, subordination and equivalence to each other by virtue of the access they afford to the goods and resources (capital).
By utilizing the notion of field we bring the social and organizational structures and power relations into the analysis of the agency of diversity managers. Recogni- tion of symbolic as well as objective power struggles in Bourdieu's formulation of the field sets it aside from the conception of the notion by Lewin (1951) and makes it more appropriate for our purposes. Social and organizational fields as the defining principles of the allocation of several power positions draw the boundaries of indi- vidual agency. Situating diversity managers' agency within the context of social and organizational fields improves our understanding of the choices and con- straints that frame the actions, decisions, and strategies of diversity managers. We explored diversity managers'
agency at two different levels of social and organiza- tional field. To start, any attempt to investigate the limit and potentials of diversity managers' agency requires the understanding of the logic of the social field in which their actions take place. In our framework, social field of diversity management refers to three historically formed structures at the social level: cultural and demographic dynamics in the labour market; institutional structures regarding diversity and equality (legislation and institu- tional actors); and the business environment. Firstly, the cultural and demographic dynamics in the labour marketframe the diversity concerns in a society (Cavanaugh, 1997). Depending on different historical trajectories of each society, some demographic groups are socially con- structed as the majority or mainstream while others are relegated as minorities or are marginalized. Hence, the definition of diversity that is focused throughout the diversity management process varies according to the cultural dynamics prevalent in the society and labour market (Prasad & Mills, 1997). In addition, labour market demographics affect diversity management practice. Composition of the labour market and supply and demand of labour are frequently cited as a proof of the pressing need for diversity management (Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000). Secondly, the institutional structures that reproduce or combat inequality in the area of employment affect the handling of workforce diversity at the organizational level. Diversity management research needs to situate organizational diversity management policies within the context of employment and antidiscrimination legisla- tion and institutional actors in the field of employment, such as trade unions, professional and legal bodies (Özbilgin & Tatli, 2008). Lastly, the social field of diversity management is affected by the dynamics of the business environment. It is frequently stated that in addition to changing labour market demographics, the globalization of business and changing patterns of work organization, production, and competition have led to the rising need for diversity management (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002). Furthermore, organizational diversity management practices are affected by the interest of different stakeholders, that is consumers, shareholders, employees, the state, trade unions, and diversity and equality institutions (Özbilgin & Tatli, 2008; Morrison, 1992). In addition to being embedded in the social field, diversity managers' agency is also situated within the organizational field. The role of diversity managers as change agents involves working through the structures and power relations in the organizational field. The main constituencies of the organizational field of diversity
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
management are organizational diversity policy and strategy, integration of diversity objectives across the organization, and organizational culture. Firstly, the limits and effectiveness of diversity managers' actions are in?uenced by the diversity policy and strategy of the organization. The scope of diversity policy; initiatives included in the policy; target and reach of the policy; and procedures and systems for communi- cating, implementing, and monitoring the policy, are the basic components of the diversity policy structure of the organization. Particularly, HRM systems and operations are stated among the most important areas of intervention throughout the diversity management process (Dobbs, 1996). Hence, the scope and coverage of organizational diversity policy and strategy will provide many hints regarding the choices of and constraints encountered by diversity managers. Secondly, the level of integration of diversity objectives throughout different functions and ranks of the organization plays a crucial role in determining the power dynamics in the organizational field of diversity management, which in turn draws the boundaries of the power and effectiveness of diversity managers' actions. The status of the diversity office and inclusion of diversity goals in corporate objectives are among the most visible illustrations of the level of integration (Joplin &Daus, 1997; Mighty, 1991; Morrison, 1992). Parker (1999, p. 39) argued that equality officers may gain the necessary "clout" to be effective in two ways—formally through holding a senior position and informally through having senior management support. The position of diversity managers within the organizational hierarchy and the level of authority allocated to them also illustrate the extent of centrality of diversity management in main- stream organizational policies and strategies (Lawrence, 2000). In addition to the individual position of the diversity or equality officer within the organizational hierarchy, the position and status of the diversity office within the organizational structure establishes a crucial source of legitimacy and power for the actions and decisions of diversity managers. Acker (2000) pointed out the dilemma faced by many equality and diversity officers due to their position in the organizational hierarchy. She noted that despite the fact that implementation of diversity and equality programs is associated with an organizational change process, the diversity and equality officers often lack the direct authority to control the different functions of the organization (p. 627). For that reason the level ofprestige and status attached to the diversity office within the organization becomes a crucial factor in the agency of diversity managers by either hindering the in?uence of their actions or encouraging it.
Furthermore, support for and ownership of diversity objectives by different organizational members provides important sources of legitimacy for the actions and decisions of diversity managers. Importance of senior management support for the success of diversity management is frequently cited in the literature (Mighty, 1991; Mor- rison, 1992). In addition, line managers' attitudes towards diversity and equality are as important as those of senior managers. In their research on recruitment and promo- tion in 45 private sector organizations from five different industries in the UK, Collinson, Knights, and Collinson (1990) found that personnel managers responsible for equal opportunities policies had little in?uence on recruit- ment and promotion decisions of line managers. Line managers frequently acted upon their personal ideologi- cal approaches although these might have contradicted the corporate equal opportunities policy. Lastly, analysis of organizational culture is crucial to understanding the role of diversity managers in organizational change. Organizational culture, through infor- mal and unwritten norms and values of the organization, governs the conduct of actions of and interaction between the organizational members. Interaction between differ- ent groups and individuals is one of the most heavily researched areas in the diversity literature and it is stated to be one of the most important areas of intervention throughout the diversity management process. For instance, Elmes and Connelley (1997) urged diversity managers to pay attention to intergroup relations if they are to enforce change in the organizational fabric. More- over, some types of organizations associated with spe- cific organizational cultures present a more nurturing and receptive ground for diversity management efforts, for example (the multicultural organization, Cox, 1991). Consequently, it is necessary to analyze organizational culture for two basic reasons. Firstly, organizational culture informs the choices, constraints, and resources available to diversity managers. Secondly, diversity managers must work through the organizational culture to initiate a sustainable and long term organizational change. They need to understand the dynamics govern- ing the organizational culture in order to enforce its change, as well as to anticipate sites of resistance and to plan strategies to manage it (Dobbs, 1996). Relationality Relationality is a concept borrowed from social psychology and structural sociology (Somers, 1998), which refers to interdependence, intersubjectivity, and interactivity of individual and organizational phenomena. Diversity managers' actions and decisions throughout the diversity management process gain meaning and become
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
effective through three layers of relationality. Diversity managers' agency is relational as it is constructed through the interplay of the self, others, and structures at multiple levels of social reality: micro-individual, meso-organiza- tional, and macro-structural levels. The meso level rela- tionality is imbued with greater density and number of complex relationships by virtue of its proximity to both micro and macro levels. Micro level relationality. Relationality at the micro level refers to the way diversity managers relate to their own values, beliefs, actions, and strategies. The importance of personal values and beliefs for understanding the actions of change agents is stated in the literature (DiTomaso & Hooijberg, 1996; Tichy, 1974). For instance, Meyerson and Scully (1995, pp. 596-7) pointed out that "some individuals choose to do 'diversity work' because of their commitment to social justice, their iden- tification with a marginalized group, and their insights into the dynamics of disadvantage and privilege". In the same way, DiTomaso and Hooijberg (1996, p. 170) argued that a "political commitment . . . to a better orga- nization, and hence to a better society" is one of the necessary skills for diversity professionals to be effective in their roles. Meso level relationality. Meso level relationality manifests itself in both intra and extra organizational relations. At this level, social capital (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) is an important relational resource since diversity managers work through organizational levels and networks as a part of their role as change agents (DiTomaso & Hooijberg, 1996). Diversity managers draw on their social capital for materializing their agentic power, which may be both enhanced and constrained by the volume of their social capital. The agency of diversity managers is enhanced through the support that they receive from their networks. However, social capital also involves a form of reciprocity that may constrain their plans for radical change. Social capital may be acquired through both external and internal sources. External sources of social capital are related to the involvement in civil society and politics through any membership or link to the groups, networks, or institutions outside the organization. In particular, diversity managers' involvement in diversity networks, institutions, and groups in?uences their agency in several ways. Firstly, it provides feelings of solidarity and support through sharing experiences with other individuals in the field. Braithwaite (1992, cited in Parker, 1999), in her study of Australian affirmative action officers, revealed the importance of networking for affirmative action offi- cers to maintain their progressive attitudes, to retain their commitment, and to get social validation of their views. Second, networking entails the possibility of learning
from the experiences of others, and accessing different equality and diversity perspectives, thereby help diver- sity managers to foresee the future challenges and opportunities, and to produce efficient strategies for managing diversity (Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Internal sources of social capital are relationships with organizational members from different groups and levels and inclusion in informal organizational net- works. This implicitly requires owning "interpersonal skills"—such as negotiation, facilitation, communica- tion, and networking, which comprise the most fre- quently cited category of competencies in the change agency literature The amount of social capital pos- sessed by diversity managers determines the boundaries of their roles as negotiators or facilitators both between different groups and between individuals and their emo- tions. As DiTomaso and Hooijberg (1996) have empha- sized, the job of managing diversity requires attention to the emotive content of the work, since the sphere of intervention is a sensitive one related to deeply seated values and norms of the ndividuals and may invoke negative as well as positive reactions. Thus, securing involvement and participation of organizational members and groups from different levels and functions is cited among the key pillars of successful diversity management (Dobbs, 1996; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000). Diversity managers' formal and informal net- works within the organization and their personal skills, such as negotiation, persuasion, and attracting voluntary involvement, become particularly important in the light of the budget constraints of the diversity management programs and initiatives. Macro level relationality. This refers to the relationality between the self and the circumstances. Diversity managers' change agency is framed by their demographic and cultural backgrounds (macro-structural circumstances). Bourdieu's (1977) concept of habitus has strong explanatory power for macro level relational- ity. In Bourdieu's framework, habitus functions as a bridge between structure and agency: "Social reality exists, so to speak, twice, in things and in minds, in fields and in habitus, outside and inside social agents" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 127). Habitus is formed through the past experiences of agents and feeds their present perceptions and actions (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 95). Bourdieu (1977, p. 72) defined habitus as: "the strategy generating principle enabling agents to cope with unforeseen and ever-changing situations." Within our framework, habitus is relevant as it relates the demographic and cultural background of diversity managers and their organiza- tional circumstances to their actions and decisions and hence to the strategies they use as change agents. The driving force behind the strategies is "the encounter of
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
habitus with the peculiar conjuncture of the field" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, p. 129). The relationality between the habitus of diversity managers and organizational field is of key import in understanding both their agency and success or failure of the change programs. Affiliation and experience with disadvantaged groups forms an important aspect of diversity managers' habitus, which are defined as the set of dispositions formed through their past experience and socialization. These experiences impact upon diversity managers' understanding and values of diversity, which may in turn form an agentic advantage or disadvantage. Lawrence (2000) has pointed to the necessity of knowledge and understanding of the perspectives of the discriminated groups in the society for the equality work in the organizations. So, their macro structural circum- stances provide the diversity managers with both oppor- tunities and constraints. Like diversity managers, other organizational actors also bring their habitus into the organizational settings, by re?ecting on their past experiences, cultural and demographic backgrounds, as well as drawing on their present situations and future aspirations. The level of concurrence or con?ict between the organizational field and different habitus brought in by different organiza- tional members in?uences the reproduction or trans- formation of the organizational field. The majority of diversity research focuses on intergroup relationships in organizations. Studies analyzing the impact of diversity on different groups of employees indicate that effects of and reactions to workforce diversity may vary for differ- ent groups (Cordero, DiTomaso, & Farris, 1997; Wharton, & Baron, 1987). The nature of the relationships between different groups in an organization can be situated in a spectrum ranging from con?ict and prejudice to under- standing and mutual respect (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992), and those dynamics of intergroup relations, to a certain extent, draw the boundaries of diversity manag- ers' agency and effectiveness in organizational change through building a matrix of choices and constraints. Hence at this level of relationality, diversity managers need to relate and utilize their own values and disposi- tions to strategically manage and transform the sensitive balance between the organizational field and habitus brought in by organizational actors. Praxis The last dimension of diversity managers' agency is praxis which brings out the dynamic characteristics of agency. Whilst the dimensions of situatedness and relationality provide the texture of the agency, praxis points to the dynamic component nature of this agency. As a
concept that has its philosophical roots in 19th century European thought, praxis can be defined as re?exive action and actionable knowledge. We borrowed this definition from Freire's (1968) text, Pedagogy of the oppressed. In the context of agency of diversity manag- ers, praxis is important as it combines both elements of re?ection and action. The two earlier dimensions of situ- atedness and relationality are underpinned by an idea that the diversity managers' role as change agent is shaped and constrained by their positioning in institutional and relational contexts. However, the notion of praxis is informed by an understanding that recognizes individual capacity to learn and exert in?uence through a virtuous cycle of re?ection and action. We reframe praxis to include Bourdeuian notions of doxa, and capitals and strategies in order to bring content to the reframing of re?ection and action, respectively, in understanding diversity managers' agency. Doxic re?ection. The notion of doxa refers to "the preconstructed representation of this world" and "the cognitive schemata that underlie the construction of this image" (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992, p. 247). Accordingly, the doxic experience is "uncontested acceptance of the daily lifeworld" (p. 73). Exclusion and inequality, which work against principles of successful diversity management, are reproduced in organizations through everyday acts and utterances of doxic experience. Doxic re?ection in this context refers to diversity managers' power to re?ect on the doxic experience as it pertains to diversity in the organization, revealing the uncontested illusions that legitimize hegemony and "inequality regimes" (Acker, 2006). In organizations, the hegemonic majority culture corresponds to the domain of orthodoxy (the right opinion), whereas deviances from that constitute the domain of heterodoxy. The extent to which diversity managers can widen the heterodoxy, which is welcoming of difference, reveals their agentic power. The awareness raising process, which is cited frequently as the learning based approach (Contu & Willmott, 2003; Dodgson, 1993) and constitutes an important part of most diversity managers' prescribed role (Cox, 1991; Elmes &Connel- ley, 1997), seeks to transform the doxic experience, enriching the doxic space. Contrary to common wisdom, doxic experience is sustained by both members of major- ity and minority groups and dominant and dominated individuals in organizations. Bourdieu (1984, p. 471) noted that dominated agents "tend to attribute to them- selves what the distribution attributes to them, refusing what they are refused ('That's not for the likes of us'), adjusting their expectations to their chances, defining themselves as the established order defines them." Thus, altering the doxic experience of inequality regimes
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
requires diversity managers to engage with a wide cross section of organizational members from both minority and majority groups. However, diversity managers' praxis is also situated along the spectrum that ranges from orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Gunn and Gullickson (2003) provided support for this argument and explained that managers' willing- ness to act on their knowledge and understanding is con- strained by their belief in how acceptable their approach would be in the context of the organizational setting and discourse. Lorde (2003, p. 274) asserted that danger and fear "of contempt, of censure, or some judgment or rec- ognition, of challenge, of annihilation," which are inher- ent in the process of transforming silence into speech, inhibit one's acts of self revelation. Therefore, praxis is highly variable due to the complexity of censure in doxa and because the praxis of diversity managers varies from inaction to radical pursuit of change. Therefore, we contend that praxis is a cycle of re?ection and action in which diversity managers re?ect on doxa in order to develop their strategies. Strategic action. Praxis, as a cycle of re?ection and action, requires diversity managers to strategically deploy the forms of capital that they possess in order to exert in?uence in their organizations. It is reasonable to expect that the boundaries of the diversity managers' praxis will be drawn by the amount of capital at their strategic dis- posal. We offer a broader conception of capital than do the human capital theories. The human capital approach is underpinned by an illusion of "free choice" and of an individual isolated from the socio-economic context, thus it offers an ideological justification of sustaining the status quo (Crompton & Mann, 1994). Contrary to human capital theories' focus on skills and qualifications in explaining workplace careers (see Becker, 1975), Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1990, 1998) has offered a relational theory of capitals. In addition to eco- nomic capital, Bourdieu has proposed three other forms of capital. Symbolic capital refers to attributes such as prestige, status, and authority; cultural capital refers to factors such as taste, education, and forms of language; and social capital refers to more or less institutionalized networks of relationships based on recognition (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990). For diversity managers, these forms of capital translate to a budget for diversity management (economic capital), membership to external and internal networks (social capital), relevant demography, educa- tion, training, and experience (cultural capital), and the status and situated abilities to make use of these different forms of capital (symbolic capital). Possession of all of these forms of capital and their strategic deployment frame diversity managers' agency. Diversity managers utilize strategies to transform, allocate, and distribute
their volume of capital between different forms, and in doing so they reproduce or transform the boundaries of their agency. The volume of different forms of capital owned by diversity managers has a crucial effect on the potential power bases available to them and by employ- ing strategies, they activate that potential. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992, p. 101) argued that different forms of capital do not exist and function only in relation to a field and doxa. Rather, they become effi- cient "like the aces in a game of cards" only if actors know the "rules of the game" and adhere to these rules. In order to reach their goals within the scope of diversity management policies and programs, diversity managers must tune their performance according to the rules of the organizational field and doxa. They learn the rules gov- erning the organizational field and doxa by gaining an understanding of the organization through their experi- ence, and by being part of formal and informal organi- zational networks, thus having access to insiders' knowledge. This learning, on the one hand, empowers diversity managers by establishing them as legitimate players in the game. On the other hand, it dictates to them the acceptable limits of their intervention throughout the diversity management process. Hence, organizational praxis of diversity managers is linked to the dual char- acter of that learning and acceptance of the formal and informal rules of the organization, which simultaneously enable and constrain their agency. As Hardy, Palmer, and Phillips (2000) have suggested, it should be diversity managers' strategy to learn, disseminate, implement, and enact discourses of diversity. One pertinent example of strategy is the use of the discourse of business case, which is the espoused causal relationship between effective management of diversity and improved business performance (c.f., Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002). Another example is the discourse of inclusion. As Dutton and Ashford (1993) have pointed out, in order to be effective, change agents need to package the change message in insiders' language. These discourses need to become part of the diversity managers' re?exive practice of strategy. Lawrence (2000) found that con?ict strategies are identified as ineffective by equal opportunities officers. Following the strategy of negotiation rather than opposition, diversity managers also use the discourse of inclusion to gain allies at dif- ferent levels of the organization. Once equipped with these discourses and their legitimized ways of knowing, diversity managers may set out to enact these discourses in their organizations by producing policy statements, affecting managerial decision processes, and enacting diversity strategies in their practice of work. Therefore, diversity management is enacted through the efforts of diversity managers not only through implementation
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
of policy across the organization but also as individual enactments of daily praxis that will generate small wins (Weick, 1984).
Discussion Summary Diversity managers are expected to serve as internal agents of organizational change. However, cultural change that is foreseen by the diversity management process cannot be achieved in the absence of structural mechanisms of support and multiparty engagement with the intra- and extra-organizational actors. Furthermore, actions and strategies of diversity managers are framed by situational and relational factors. Returning to our orienting question "can diversity managers engender the organizational change which they envision?" we contend that diversity managers' agency can only be judged through their situatedness, relationality, and praxis. Our conceptual framework presents a number of challenges to the mainstream change agency literature, which con- ceives change agents as autonomous, de-contextualized, and apolitical beings. The framework seeks to situate both the role of diversity managers as change agents and the diversity management as a change process in social and organizational context. Firstly, situatedness in the context of diversity managers' change agency denotes the web of organizational and social structures and power relations that mould that agency in the social and organizational fields. The social field of diversity management refers to labour market dynamics; nation-wide institutional structures of diver- sity, and the business environment. The organizational field includes organizational culture, organizational diversity management structures, and organizational support for diversity. Our formulation of situatedness isin essence a critique of the blueprint approaches to change agency in the current literature. Our framework calls for an approach to managing change that is tailored to address social and organizational circumstances. In doing so, change is envisioned as an embedded process and diversity managers are envisioned as resourceful, creative, and strategic, while at the same time constrained agents of change. Secondly, relationality refers to interdependence, intersubjectivity, and interactivity between diversity managers and organizational and social contexts, that is, relationalities at micro, meso, and macro levels. Diver- sity managers' agency in this dimension presents an understanding of individuals and organizations, not as autonomous rational entities but as relational beings
intertwined in a constant process of emergence and becoming. Thus, relationality de-emphasizes the role of the individual as framed in agentic approaches to change, yet it reorients us to focus on the individual capacity to strategically use material and symbolic resources in a change process. While situatedness and relationality position diversity managers' agency in institutional and relational contexts, our third dimension, praxis, resides at a more dynamic level—at the intersection of re?ection and action, and knowledge and practice. Through the lens of praxis, diversity managers' agency is viewed as embody- ing a symbiotic relationship between the symbolic power of knowing (awareness of diversity discourses through doxic re?ection) and doing (practice of diversity man- agement through strategic action) in organizational settings. The concept of praxis allows us to conceive diversity managers' agency as a nonlinear and negotiated phenomenon, which embeds daily activities of diversity management in organizational politics, resistance, and power relationships. This takes place in the iterative process at individual and institutional levels where the logic of practice and the logic of discourse are intertwined.
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Contributions to Scholarship 79 80 This three-pronged framework advances the under81 standing of diversity managers' role in the organizational 82 change process by transcending earlier formulations that 83 attribute this change to either the person of the diversity 84 manager or to the structural circumstances that permit such 85 change. Our review suggests that there is scope for the 86 person of the diversity manager to initiate and support 87 organizational change. The nature and scope of diversity 88 managers' agency in the change process are demarcated by 89 the situatedness, relationality, and praxis of their agency. 90 Thus, the novelty of the conceptual framework that we 91 provide here is not in its individual components of 92 situatedness, relationality, or praxis, but rather in the 93 combined explanatory power of these concepts in reveal- ing 94 the agency of diversity managers in organizational change 95 processes. 96 97 98 Applied Implications 99 Resource and constraints of change agency. Diver100 sity managers have a set of resources and constraints, 101 which draw the boundaries of their agentic power to initi- ate 102 organizational change. Table 1 outlines the resource and 103 constraint implications of situatedness, relationality, and 104 praxis for diversity managers' change agency. 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
54 55 56 Dimensions Resources Constraints 57 58 Social field Situatedness 59 Progressive laws Conservative laws 60 Supportive political environment Unsupportive political environment 61 Economic growth Economic decline 62 Culture of equality and inclusion Culture of discrimination and backlash 63 Organizational field 64 Cultures of inclusion Regimes of inequality Supportive structures of management Absence of structures for management 65 Management support Management disengagement 66 Integration of diversity management Marginalization of diversity management 67 Financial and nonfinancial resources Lack of resources 68 Micro level relationality 69 Relationality Understanding of diversity issues Lack of awareness of diversity issues 70 Meso level relationality 71 Membership to networks Absence of networks 72 Macro level relationality 73 Understanding of the diversity context Lack of awareness of diversity context 74 Doxic re?ection Praxis 75 A wide heterodox space A narrow heterodox space 76 Strategic action 77 Lack of necessary capitals Access to different forms of capital 78 Lack of ability to use strategic discourses Ability to use strategic discourses 79 80 81 82 Diversity managers' agency is situated in social and Diversity managers' ability to develop strategic 83 84 cultural fields. The social field of situatedness is faciliplans and negotiate these within the organization requires 85 tated by progressive legislation and political environthem to have a deep understanding of diversity issues. 86 ment, which is supportive of the agentic ambitions of Therefore, awareness itself serves as an agentic resource to 87 diversity managers to change their organizations. Conlegitimize diversity managers' position. In addition, versely, backlash in the form of conservative laws and diversity managers need to understand the wider diver- sity 88 89 political environment may constrain diversity managers' context in terms of structural inequalities and dis90 agentic power. Similarly, the economy can serve both as a crimination as well as other drivers for diversity action. 91 resource and a constraint for diversity managers' change However, diversity managers' awareness is a necessary but agency. Periods of economic growth and urban insufficient condition for their effectiveness. They draw on 92 93 regeneration often foster conditions in which diversity networks of colleagues both inside and outside their 94 becomes a necessary ingredient, whereas economic organizations, which both facilitate and support their decline may hamper feelings of inclusion and integration in change agency. However, lack of such networks and their 95 96 societies as the collective resources become less and reciprocal obligations constrain their agency by competition for them increases. Wider social patterns are undermining their professional identity and development. 97 98 also manifest at the organizational level as managerial Diversity managers operate in highly political and 99 support for or disengagement from equality and diversity emotive settings. This requires them to navigate between issues. Inclusive organizational cultures provide diver- sity established organizational orders and possibilities of their 100 101 managers with necessary resources, whilst organiza- tional transformation. Availability of a welcoming orga102 regimes of inequality starve diversity managers of strategic nizational doxa, which allows for a wide space for het103 resources and place barriers on their capacity to take action. erodoxy, will offer diversity managers the strategic 104 Furthermore, integration of diversity objec- tives in the spacetor manoeuvre. In contrast, organizations that have 105 organizational field is an important resource for diversity established rules and structures that contravene diversity 106 managers' agency.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
principles may constrain the agency of diversity manag- ers to ineffectuality. In order to negotiate a wider range of heterodoxy, diversity managers need to strategically deploy different forms of capital. Therefore social, economic, symbolic, and cultural capitals serve as indispensable resources of diversity managers' change agency. Last but not least, are the strategic capabilities of diver- sity managers to use such resources as required by the circumstances, drawing on a range of discourses. Diversity policy. Diversity policies tend to ignore the agency of diversity managers, since diversity policies both at the national and organizational levels are under- pinned by an assumption that the ability of diversity management initiatives to affect organizational change is independent of the power and resources available to the diversity manager. We argue that these assumptions are unfounded; thereby our model generates a set of policy implications at both national and organizational levels. At a national level, there is a need to empower diversity managers as a professional group. Training and develop- ment of diversity managers is important for them to gain power and legitimacy. Such training and development activities may be offered through government agencies, universities, and professional bodies. Policy support for developmental activities could ensure their sustainabil- ity. Membership to diversity and equality networks is also important for effectiveness and legitimacy of diver- sity managers. Therefore, national and organizational policy should support setting up and sustaining such networks. At the organizational level, diversity policies should be mainstreamed and positioned at the strategic heart of organizational policies and objectives. This should be supplemented with adequate resourcing and empowerment of diversity managers and diversity offices. Specifically, diversity managers and the diversity office need to be provided with the in?uence and power to monitor the different functions in the organization in terms of diversity. This also means that diversity management should not be marginalized to human resource management activities but should be tasked with a more comprehensive scope of activities covering all functional areas. Limitations and Future Research Directions In this paper, we proposed a framework for understanding diversity managers' agency. This allowed us to examine diversity management and the implications of change agency and status quo. We hope that our conceptual framework will allow for future research to really explore and in some cases expose diversity management. Within that context, the main limitation of the our conceptual framework is the challenge of applying complex
conceptual models in studying real life situations. This is particularly true for researchers drawing on Bourdieu in order to frame their studies. This is because the link- ages between conceptual ideas and the sources of data required to investigate them remain largely implicit. In order to overcome this limitation, we operationalized our model through a resource map, which makes explicit the types of data that may be collected and analyzed in the context of a research project (see Table 2). The concept of situatedness covers a wide terrain involving social and organizational contexts. Therefore, investigating the study of situatedness of diversity managers' agency requires collection of rich contextual data. The logic of the social field manifests itself in a wide range of grey literature and in the form of laws, regula- tions, policies, and demographic and economic statistics. Studying legislation is important as the law equips diver- sity managers with legitimacy for their agentic demands. However, legislative research should not be simply limited to the national level as regional and international alliances have growing regulatory impact on national equality and diversity practices. Furthermore, there is diffusion of best practice in law. Therefore investigating law at a national and international level provides both an appreciation of current drivers for diversity as well as predictions for future change. In addition to legislative framework, there are institutional actors in the diversity field, including trade unions, employers' associations, professional equality, and diversity bodies, which in?uence the agency of diversity managers. Therefore, reports, regulations, best practice examples, textual, observational, and audio-visual data from national actors could be useful sources to explore the context of diversity managers' agency. There is wealth of statistical data that illustrates the social diversity at the national level. It is also possible for diversity managers to use statistical and economic data to illustrate the benefits of diversity to the bottom line and to negotiate their demands for action and organizational change. Finally, the power and in?uence bestowed upon diversity has different historical and political legacies in different cultures. In order to recognize the situated nature of diversity managers' agency, wide range of data sources can be collated on political history of diversity. These can be in the form of anec- dotes, historical texts and archival materials. In order to situate the diversity managers' agency in the organizational field, researchers need to collect and analyze data on organizational culture, diversity structures, and employees. There are established inventories and typologies of diversity cultures and climates. These could be employed to generate field study data. Research- ers can collect data on organizational cultures with a view to disaggregate pertinent issues on diversity and
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
54 55 56 Dimensions Data sources 57 58 Social field Situatedness 59 National and international legislation on diversity 60 Documents of national polity on and political history of diversity 61 Demographic and economic statistics and case data on social diversity 62 Organizational field 63 Diversity culture and climate inventory data 64 Documents and data on diversity policy, strategy, and initiatives Internal labour statistics and reports on diversity 65 Employee and stakeholder surveys in relation to diversity 66 Performance data from the diversity office 67 68 Micro level relationality Relationality 69 Data on diversity managers's beliefs, opinions, and awareness Meso level relationality 70 Data on diversity network membership 71 Data on structures, functions, and densities of diverity networks 72 Macro level relationality 73 Demographic data on diversity managers 74 Doxic re?ection Praxis 75 Survey data on organizational beliefs, values, and opinions 76 Data on intergroup relations and diversity 77 Strategic action 78 Data on diversity managers' capitals and strategies and diversity discourse 79 80 81 82 83 intergroup relations. The organizational field offers their position in their organizations and within broader 84 researchers rich data on diversity policy, strategy, and society. 85 initiatives. These sources re?ect the position of diversity Praxis of diversity managers' agency has two dimen86 managers and the diversity office. Furthermore, research- ers sions: re?ection and action. Both of these dimensions 87 can collect financial and nonfinancial performance data require data on dynamic processes. Data on organiza88 from the diversity office in order to reveal the effec- tiveness tional beliefs, values, and opinions should be collected to 89 of diversity managers. Internal workforce statis- tics and understand the process of doxic re?ection. Such data should 90 employee and stakeholder surveys in relation to diversity incorporate a sense of history and change rather than 91 may provide useful sources of data for research- ers to providing static pictures of such beliefs, values, or 92 understand the challenges facing diversity managers. opinions and could be strengthened with data on inter93 Relational aspects of the diversity manager's agency group relations. The second component of praxis is stra94 requires data that reveal the complex tapestry of relationtegicaction,whichnecessitatesresearchers'understanding of 95 ships and networks within the context of organizations. At the volume of capital at the disposal of diversity man- agers 96 the micro level of relationality, researchers need to as well as strategies and discourses used by them in order 97 investigate diversity managers' beliefs, opinions, and to mobilize these capitals. Documentary, anec- dotal, and 98 awareness. At the meso level, there is a need to underother audio-visual data can be collected on everyday 99 stand how diversity managers are positioned in intra- and activities of diversity managers and their dis- cursive 100 extra-organizational networks. Such data also need to re?ections. 101 identify the structures, functions, and densities of these Our framework is important not only in studying 102 networks. At the macro level, the researchers need to diversity managers, but also in enriching our understand- ing 103 analyze demographic data on diversity managers since of the antecedents, correlations, and consequences of 104 distributive profiles of diversity managers are telling of diversity management and organizational change. We 105 explained that there is a need for empirical research to 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
explore the agency of diversity managers. This paper charts the types of data useful to revealing the dynamic, contextual, relational, and strategic aspects of diversity managers' change agency. Although it is possible to identify a range of data sources, there is not yet consen- sus in terms of particular methodological approaches for collecting these data. It would be a welcome develop-ment to have further research from across a wide range of disciplines and methodological perspectives. Interna- tional and comparative research can help reveal the situ- ated nature of agency by illustrating its variation across cultures and organizational settings. Research on diversity managers' agency is impor- tant in order to understand the role that diversity manag- ers play in the process of managing diversity and organizational change. Therefore, we argue that diversity management research should embed issues of agency as relevant to the processes and outcomes of diversity management. This will require future research to incorporate the interplay between diversity structures and diversity managers' agency in a situated context. The conceptual model provided here is explicated in the context of diver- sity managers. However, diversity managers are not the only organizational actors whose agency is shaped across these three dimensions. Therefore, the dimensions that we present here may have wider applicability for change agency in other functional areas.
References
Acker, J. (2000). Gendered contradictions in organizational equity projects. Organization, 7(4), 625-632. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20(4), 441-464. Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917-931. Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J., & Daus, C.S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 307-338. Barkema, H.G., Baum, J.A.C., & Mannix E.A. (2002). Management challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 916-930. Bass, B.M. (1995). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Becker, G.S. (1975). Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beckhard, R. (1969). Organizational development. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to re?exive sociology. Cambridge: Polity. Buchanan, D., & Boddy, D. (1992). The expertise of the change agent. London: Prentice Hall. Caldwell, R. (2003). Models of change agency: A fourfold classification. British Journal of Management , 14, 131142. Cassell, C., & Biswas, R. (2000) Managing Diversity in the new millennium. Personnel Review, 29, 268-273. Cavanaugh, J.M. (1997). (In)corporating the other? Managing the politics of workplace difference. In P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds), Managing the organizational melting pot (pp. 31-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cockburn, C. (1989). Equal opportunities: The short and long agenda. Industrial Relations Journal, 20(4), 213-25. Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women: Men's resistance to sex equality in organizations. London: Macmillan. Collinson, D.L., Knights, D., & Collinson, M. (1990). Managing to discriminate. London and New York: Routledge. Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283-296. Cordero, R., DiTomaso, N., & Farris, G.F. (1997). Gender and race/ethnic composition of technical work groups: relationship to creative productivity and morale. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13, 205-221. Cornelius, N. (Ed.) (2002). Building workplace equality . London: Thomson. Cox, T.H. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34-47. Crompton, R., & Mann, M. (1994). Gender and stratification. Oxford: Polity. DiTomaso, N., & Hooijberg, R. (1996). Diversity and the demands of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 163187. D'Netto, B., & Sohal, A.S. (1999) Human resources practices and workforce diversity: an empirical assessment. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 530-547. Dobbs, M.F. (1996). Managing diversity: lessons from the private sector. Public Personnel Management , 25(3), 351-367. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394. Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1993). The strategic management of corporate change. Human Relations, 46(8), 905-918. Dutton, J.E., & Ashford, S.J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 397-428. Elmes, M., & Connelley, D.L. (1997). Dreams of diversity and realities of intergroup relations in organizations. In P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M., Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the Organizational Melting Pot (pp. 148-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Everett, J. (2002). Organizational research and the praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 56-80. Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Seabury. Gilbert, J.A., & Ivancevich, J.M. (2000). Valuing diversity: A tale of two organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 93-105. Gunn, B., & Gullickson, R. (2003). Performativity. Strategic Finance, 85(6), 9-10. Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53(9), 1227-1248. Healy, G., & Oikelome, F. (2007). Equality and diversity actors: a challenge to traditional industrial relations? Equal Opportunities International, 26(1), 44-65. Huy, Q.N. (2001). Time, temporal capability and planned change. Academy of Management Review , 26(4), 601623. Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge. Jewson, N., & Mason, D. (1986). The theory and practice of equal opportunity policies: Liberal and radical approaches. Sociological Review, 34(2), 307-29. Jones, D. (2007). Change agents, double agents, secret agents: EEO in New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 26(5), 387-401. Jones, R.T., Jerich, B., Copeland, L., & Boyle, M. (1989). Four by four: How do you manage a diverse workforce. Training and Development Journal, 43(2), 13-21. Joplin, J.R.W., & Daus, C.S. (1997). Challenges of leading a diverse workforce. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 32-47. Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006) Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589-617. Kandola, R., & Fullerton, J. (1994) Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action. London: IPD. Kandola, R.S., Milner, D., Banerji, N.A., & Wood, R. (1991). Equal opportunities can damage your health. Oxford: Pearn, Kandola Downs. Kanter, R.M. (1999). Leading change. London: Simon and Schuster. Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60. Kirton, G., Greene, A.M., & Dean, D. (2007) British diversity professionals as change agents—radicals, tempered radicals or liberal reformers? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1979-94. Lawrence, E. (2000). Equal opportunities officers and managing equality changes. Personnel Review, 29(3), 381-401. Ledwith, S., & Colgan, F. (Eds.) (1996). Women and organizations: Challenging gender politics. London: Macmillan. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. Liff, S. (1996). Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics. Employee Relations, 19(1), 11-26.
Lorde, A. (2003). The transformation of silence into language and action. In R.J. Ely, E.G. Foldy, M.A. Scully, & the Centre for Gender in Organizations Simmons School of Management (Eds.), Reader in gender, work and organization (pp. 273-276). Oxford: Blackwell. Meyerson, D.E. (2001). Tempered radicals. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Meyerson, D.E., & Scully, M.A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585-600. Mighty, E.J. (1991). Valuing workforce diversity: A model of organizational change. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 64-71. Morrison, A.M. (1992). The new leader: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America . San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Muir, C. (1996). Workplace readiness for communicating diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 475-86. Munduate, L., & Gravenhorst, K.M.B. (2003). Power dynamics and organizational change: An introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(1), 1-13. Özbilgin, M.F., & Tatli, A. (2005). Understanding Bourdieu's contribution to management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 855-869. Özbilgin, M.F., & Tatli, A. (2008). Global Diversity Management: An Evidence-Based Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Parker, C. (1999). How to win hearts and minds: Corporate compliance policies for sexual harassment. Law and Policy, 21(1), 21-48. Prasad, P., & Mills, A.J. (1997). From showcase to shadow: Understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity. In P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot (pp. 327). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Somers, M.R. (1998). We're no angels: Realism, rational choice, and relationality in social science. American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), 722-784. Tatl?, A., Özbilgin, M., Worman, D., & Price, E. (2006) Survey report 2006: Diversity in business—How much progress have employers made? First findings. London: CIPD. Tichy, N.M. (1974). Agents of planned social change: Congruence of values, cognitions and actions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(2), 164-182. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & O'Reilly C.A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579. Wharton, A.S., & Baron, J.N. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. American Sociological Review, 52, 574-587. Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39, 40-49. Weick, K.E., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology , 50, 361-386.
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
doc_583282024.docx
Diversity management and diversity management is mostly used in the sense of "social diversity constructive use." Diversity management is not only tolerated the individual differences ( Engl. : diversity ) of the employees and staff, but also highlights this in terms of a positive appreciation particularly prominent and tries to utilize them for the company's success.
Case Study of Diversity Managers in Organizational Change
Abstract The paper presents a conceptual framework charting the agency of diversity managers in organizational change. Evaluating and critiquing the contemporary models of organizational change management, we identify three concepts, which are situatedness, relationality, and praxis, for understanding the diversity managers' agency in the organizational change process. Each orienting concept is explored in the context of current diversity management literature and their combined explanatory power is discussed. Keywords: diversity management, change agency, situated, relational, praxis Diversity management has emerged as a popular management philosophy of recognizing and valuing het- erogeneity with a view to improving organizational per- formance in the workplace (Cassell & Biswas, 2000; Kandola & Fullerton, 1994). Despite the increasing amount of management research on the issue, diversity
managers as agents of organizational change have remained a largely neglected topic of research. Due to their professed role in the design and implementation of diversity management policies and programs, diversity managers are the most visible actors in the process of managing diversity. In this paper, we seek to understand the agency of diversity managers in organizational change and, in other words, to provide insight to the question: "can diversity managers engender the organi- zational change which they envision?" We examine the role and impact of diversity managers as organizational change agents and individuals who assume the leading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
roles in coordinating organizational change interven- tions. We turn to the literature on change agents and diversity managers with a view to offering a three- dimensional analytical framework of situatedness, rela- tionality, and praxis, situating the agency of diversity managers within the relational scope of organizational change as triggered by either diversity management poli- cies, programs, or the diversity managers themselves. The diversity management process is often associated with organizational change in the academic litera- ture (Dobbs, 1996; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000; Liff, 1996; Mighty, 1991). However, in practice there is variation in terms of the extent to which organizational diversity approaches incorporate the promised forms of inclusiveness or indeed achieve the level of effectiveness that is sufficient to initiate organizational change (D'Netto & Sohal, 1999; Kalev, Kelly, & Dobbin, 2006). There can be a spectrum of roles afforded to diversity managers based on organizations' different approaches to equality and diversity, which can range from rejection of any concerns, to legal compliance, and to more sophisticated diversity management perspectives (Cox, 1991). Not sur- prisingly, the role of diversity manager as change agents may also vary from transactional to transformational, or it may be devolved to the level of line management, centralized in a unit, or assumed by a single person. We focus on the agency of diversity managers who assume the leading role in the strategy making, design, delivery, implementation, and monitoring of diversity initiatives, which affect organizational change. Our aim is not to "unpack" the interplay between various configu- rations of organizational approaches and personal inter- ventions in the process of diversity management, but rather to explore the scope and content of the diversity managers' agentic power, resources, and strategies which manifest in their organizational change efforts. In the field of diversity research there is sparse interest in the agency of diversity managers as the few available refer- ences on diversity managers are in the form of personal accounts (e.g., Cornelius, 2002; Jones, Jerich, Copeland, & Boyle, 1989). This situation holds true also for the equal opportunities field, which is a longer established area of research, and in which there has been little inter- est in investigation of equal opportunities officers and their role in transforming organizations. In the literature on equality and diversity, much attention has been devoted to distinguishing between equal opportunities and diversity management. Equal opportunities professionals are implicitly tasked with operational coordination of equality of opportunity drawing on moral and legal arguments while diversity managers are assigned strategic roles in improving organizational performance drawing on business case
arguments (Morrison, 1992). However, the boundaries between the roles of equality and diversity professionals may be more blurred in actual organizational settings than suggested in this literature. Therefore, it is useful to explore earlier works on equal opportunities officers' agency as the legacy of diversity management is built on these foundations. Kandola, Milner, Banerji, and Wood (1991) have noted that equal opportunities officers suffer greater levels of job related stress than their peers. In addition, there are other remarkable works in the field of equal opportunities that may provide important insights into the nature of equal opportunity officers' jobs (Cockburn, 1989, 1991; Jewson, & Mason, 1986). However, the focus of these studies is not necessarily on equality and diversity officers as change agents either. For instance, Jewson and Mason (1986) distinguished between liberal and radical approaches to change, where the scope of the former is limited to equality of opportunity while the latter aims for equality and fairness in outcomes. Further- ing this debate, Cockburn (1989, pp. 214-215) put forward the terms short agenda and long transforma- tional agenda. Short agenda of change focuses on mini- mizing the bias in human resource management (HRM) procedures and the long agenda targets the transforma- tion of employment relations to dissolve inequality in the workplace (p. 218). Cockburn (1991) illustrated that the job of equal opportunities officers is embedded in orga- nizational politics. Their role involves strategic manipu- lation of the organizational rules and power relations among organizational actors such as minority and major- ity group employees, unions, and middle and senior management. Focusing on equal opportunities officers in the UK, Lawrence's (2000) study revealed that senior management support and seniority of equality officers are decisive for their in?uence in engendering organizational change. Similarly, Parker (1999) studied equal opportunities officers in Australia's financial sector. The study uncovered the dual strategies used and dual identities held by equal opportunities officers to initiate organiza- tional change. Parker claimed that as double dealers, equal opportunities officers based their strategies on slipping between public values of equality and justice and private concerns of business and profits as well as between their own dual personal commitment to public ethical norms and private corporate duties. Similar research on diversity professionals is in its infancy. Healy and Oikelome (2007), having focused on health services in the UK, illustrated that diversity professionals both compete with and complement the work of trade union actors. On the other hand, Kirton, Greene, and Dean (2007) revealed that the radicalism of diversity
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
professionals is tempered between competing demands of organizational objectives and their commitment to equality. Finally, a recent study based on a national survey of diversity management in the UK identified that diversity managers' agency is constrained by the virtue of their organizational position, access to strategic resources, and organizational support for diversity (Tatl?, Özbilgin, Worman, & Price, 2006). However, due to their specific foci, these works provide only partial accounts of diversity managers' change agency.
A Critique of Change Agency Models The survey of the literature on change agency revealed an over-fragmented research area crowded with disconnected works, which suffer from a lack of theoreti- cal rigour and empirical grounding. As Huy (2001) noted, most of the works offer prescriptive models. It is possible to identify three problematic areas: (1) a rational, autonomous, and individualistic conceptualization of change agency, (2) an a-contextual and disembodied focus on change agents' competencies and traits, and (3) a lack of consideration for power dynamics in the change process. There are several competing models of change agency that treat the concept as an individualized phenomenon. Change is conceived as a linear and rational process, which takes place in relatively stable organizations, and change agents are conceptualized as unbiased consultants (Beckhard, 1969; Tichy, 1974). Such rationalized and individualized conceptions of the change process and change agency were later identified as main weaknesses of this literature (Caldwell, 2003). Another strand that presents this linear process of change focuses on the tempo of change (e.g., Weick & Quinn 1999). These works tend to analyze the strategies and activities of change agents as linear processes, which are coordi- nated by autonomous individuals, who act on their ratio- nal calculations, drawing on "perfect" information on resources. This approach is insufficient to capture the complexity of a change process characterized with layers of negotiated and politicized forms of access to resources. Our second concern is over the decontextualized and disembodied understanding of change agency. In this literature, change agents' attributes such as stamina, courage and vision, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, ?exibility, and risk taking are identified as markers of effective leadership (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). This approach was criticized due to its reliance on a single individual and its extraordinary qualities of a charismatic leader as the foci of the change process, as well as for
failing to recognize other contingencies that may impact organizational change (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). Caldwell (2003) asserted that the inclination to associate change agents with extraordinary qualities endures in different models of change agency alike. As a result, change agents are ontologically situated as disembodied and as a-con- textual individuals, whereby the level of exploration is reduced to that of individual psychology. This in turn leads to the omission of contextual analysis of change and an in?ation of prescriptions for competences and traits of change agents, including skills in specific areas such as forecasting, anticipating, counselling, consensus building, coaching, and facilitating (e.g., Bass, 1995; Weick & Quinn, 1999), or the in?ation of prescriptions for professional competences such as training in work process analysis, organizational development, or process consultancy (e.g., Huy, 2001; Tichy, 1974). In other times, personal traits such as desire to lead, honesty, integrity, problem solving, self-confidence, ?exibility, and risk taking (e.g., Kanter, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Munduate & Gravenhorst, 2003) as well as inter- personal skills such as team-building, negotiation, effec- tive communication, building trust, and being sympathetic (e.g., Buchanan & Boddy, 1992; Muir, 1996) are included in the ever growing list of competences. Lastly, studies that have sought to contextualize change agency have often overlooked the power dynam- ics involved in the change process. An example of this is Huy's (2001) change agency model, which furthered the debate on change agents by pointing out various competencies and styles of leadership required for intervening in different aspects of the organization. However, the model shares the change agency tradition's myopic tendency to focus on constructing ideal types and making lists of traits and competencies. Similarly, Muir's "system readiness approach" (1996, p. 478) situated the change process in extra- and intra-organizational contexts. The author also noted the importance of assessing the impact of different ranks of organization on the change process. However, change agents are again depicted as a-political individuals with some skill and ability requirements. Alternatively, Munduate and Gravenhorst (2003) drew a model for exploring the power bases of change agents and their impact on change targets' reactions to the change process. The model overemphasizes the interper- sonal relationship between the change agents and change targets, which renders it deficient in explaining the change at wider organizational structures, processes, and culture. Furthermore, it assumes that change leaders would act as rational decision makers while utilizing and deciding between different power bases. However, change agency involves what Buchanan and Boddy (1992, p. 27) called "backstage activities," since
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
negotiation with different interest groups in the organization is a crucial part of change agents' role. This inher- ently political dimension of change management is often ignored. Meyerson and Scully (1995) also noted the depoliticized nature of change and change agents in orga- nizational studies. In final analysis, owing to these implicit assumptions on change agents, which reduce them to a-political, disembodied, decontexualized, autonomous, and rational actors, the main thrust of the literature is on the key traits of change agents. Consequently, the political nature of the organizational change process is overlooked, and the role and capacity of change agents is over-simplified. However, there is a stream of scholars including Acker (2006), who deal with power with respect to manage- ment, trade unions, and individual organizational actors. The political nature of the change process and the con- tradictory status of change agents are acknowledged by critical approaches to organizational change (Acker, 2000; Lawrence, 2000; Meyerson, 2001). Agocs (1997) argued that organizational change is political since the exercise of power and control is central to the process. In contrast with mainstream literature, which focuses on skills and competencies, Agocs ( p. 925) explained that "it is not the knowledge or expertise in itself that is the source of power and a resource for organizational change: it is the knowledge upon which authorities have con- ferred legitimacy and assimilated into the organization's ideological framework." Similarly, Acker (2000) empha- sized that competencies and capacities of the change agent are only a few among many factors that affect the outcome of the change process. In addition to the politi- cal nature of organizational relations, change agents themselves are also political beings who strive to act according to their personal values (Jones, 2007). Meyerson (2001) introduced a new type of change agents—tempered radicals who are both insiders and outsiders to the organization due to the con?ict of their personal values with the dominant organizational culture (p. xi). Being an insider in the organization equips tempered radicals with information regarding the dynamics of the organizational system and the ability to act confidently within that familiar system (Meyerson & Scully, 1995, p. 596). Moreover, tempered radicals are aware of the importance of gaining allies among majority, which will provide them with legitimacy (Meyerson, 2001). This new understanding of change agency allows an explora- tion of power relations not only to situate the role of change agents, but also to examine their potential power sources. Similarly, Ledwith and Colgan (1996) explored strategies used by women to challenge the status-quo in their organization and argued that women as change agents need to be aware of organizational power rela-
tions. Both of these studies conceptualized change agency, not as it relates to diversity managers, but as a general quality, which is dispersed through different levels of organization. Having provided a brief review of the literature on conceptual frameworks of change agency, we turn ourattention to the role of diversity managers in the organizational change process. In the next section we propose a framework for understanding the phenomenon of change agency as related to diversity managers. Rather than offering another prescriptive model of change agency, we provide a comprehensive analytical frame- work, which can be employed in empirical research in order to explore and understand the change agency of diversity managers.
Diversity Managers in Organizational Change: A Proposed Framework Attending to the implicit assumptions of the change agency and diversity management literatures alike would lead us to a notion of diversity management as bound up with the convenience and timing of the strategies and actions of the diversity manager who is equipped with abstract competencies and traits and whose actions are assumed to be determined by the principle of rationality and free will. We argue that both organizational change and the role of change agents within it are much more complicated than are depicted in the literature. Accord- ingly, we propose an analytical framework that embeds the agency of diversity managers in the process of orga- nizational change. In this respect, we find Bourdieu's (1977, 1990, 1998) conceptual framework very appropri- ate for studying change agency in the field of diversity management. The potential contribution of Bourdieu's theory to management and organizational studies is also cited elsewhere (Everett, 2002; Özbilgin & Tatli, 2005). Bourdieu (1977, 1990, 1998) used three concepts, field, habitus, and capital in addition to other notions such as dispositions, praxis, doxa, and symbolic violence as the building blocks of his theory of human agency, which is generated through situated relationality between differ- ent levels of social reality. The Bourdieuan formulation of habitus, capital, and field offers a resourceful frame- work to explore the role of individual agency in the process of social and institutional change. Diversity managers' change agency can be studied along three dimensions: situatedness, relationality, and praxis. Situatedness relates to the contextual nature of agency and points to how the actions of diversity managers, and the choices and constraints that generate these actions, are embedded in an historical trajectory of social
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
and organizational contexts. Relationality refers to the interconnected character of the actions and decisions of diversity managers with their own selves, others, and structures. Whilst situatedness demarcates the context of human agency, relationality frames agency in a web of relations. Finally, praxis brings out the dynamic nature of the agency across dimensions of re?ection and action, revealing the interplay between different forms of capital, discourses, identities, and strategies. Our model is based on an understanding that any attempt at exploring diversity managers' agency requires a combined atten- tion to individual, structural, and relational dynamics. The dimensions of agency are symbiotically projected onto each other and each exists through its enactment in the other two dimensions. Situatedness Situatedness refers to framing of diversity managers as real individuals in their historical, economic, social, and organizational settings rather than free-?oating prac- titioners abstracted from their context. Diversity manag- ers' agency is situated within the context of the society and organization in which they operate. In order to operationalize the situatedness of the change agency of diversity managers, we borrowed one of Bourdieu's most important concepts—the field. The field denotes the universe of partly preconstituted objective historical relations between positions (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 16). Jenkins (1992, p. 85) interpreted the concept as:
a structured system of social positions. . . . It is also a system of forces, which exist between these positions; a field is structured internally in terms of power relations. Positions stand in relationship of domination, subordination and equivalence to each other by virtue of the access they afford to the goods and resources (capital).
By utilizing the notion of field we bring the social and organizational structures and power relations into the analysis of the agency of diversity managers. Recogni- tion of symbolic as well as objective power struggles in Bourdieu's formulation of the field sets it aside from the conception of the notion by Lewin (1951) and makes it more appropriate for our purposes. Social and organizational fields as the defining principles of the allocation of several power positions draw the boundaries of indi- vidual agency. Situating diversity managers' agency within the context of social and organizational fields improves our understanding of the choices and con- straints that frame the actions, decisions, and strategies of diversity managers. We explored diversity managers'
agency at two different levels of social and organiza- tional field. To start, any attempt to investigate the limit and potentials of diversity managers' agency requires the understanding of the logic of the social field in which their actions take place. In our framework, social field of diversity management refers to three historically formed structures at the social level: cultural and demographic dynamics in the labour market; institutional structures regarding diversity and equality (legislation and institu- tional actors); and the business environment. Firstly, the cultural and demographic dynamics in the labour marketframe the diversity concerns in a society (Cavanaugh, 1997). Depending on different historical trajectories of each society, some demographic groups are socially con- structed as the majority or mainstream while others are relegated as minorities or are marginalized. Hence, the definition of diversity that is focused throughout the diversity management process varies according to the cultural dynamics prevalent in the society and labour market (Prasad & Mills, 1997). In addition, labour market demographics affect diversity management practice. Composition of the labour market and supply and demand of labour are frequently cited as a proof of the pressing need for diversity management (Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000). Secondly, the institutional structures that reproduce or combat inequality in the area of employment affect the handling of workforce diversity at the organizational level. Diversity management research needs to situate organizational diversity management policies within the context of employment and antidiscrimination legisla- tion and institutional actors in the field of employment, such as trade unions, professional and legal bodies (Özbilgin & Tatli, 2008). Lastly, the social field of diversity management is affected by the dynamics of the business environment. It is frequently stated that in addition to changing labour market demographics, the globalization of business and changing patterns of work organization, production, and competition have led to the rising need for diversity management (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002). Furthermore, organizational diversity management practices are affected by the interest of different stakeholders, that is consumers, shareholders, employees, the state, trade unions, and diversity and equality institutions (Özbilgin & Tatli, 2008; Morrison, 1992). In addition to being embedded in the social field, diversity managers' agency is also situated within the organizational field. The role of diversity managers as change agents involves working through the structures and power relations in the organizational field. The main constituencies of the organizational field of diversity
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
management are organizational diversity policy and strategy, integration of diversity objectives across the organization, and organizational culture. Firstly, the limits and effectiveness of diversity managers' actions are in?uenced by the diversity policy and strategy of the organization. The scope of diversity policy; initiatives included in the policy; target and reach of the policy; and procedures and systems for communi- cating, implementing, and monitoring the policy, are the basic components of the diversity policy structure of the organization. Particularly, HRM systems and operations are stated among the most important areas of intervention throughout the diversity management process (Dobbs, 1996). Hence, the scope and coverage of organizational diversity policy and strategy will provide many hints regarding the choices of and constraints encountered by diversity managers. Secondly, the level of integration of diversity objectives throughout different functions and ranks of the organization plays a crucial role in determining the power dynamics in the organizational field of diversity management, which in turn draws the boundaries of the power and effectiveness of diversity managers' actions. The status of the diversity office and inclusion of diversity goals in corporate objectives are among the most visible illustrations of the level of integration (Joplin &Daus, 1997; Mighty, 1991; Morrison, 1992). Parker (1999, p. 39) argued that equality officers may gain the necessary "clout" to be effective in two ways—formally through holding a senior position and informally through having senior management support. The position of diversity managers within the organizational hierarchy and the level of authority allocated to them also illustrate the extent of centrality of diversity management in main- stream organizational policies and strategies (Lawrence, 2000). In addition to the individual position of the diversity or equality officer within the organizational hierarchy, the position and status of the diversity office within the organizational structure establishes a crucial source of legitimacy and power for the actions and decisions of diversity managers. Acker (2000) pointed out the dilemma faced by many equality and diversity officers due to their position in the organizational hierarchy. She noted that despite the fact that implementation of diversity and equality programs is associated with an organizational change process, the diversity and equality officers often lack the direct authority to control the different functions of the organization (p. 627). For that reason the level ofprestige and status attached to the diversity office within the organization becomes a crucial factor in the agency of diversity managers by either hindering the in?uence of their actions or encouraging it.
Furthermore, support for and ownership of diversity objectives by different organizational members provides important sources of legitimacy for the actions and decisions of diversity managers. Importance of senior management support for the success of diversity management is frequently cited in the literature (Mighty, 1991; Mor- rison, 1992). In addition, line managers' attitudes towards diversity and equality are as important as those of senior managers. In their research on recruitment and promo- tion in 45 private sector organizations from five different industries in the UK, Collinson, Knights, and Collinson (1990) found that personnel managers responsible for equal opportunities policies had little in?uence on recruit- ment and promotion decisions of line managers. Line managers frequently acted upon their personal ideologi- cal approaches although these might have contradicted the corporate equal opportunities policy. Lastly, analysis of organizational culture is crucial to understanding the role of diversity managers in organizational change. Organizational culture, through infor- mal and unwritten norms and values of the organization, governs the conduct of actions of and interaction between the organizational members. Interaction between differ- ent groups and individuals is one of the most heavily researched areas in the diversity literature and it is stated to be one of the most important areas of intervention throughout the diversity management process. For instance, Elmes and Connelley (1997) urged diversity managers to pay attention to intergroup relations if they are to enforce change in the organizational fabric. More- over, some types of organizations associated with spe- cific organizational cultures present a more nurturing and receptive ground for diversity management efforts, for example (the multicultural organization, Cox, 1991). Consequently, it is necessary to analyze organizational culture for two basic reasons. Firstly, organizational culture informs the choices, constraints, and resources available to diversity managers. Secondly, diversity managers must work through the organizational culture to initiate a sustainable and long term organizational change. They need to understand the dynamics govern- ing the organizational culture in order to enforce its change, as well as to anticipate sites of resistance and to plan strategies to manage it (Dobbs, 1996). Relationality Relationality is a concept borrowed from social psychology and structural sociology (Somers, 1998), which refers to interdependence, intersubjectivity, and interactivity of individual and organizational phenomena. Diversity managers' actions and decisions throughout the diversity management process gain meaning and become
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
effective through three layers of relationality. Diversity managers' agency is relational as it is constructed through the interplay of the self, others, and structures at multiple levels of social reality: micro-individual, meso-organiza- tional, and macro-structural levels. The meso level rela- tionality is imbued with greater density and number of complex relationships by virtue of its proximity to both micro and macro levels. Micro level relationality. Relationality at the micro level refers to the way diversity managers relate to their own values, beliefs, actions, and strategies. The importance of personal values and beliefs for understanding the actions of change agents is stated in the literature (DiTomaso & Hooijberg, 1996; Tichy, 1974). For instance, Meyerson and Scully (1995, pp. 596-7) pointed out that "some individuals choose to do 'diversity work' because of their commitment to social justice, their iden- tification with a marginalized group, and their insights into the dynamics of disadvantage and privilege". In the same way, DiTomaso and Hooijberg (1996, p. 170) argued that a "political commitment . . . to a better orga- nization, and hence to a better society" is one of the necessary skills for diversity professionals to be effective in their roles. Meso level relationality. Meso level relationality manifests itself in both intra and extra organizational relations. At this level, social capital (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) is an important relational resource since diversity managers work through organizational levels and networks as a part of their role as change agents (DiTomaso & Hooijberg, 1996). Diversity managers draw on their social capital for materializing their agentic power, which may be both enhanced and constrained by the volume of their social capital. The agency of diversity managers is enhanced through the support that they receive from their networks. However, social capital also involves a form of reciprocity that may constrain their plans for radical change. Social capital may be acquired through both external and internal sources. External sources of social capital are related to the involvement in civil society and politics through any membership or link to the groups, networks, or institutions outside the organization. In particular, diversity managers' involvement in diversity networks, institutions, and groups in?uences their agency in several ways. Firstly, it provides feelings of solidarity and support through sharing experiences with other individuals in the field. Braithwaite (1992, cited in Parker, 1999), in her study of Australian affirmative action officers, revealed the importance of networking for affirmative action offi- cers to maintain their progressive attitudes, to retain their commitment, and to get social validation of their views. Second, networking entails the possibility of learning
from the experiences of others, and accessing different equality and diversity perspectives, thereby help diver- sity managers to foresee the future challenges and opportunities, and to produce efficient strategies for managing diversity (Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Internal sources of social capital are relationships with organizational members from different groups and levels and inclusion in informal organizational net- works. This implicitly requires owning "interpersonal skills"—such as negotiation, facilitation, communica- tion, and networking, which comprise the most fre- quently cited category of competencies in the change agency literature The amount of social capital pos- sessed by diversity managers determines the boundaries of their roles as negotiators or facilitators both between different groups and between individuals and their emo- tions. As DiTomaso and Hooijberg (1996) have empha- sized, the job of managing diversity requires attention to the emotive content of the work, since the sphere of intervention is a sensitive one related to deeply seated values and norms of the ndividuals and may invoke negative as well as positive reactions. Thus, securing involvement and participation of organizational members and groups from different levels and functions is cited among the key pillars of successful diversity management (Dobbs, 1996; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000). Diversity managers' formal and informal net- works within the organization and their personal skills, such as negotiation, persuasion, and attracting voluntary involvement, become particularly important in the light of the budget constraints of the diversity management programs and initiatives. Macro level relationality. This refers to the relationality between the self and the circumstances. Diversity managers' change agency is framed by their demographic and cultural backgrounds (macro-structural circumstances). Bourdieu's (1977) concept of habitus has strong explanatory power for macro level relational- ity. In Bourdieu's framework, habitus functions as a bridge between structure and agency: "Social reality exists, so to speak, twice, in things and in minds, in fields and in habitus, outside and inside social agents" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 127). Habitus is formed through the past experiences of agents and feeds their present perceptions and actions (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 95). Bourdieu (1977, p. 72) defined habitus as: "the strategy generating principle enabling agents to cope with unforeseen and ever-changing situations." Within our framework, habitus is relevant as it relates the demographic and cultural background of diversity managers and their organiza- tional circumstances to their actions and decisions and hence to the strategies they use as change agents. The driving force behind the strategies is "the encounter of
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
habitus with the peculiar conjuncture of the field" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, p. 129). The relationality between the habitus of diversity managers and organizational field is of key import in understanding both their agency and success or failure of the change programs. Affiliation and experience with disadvantaged groups forms an important aspect of diversity managers' habitus, which are defined as the set of dispositions formed through their past experience and socialization. These experiences impact upon diversity managers' understanding and values of diversity, which may in turn form an agentic advantage or disadvantage. Lawrence (2000) has pointed to the necessity of knowledge and understanding of the perspectives of the discriminated groups in the society for the equality work in the organizations. So, their macro structural circum- stances provide the diversity managers with both oppor- tunities and constraints. Like diversity managers, other organizational actors also bring their habitus into the organizational settings, by re?ecting on their past experiences, cultural and demographic backgrounds, as well as drawing on their present situations and future aspirations. The level of concurrence or con?ict between the organizational field and different habitus brought in by different organiza- tional members in?uences the reproduction or trans- formation of the organizational field. The majority of diversity research focuses on intergroup relationships in organizations. Studies analyzing the impact of diversity on different groups of employees indicate that effects of and reactions to workforce diversity may vary for differ- ent groups (Cordero, DiTomaso, & Farris, 1997; Wharton, & Baron, 1987). The nature of the relationships between different groups in an organization can be situated in a spectrum ranging from con?ict and prejudice to under- standing and mutual respect (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992), and those dynamics of intergroup relations, to a certain extent, draw the boundaries of diversity manag- ers' agency and effectiveness in organizational change through building a matrix of choices and constraints. Hence at this level of relationality, diversity managers need to relate and utilize their own values and disposi- tions to strategically manage and transform the sensitive balance between the organizational field and habitus brought in by organizational actors. Praxis The last dimension of diversity managers' agency is praxis which brings out the dynamic characteristics of agency. Whilst the dimensions of situatedness and relationality provide the texture of the agency, praxis points to the dynamic component nature of this agency. As a
concept that has its philosophical roots in 19th century European thought, praxis can be defined as re?exive action and actionable knowledge. We borrowed this definition from Freire's (1968) text, Pedagogy of the oppressed. In the context of agency of diversity manag- ers, praxis is important as it combines both elements of re?ection and action. The two earlier dimensions of situ- atedness and relationality are underpinned by an idea that the diversity managers' role as change agent is shaped and constrained by their positioning in institutional and relational contexts. However, the notion of praxis is informed by an understanding that recognizes individual capacity to learn and exert in?uence through a virtuous cycle of re?ection and action. We reframe praxis to include Bourdeuian notions of doxa, and capitals and strategies in order to bring content to the reframing of re?ection and action, respectively, in understanding diversity managers' agency. Doxic re?ection. The notion of doxa refers to "the preconstructed representation of this world" and "the cognitive schemata that underlie the construction of this image" (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992, p. 247). Accordingly, the doxic experience is "uncontested acceptance of the daily lifeworld" (p. 73). Exclusion and inequality, which work against principles of successful diversity management, are reproduced in organizations through everyday acts and utterances of doxic experience. Doxic re?ection in this context refers to diversity managers' power to re?ect on the doxic experience as it pertains to diversity in the organization, revealing the uncontested illusions that legitimize hegemony and "inequality regimes" (Acker, 2006). In organizations, the hegemonic majority culture corresponds to the domain of orthodoxy (the right opinion), whereas deviances from that constitute the domain of heterodoxy. The extent to which diversity managers can widen the heterodoxy, which is welcoming of difference, reveals their agentic power. The awareness raising process, which is cited frequently as the learning based approach (Contu & Willmott, 2003; Dodgson, 1993) and constitutes an important part of most diversity managers' prescribed role (Cox, 1991; Elmes &Connel- ley, 1997), seeks to transform the doxic experience, enriching the doxic space. Contrary to common wisdom, doxic experience is sustained by both members of major- ity and minority groups and dominant and dominated individuals in organizations. Bourdieu (1984, p. 471) noted that dominated agents "tend to attribute to them- selves what the distribution attributes to them, refusing what they are refused ('That's not for the likes of us'), adjusting their expectations to their chances, defining themselves as the established order defines them." Thus, altering the doxic experience of inequality regimes
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
requires diversity managers to engage with a wide cross section of organizational members from both minority and majority groups. However, diversity managers' praxis is also situated along the spectrum that ranges from orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Gunn and Gullickson (2003) provided support for this argument and explained that managers' willing- ness to act on their knowledge and understanding is con- strained by their belief in how acceptable their approach would be in the context of the organizational setting and discourse. Lorde (2003, p. 274) asserted that danger and fear "of contempt, of censure, or some judgment or rec- ognition, of challenge, of annihilation," which are inher- ent in the process of transforming silence into speech, inhibit one's acts of self revelation. Therefore, praxis is highly variable due to the complexity of censure in doxa and because the praxis of diversity managers varies from inaction to radical pursuit of change. Therefore, we contend that praxis is a cycle of re?ection and action in which diversity managers re?ect on doxa in order to develop their strategies. Strategic action. Praxis, as a cycle of re?ection and action, requires diversity managers to strategically deploy the forms of capital that they possess in order to exert in?uence in their organizations. It is reasonable to expect that the boundaries of the diversity managers' praxis will be drawn by the amount of capital at their strategic dis- posal. We offer a broader conception of capital than do the human capital theories. The human capital approach is underpinned by an illusion of "free choice" and of an individual isolated from the socio-economic context, thus it offers an ideological justification of sustaining the status quo (Crompton & Mann, 1994). Contrary to human capital theories' focus on skills and qualifications in explaining workplace careers (see Becker, 1975), Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1990, 1998) has offered a relational theory of capitals. In addition to eco- nomic capital, Bourdieu has proposed three other forms of capital. Symbolic capital refers to attributes such as prestige, status, and authority; cultural capital refers to factors such as taste, education, and forms of language; and social capital refers to more or less institutionalized networks of relationships based on recognition (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990). For diversity managers, these forms of capital translate to a budget for diversity management (economic capital), membership to external and internal networks (social capital), relevant demography, educa- tion, training, and experience (cultural capital), and the status and situated abilities to make use of these different forms of capital (symbolic capital). Possession of all of these forms of capital and their strategic deployment frame diversity managers' agency. Diversity managers utilize strategies to transform, allocate, and distribute
their volume of capital between different forms, and in doing so they reproduce or transform the boundaries of their agency. The volume of different forms of capital owned by diversity managers has a crucial effect on the potential power bases available to them and by employ- ing strategies, they activate that potential. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992, p. 101) argued that different forms of capital do not exist and function only in relation to a field and doxa. Rather, they become effi- cient "like the aces in a game of cards" only if actors know the "rules of the game" and adhere to these rules. In order to reach their goals within the scope of diversity management policies and programs, diversity managers must tune their performance according to the rules of the organizational field and doxa. They learn the rules gov- erning the organizational field and doxa by gaining an understanding of the organization through their experi- ence, and by being part of formal and informal organi- zational networks, thus having access to insiders' knowledge. This learning, on the one hand, empowers diversity managers by establishing them as legitimate players in the game. On the other hand, it dictates to them the acceptable limits of their intervention throughout the diversity management process. Hence, organizational praxis of diversity managers is linked to the dual char- acter of that learning and acceptance of the formal and informal rules of the organization, which simultaneously enable and constrain their agency. As Hardy, Palmer, and Phillips (2000) have suggested, it should be diversity managers' strategy to learn, disseminate, implement, and enact discourses of diversity. One pertinent example of strategy is the use of the discourse of business case, which is the espoused causal relationship between effective management of diversity and improved business performance (c.f., Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002). Another example is the discourse of inclusion. As Dutton and Ashford (1993) have pointed out, in order to be effective, change agents need to package the change message in insiders' language. These discourses need to become part of the diversity managers' re?exive practice of strategy. Lawrence (2000) found that con?ict strategies are identified as ineffective by equal opportunities officers. Following the strategy of negotiation rather than opposition, diversity managers also use the discourse of inclusion to gain allies at dif- ferent levels of the organization. Once equipped with these discourses and their legitimized ways of knowing, diversity managers may set out to enact these discourses in their organizations by producing policy statements, affecting managerial decision processes, and enacting diversity strategies in their practice of work. Therefore, diversity management is enacted through the efforts of diversity managers not only through implementation
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
of policy across the organization but also as individual enactments of daily praxis that will generate small wins (Weick, 1984).
Discussion Summary Diversity managers are expected to serve as internal agents of organizational change. However, cultural change that is foreseen by the diversity management process cannot be achieved in the absence of structural mechanisms of support and multiparty engagement with the intra- and extra-organizational actors. Furthermore, actions and strategies of diversity managers are framed by situational and relational factors. Returning to our orienting question "can diversity managers engender the organizational change which they envision?" we contend that diversity managers' agency can only be judged through their situatedness, relationality, and praxis. Our conceptual framework presents a number of challenges to the mainstream change agency literature, which con- ceives change agents as autonomous, de-contextualized, and apolitical beings. The framework seeks to situate both the role of diversity managers as change agents and the diversity management as a change process in social and organizational context. Firstly, situatedness in the context of diversity managers' change agency denotes the web of organizational and social structures and power relations that mould that agency in the social and organizational fields. The social field of diversity management refers to labour market dynamics; nation-wide institutional structures of diver- sity, and the business environment. The organizational field includes organizational culture, organizational diversity management structures, and organizational support for diversity. Our formulation of situatedness isin essence a critique of the blueprint approaches to change agency in the current literature. Our framework calls for an approach to managing change that is tailored to address social and organizational circumstances. In doing so, change is envisioned as an embedded process and diversity managers are envisioned as resourceful, creative, and strategic, while at the same time constrained agents of change. Secondly, relationality refers to interdependence, intersubjectivity, and interactivity between diversity managers and organizational and social contexts, that is, relationalities at micro, meso, and macro levels. Diver- sity managers' agency in this dimension presents an understanding of individuals and organizations, not as autonomous rational entities but as relational beings
intertwined in a constant process of emergence and becoming. Thus, relationality de-emphasizes the role of the individual as framed in agentic approaches to change, yet it reorients us to focus on the individual capacity to strategically use material and symbolic resources in a change process. While situatedness and relationality position diversity managers' agency in institutional and relational contexts, our third dimension, praxis, resides at a more dynamic level—at the intersection of re?ection and action, and knowledge and practice. Through the lens of praxis, diversity managers' agency is viewed as embody- ing a symbiotic relationship between the symbolic power of knowing (awareness of diversity discourses through doxic re?ection) and doing (practice of diversity man- agement through strategic action) in organizational settings. The concept of praxis allows us to conceive diversity managers' agency as a nonlinear and negotiated phenomenon, which embeds daily activities of diversity management in organizational politics, resistance, and power relationships. This takes place in the iterative process at individual and institutional levels where the logic of practice and the logic of discourse are intertwined.
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Contributions to Scholarship 79 80 This three-pronged framework advances the under81 standing of diversity managers' role in the organizational 82 change process by transcending earlier formulations that 83 attribute this change to either the person of the diversity 84 manager or to the structural circumstances that permit such 85 change. Our review suggests that there is scope for the 86 person of the diversity manager to initiate and support 87 organizational change. The nature and scope of diversity 88 managers' agency in the change process are demarcated by 89 the situatedness, relationality, and praxis of their agency. 90 Thus, the novelty of the conceptual framework that we 91 provide here is not in its individual components of 92 situatedness, relationality, or praxis, but rather in the 93 combined explanatory power of these concepts in reveal- ing 94 the agency of diversity managers in organizational change 95 processes. 96 97 98 Applied Implications 99 Resource and constraints of change agency. Diver100 sity managers have a set of resources and constraints, 101 which draw the boundaries of their agentic power to initi- ate 102 organizational change. Table 1 outlines the resource and 103 constraint implications of situatedness, relationality, and 104 praxis for diversity managers' change agency. 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
54 55 56 Dimensions Resources Constraints 57 58 Social field Situatedness 59 Progressive laws Conservative laws 60 Supportive political environment Unsupportive political environment 61 Economic growth Economic decline 62 Culture of equality and inclusion Culture of discrimination and backlash 63 Organizational field 64 Cultures of inclusion Regimes of inequality Supportive structures of management Absence of structures for management 65 Management support Management disengagement 66 Integration of diversity management Marginalization of diversity management 67 Financial and nonfinancial resources Lack of resources 68 Micro level relationality 69 Relationality Understanding of diversity issues Lack of awareness of diversity issues 70 Meso level relationality 71 Membership to networks Absence of networks 72 Macro level relationality 73 Understanding of the diversity context Lack of awareness of diversity context 74 Doxic re?ection Praxis 75 A wide heterodox space A narrow heterodox space 76 Strategic action 77 Lack of necessary capitals Access to different forms of capital 78 Lack of ability to use strategic discourses Ability to use strategic discourses 79 80 81 82 Diversity managers' agency is situated in social and Diversity managers' ability to develop strategic 83 84 cultural fields. The social field of situatedness is faciliplans and negotiate these within the organization requires 85 tated by progressive legislation and political environthem to have a deep understanding of diversity issues. 86 ment, which is supportive of the agentic ambitions of Therefore, awareness itself serves as an agentic resource to 87 diversity managers to change their organizations. Conlegitimize diversity managers' position. In addition, versely, backlash in the form of conservative laws and diversity managers need to understand the wider diver- sity 88 89 political environment may constrain diversity managers' context in terms of structural inequalities and dis90 agentic power. Similarly, the economy can serve both as a crimination as well as other drivers for diversity action. 91 resource and a constraint for diversity managers' change However, diversity managers' awareness is a necessary but agency. Periods of economic growth and urban insufficient condition for their effectiveness. They draw on 92 93 regeneration often foster conditions in which diversity networks of colleagues both inside and outside their 94 becomes a necessary ingredient, whereas economic organizations, which both facilitate and support their decline may hamper feelings of inclusion and integration in change agency. However, lack of such networks and their 95 96 societies as the collective resources become less and reciprocal obligations constrain their agency by competition for them increases. Wider social patterns are undermining their professional identity and development. 97 98 also manifest at the organizational level as managerial Diversity managers operate in highly political and 99 support for or disengagement from equality and diversity emotive settings. This requires them to navigate between issues. Inclusive organizational cultures provide diver- sity established organizational orders and possibilities of their 100 101 managers with necessary resources, whilst organiza- tional transformation. Availability of a welcoming orga102 regimes of inequality starve diversity managers of strategic nizational doxa, which allows for a wide space for het103 resources and place barriers on their capacity to take action. erodoxy, will offer diversity managers the strategic 104 Furthermore, integration of diversity objec- tives in the spacetor manoeuvre. In contrast, organizations that have 105 organizational field is an important resource for diversity established rules and structures that contravene diversity 106 managers' agency.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
principles may constrain the agency of diversity manag- ers to ineffectuality. In order to negotiate a wider range of heterodoxy, diversity managers need to strategically deploy different forms of capital. Therefore social, economic, symbolic, and cultural capitals serve as indispensable resources of diversity managers' change agency. Last but not least, are the strategic capabilities of diver- sity managers to use such resources as required by the circumstances, drawing on a range of discourses. Diversity policy. Diversity policies tend to ignore the agency of diversity managers, since diversity policies both at the national and organizational levels are under- pinned by an assumption that the ability of diversity management initiatives to affect organizational change is independent of the power and resources available to the diversity manager. We argue that these assumptions are unfounded; thereby our model generates a set of policy implications at both national and organizational levels. At a national level, there is a need to empower diversity managers as a professional group. Training and develop- ment of diversity managers is important for them to gain power and legitimacy. Such training and development activities may be offered through government agencies, universities, and professional bodies. Policy support for developmental activities could ensure their sustainabil- ity. Membership to diversity and equality networks is also important for effectiveness and legitimacy of diver- sity managers. Therefore, national and organizational policy should support setting up and sustaining such networks. At the organizational level, diversity policies should be mainstreamed and positioned at the strategic heart of organizational policies and objectives. This should be supplemented with adequate resourcing and empowerment of diversity managers and diversity offices. Specifically, diversity managers and the diversity office need to be provided with the in?uence and power to monitor the different functions in the organization in terms of diversity. This also means that diversity management should not be marginalized to human resource management activities but should be tasked with a more comprehensive scope of activities covering all functional areas. Limitations and Future Research Directions In this paper, we proposed a framework for understanding diversity managers' agency. This allowed us to examine diversity management and the implications of change agency and status quo. We hope that our conceptual framework will allow for future research to really explore and in some cases expose diversity management. Within that context, the main limitation of the our conceptual framework is the challenge of applying complex
conceptual models in studying real life situations. This is particularly true for researchers drawing on Bourdieu in order to frame their studies. This is because the link- ages between conceptual ideas and the sources of data required to investigate them remain largely implicit. In order to overcome this limitation, we operationalized our model through a resource map, which makes explicit the types of data that may be collected and analyzed in the context of a research project (see Table 2). The concept of situatedness covers a wide terrain involving social and organizational contexts. Therefore, investigating the study of situatedness of diversity managers' agency requires collection of rich contextual data. The logic of the social field manifests itself in a wide range of grey literature and in the form of laws, regula- tions, policies, and demographic and economic statistics. Studying legislation is important as the law equips diver- sity managers with legitimacy for their agentic demands. However, legislative research should not be simply limited to the national level as regional and international alliances have growing regulatory impact on national equality and diversity practices. Furthermore, there is diffusion of best practice in law. Therefore investigating law at a national and international level provides both an appreciation of current drivers for diversity as well as predictions for future change. In addition to legislative framework, there are institutional actors in the diversity field, including trade unions, employers' associations, professional equality, and diversity bodies, which in?uence the agency of diversity managers. Therefore, reports, regulations, best practice examples, textual, observational, and audio-visual data from national actors could be useful sources to explore the context of diversity managers' agency. There is wealth of statistical data that illustrates the social diversity at the national level. It is also possible for diversity managers to use statistical and economic data to illustrate the benefits of diversity to the bottom line and to negotiate their demands for action and organizational change. Finally, the power and in?uence bestowed upon diversity has different historical and political legacies in different cultures. In order to recognize the situated nature of diversity managers' agency, wide range of data sources can be collated on political history of diversity. These can be in the form of anec- dotes, historical texts and archival materials. In order to situate the diversity managers' agency in the organizational field, researchers need to collect and analyze data on organizational culture, diversity structures, and employees. There are established inventories and typologies of diversity cultures and climates. These could be employed to generate field study data. Research- ers can collect data on organizational cultures with a view to disaggregate pertinent issues on diversity and
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
54 55 56 Dimensions Data sources 57 58 Social field Situatedness 59 National and international legislation on diversity 60 Documents of national polity on and political history of diversity 61 Demographic and economic statistics and case data on social diversity 62 Organizational field 63 Diversity culture and climate inventory data 64 Documents and data on diversity policy, strategy, and initiatives Internal labour statistics and reports on diversity 65 Employee and stakeholder surveys in relation to diversity 66 Performance data from the diversity office 67 68 Micro level relationality Relationality 69 Data on diversity managers's beliefs, opinions, and awareness Meso level relationality 70 Data on diversity network membership 71 Data on structures, functions, and densities of diverity networks 72 Macro level relationality 73 Demographic data on diversity managers 74 Doxic re?ection Praxis 75 Survey data on organizational beliefs, values, and opinions 76 Data on intergroup relations and diversity 77 Strategic action 78 Data on diversity managers' capitals and strategies and diversity discourse 79 80 81 82 83 intergroup relations. The organizational field offers their position in their organizations and within broader 84 researchers rich data on diversity policy, strategy, and society. 85 initiatives. These sources re?ect the position of diversity Praxis of diversity managers' agency has two dimen86 managers and the diversity office. Furthermore, research- ers sions: re?ection and action. Both of these dimensions 87 can collect financial and nonfinancial performance data require data on dynamic processes. Data on organiza88 from the diversity office in order to reveal the effec- tiveness tional beliefs, values, and opinions should be collected to 89 of diversity managers. Internal workforce statis- tics and understand the process of doxic re?ection. Such data should 90 employee and stakeholder surveys in relation to diversity incorporate a sense of history and change rather than 91 may provide useful sources of data for research- ers to providing static pictures of such beliefs, values, or 92 understand the challenges facing diversity managers. opinions and could be strengthened with data on inter93 Relational aspects of the diversity manager's agency group relations. The second component of praxis is stra94 requires data that reveal the complex tapestry of relationtegicaction,whichnecessitatesresearchers'understanding of 95 ships and networks within the context of organizations. At the volume of capital at the disposal of diversity man- agers 96 the micro level of relationality, researchers need to as well as strategies and discourses used by them in order 97 investigate diversity managers' beliefs, opinions, and to mobilize these capitals. Documentary, anec- dotal, and 98 awareness. At the meso level, there is a need to underother audio-visual data can be collected on everyday 99 stand how diversity managers are positioned in intra- and activities of diversity managers and their dis- cursive 100 extra-organizational networks. Such data also need to re?ections. 101 identify the structures, functions, and densities of these Our framework is important not only in studying 102 networks. At the macro level, the researchers need to diversity managers, but also in enriching our understand- ing 103 analyze demographic data on diversity managers since of the antecedents, correlations, and consequences of 104 distributive profiles of diversity managers are telling of diversity management and organizational change. We 105 explained that there is a need for empirical research to 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
explore the agency of diversity managers. This paper charts the types of data useful to revealing the dynamic, contextual, relational, and strategic aspects of diversity managers' change agency. Although it is possible to identify a range of data sources, there is not yet consen- sus in terms of particular methodological approaches for collecting these data. It would be a welcome develop-ment to have further research from across a wide range of disciplines and methodological perspectives. Interna- tional and comparative research can help reveal the situ- ated nature of agency by illustrating its variation across cultures and organizational settings. Research on diversity managers' agency is impor- tant in order to understand the role that diversity manag- ers play in the process of managing diversity and organizational change. Therefore, we argue that diversity management research should embed issues of agency as relevant to the processes and outcomes of diversity management. This will require future research to incorporate the interplay between diversity structures and diversity managers' agency in a situated context. The conceptual model provided here is explicated in the context of diver- sity managers. However, diversity managers are not the only organizational actors whose agency is shaped across these three dimensions. Therefore, the dimensions that we present here may have wider applicability for change agency in other functional areas.
References
Acker, J. (2000). Gendered contradictions in organizational equity projects. Organization, 7(4), 625-632. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20(4), 441-464. Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917-931. Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J., & Daus, C.S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 307-338. Barkema, H.G., Baum, J.A.C., & Mannix E.A. (2002). Management challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 916-930. Bass, B.M. (1995). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Becker, G.S. (1975). Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beckhard, R. (1969). Organizational development. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to re?exive sociology. Cambridge: Polity. Buchanan, D., & Boddy, D. (1992). The expertise of the change agent. London: Prentice Hall. Caldwell, R. (2003). Models of change agency: A fourfold classification. British Journal of Management , 14, 131142. Cassell, C., & Biswas, R. (2000) Managing Diversity in the new millennium. Personnel Review, 29, 268-273. Cavanaugh, J.M. (1997). (In)corporating the other? Managing the politics of workplace difference. In P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds), Managing the organizational melting pot (pp. 31-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cockburn, C. (1989). Equal opportunities: The short and long agenda. Industrial Relations Journal, 20(4), 213-25. Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women: Men's resistance to sex equality in organizations. London: Macmillan. Collinson, D.L., Knights, D., & Collinson, M. (1990). Managing to discriminate. London and New York: Routledge. Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283-296. Cordero, R., DiTomaso, N., & Farris, G.F. (1997). Gender and race/ethnic composition of technical work groups: relationship to creative productivity and morale. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13, 205-221. Cornelius, N. (Ed.) (2002). Building workplace equality . London: Thomson. Cox, T.H. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34-47. Crompton, R., & Mann, M. (1994). Gender and stratification. Oxford: Polity. DiTomaso, N., & Hooijberg, R. (1996). Diversity and the demands of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 163187. D'Netto, B., & Sohal, A.S. (1999) Human resources practices and workforce diversity: an empirical assessment. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 530-547. Dobbs, M.F. (1996). Managing diversity: lessons from the private sector. Public Personnel Management , 25(3), 351-367. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394. Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1993). The strategic management of corporate change. Human Relations, 46(8), 905-918. Dutton, J.E., & Ashford, S.J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 397-428. Elmes, M., & Connelley, D.L. (1997). Dreams of diversity and realities of intergroup relations in organizations. In P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M., Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the Organizational Melting Pot (pp. 148-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Everett, J. (2002). Organizational research and the praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 56-80. Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Seabury. Gilbert, J.A., & Ivancevich, J.M. (2000). Valuing diversity: A tale of two organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 93-105. Gunn, B., & Gullickson, R. (2003). Performativity. Strategic Finance, 85(6), 9-10. Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53(9), 1227-1248. Healy, G., & Oikelome, F. (2007). Equality and diversity actors: a challenge to traditional industrial relations? Equal Opportunities International, 26(1), 44-65. Huy, Q.N. (2001). Time, temporal capability and planned change. Academy of Management Review , 26(4), 601623. Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge. Jewson, N., & Mason, D. (1986). The theory and practice of equal opportunity policies: Liberal and radical approaches. Sociological Review, 34(2), 307-29. Jones, D. (2007). Change agents, double agents, secret agents: EEO in New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 26(5), 387-401. Jones, R.T., Jerich, B., Copeland, L., & Boyle, M. (1989). Four by four: How do you manage a diverse workforce. Training and Development Journal, 43(2), 13-21. Joplin, J.R.W., & Daus, C.S. (1997). Challenges of leading a diverse workforce. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 32-47. Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006) Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589-617. Kandola, R., & Fullerton, J. (1994) Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action. London: IPD. Kandola, R.S., Milner, D., Banerji, N.A., & Wood, R. (1991). Equal opportunities can damage your health. Oxford: Pearn, Kandola Downs. Kanter, R.M. (1999). Leading change. London: Simon and Schuster. Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60. Kirton, G., Greene, A.M., & Dean, D. (2007) British diversity professionals as change agents—radicals, tempered radicals or liberal reformers? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1979-94. Lawrence, E. (2000). Equal opportunities officers and managing equality changes. Personnel Review, 29(3), 381-401. Ledwith, S., & Colgan, F. (Eds.) (1996). Women and organizations: Challenging gender politics. London: Macmillan. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. Liff, S. (1996). Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics. Employee Relations, 19(1), 11-26.
Lorde, A. (2003). The transformation of silence into language and action. In R.J. Ely, E.G. Foldy, M.A. Scully, & the Centre for Gender in Organizations Simmons School of Management (Eds.), Reader in gender, work and organization (pp. 273-276). Oxford: Blackwell. Meyerson, D.E. (2001). Tempered radicals. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Meyerson, D.E., & Scully, M.A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585-600. Mighty, E.J. (1991). Valuing workforce diversity: A model of organizational change. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 64-71. Morrison, A.M. (1992). The new leader: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America . San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Muir, C. (1996). Workplace readiness for communicating diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 475-86. Munduate, L., & Gravenhorst, K.M.B. (2003). Power dynamics and organizational change: An introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(1), 1-13. Özbilgin, M.F., & Tatli, A. (2005). Understanding Bourdieu's contribution to management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 855-869. Özbilgin, M.F., & Tatli, A. (2008). Global Diversity Management: An Evidence-Based Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Parker, C. (1999). How to win hearts and minds: Corporate compliance policies for sexual harassment. Law and Policy, 21(1), 21-48. Prasad, P., & Mills, A.J. (1997). From showcase to shadow: Understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity. In P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot (pp. 327). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Somers, M.R. (1998). We're no angels: Realism, rational choice, and relationality in social science. American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), 722-784. Tatl?, A., Özbilgin, M., Worman, D., & Price, E. (2006) Survey report 2006: Diversity in business—How much progress have employers made? First findings. London: CIPD. Tichy, N.M. (1974). Agents of planned social change: Congruence of values, cognitions and actions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(2), 164-182. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & O'Reilly C.A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579. Wharton, A.S., & Baron, J.N. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. American Sociological Review, 52, 574-587. Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39, 40-49. Weick, K.E., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology , 50, 361-386.
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
doc_583282024.docx