- I found the study conducted in the article “Why Diversity Matters” to be particularly intriguing for me. I Immediately noticed their sample size of 366 companies across four different regions and various industries. A sample of this sort should be sufficient to provide accurate data of which logical inferences can be made. I also noticed that they compared the financial metrics with the respective industries of each company. Therefore, it was very eye-opening for me to see such a drastic increase in financial performance which I assume to be due to increased ethnic and gender diversity.
The goal of a company is to make money. With that said, I believe that regardless of gender or race, the greatest candidates should be chosen for positions in those companies. If we judge people on their appearances or beliefs rather than their skills and abilities, we are doomed to miss out on the positive impact they would have contributed.
I would be interested to explore further which industries were most positively affected by the increased diversity. I would also be curious to see where the companies were located and what the census was in the areas around the companies studied. It may be possible that rather than particular companies shunning increased diversity, they simply did not have many different candidates to choose from.
- In the very first paragraph of the article “What is organizational culture and why we should care?” the author states “There is little consensus on what organizational culture actually is”. He then continues to state that this is problematic, because if you cannot truly define an issue there is no clear path to solving it. I thought that was a very gripping claim in this article.
I found many of the definitions of these individuals to have some truth. For example, one individual stated that culture is in large part a product of compensation. I do agree that compensation has a strong affect on the overall culture of a workplace. Though I think that appreciation, and a feeling of importance may have just as strong of an affect. I believe that if employees do not feel fulfilled with their responsibilities in the organization, they will always leave with a pit in their stomach while feeling like something is missing. I understand this on a personal level as when I have a productive day at work and my mentors and managers recognize me, I leave work with a smile on my face and carry positive energy throughout the day.
I also agree with another definition in this article. It that states that it is an oversimplification to assume that there is only one culture in a given organization. I found this to be true as well as I have recognized many different departments at my place of work of which employee satisfaction is positive or negative to various degrees
If I had to give a definition myself of what organizational culture is, I would define it as the aggregate feeling and repeated behavior of individuals in a workplace. I would continue to clarify that there may be many facets of culture in an organization and that it is affected by many factors including the decisions and behavior of those in leadership roles.
Dan, you make some really good points that I do agree with: mainly that the sample size is pretty small and that the purpose of a company is to make money and should hire an applicant who is the most qualified and not just because their gender or race, etc. However, I think (as the last couple of years have taught us) that more than one thing can be true at the same time- meaning that companies can hire a more balanced workforce and also have them be extremely qualified to do the job at a high level. If the population is not represented in the companies that are out there it sends a message of intimidation and makes people dejected that they can’t ever be a part of it. I’m definitely not trying to attack your post as I think you make a lot of sense!
Hi Dan, thank you for your post. At the risk of opening a controversial gate right at the start, I must say I was struck by something in your second paragraph. While I don’t disagree with your belief that the greatest candidates should be chosen for positions based on their skills and abilities and not on any discriminating biases; and I also agree that we would be doomed to miss out on the positive impact diverse work environments contribute to any company, but this brings up a different debate for me. I wonder about how we implement diversity into the structure of an organization. One thing that comes to mind is Affirmative Action. Many people argue that it hurts more than helps, as organizations will do the opposite of what you’re describing here, and seemingly give a minority a position they are not suited for, and unable to succeed at, in order to fulfill a diversity quota or statistic. Trying to diversify their environment, so to speak, they hurt the growth of the company and the person they are hiring in their quest for diversity. I’ve seen this take place personally, it’s a terrible thing to witness. There are many factors this brings up for me, and I tend to want to look at the bigger picture and wonder why more minorities than majorities are less able to do certain jobs well. This is not at all a judgment; this is a statement based on certain privileges, such as access to better education and lucrative resources at an early age, or throughout life, that majorities (usually white people) have that minorities don’t often have. So, it’s very simple to say we want diverse environments, “let’s strive for that”, “we would be missing out if we didn’t do that”, “look at how good our numbers are!” But what are the ways in which we diversify that are also both fulfilling and generative? To me, I can look at these numbers in this article and they don’t mean much until I can understand the pulse of that diversity; I wonder about the quality of life the lower percentages (the minorities) have while representing the diversification of an organization.
Bear in mind that affirmative action as it is typically portrayed (as racial quotas that allow hiring less qualified people over more qualified ones simply because they hail from marginalized groups) is, in fact, unconstitutional. Using race (or gender or some other identity characteristic) as *a* (but not the only factor) in decision-making is allowed in some states, but assumes that candidates are otherwise equally suitable. There have been a lot of misconceptions around affirmative action, and a lot of ink spent on clearing those up.
I agree that the candidates chosen should be qualified for the job. However, I think that I had a different way of thinking than you did when you read the article. When I read, I immediately thought that the author was thinking that applicants were equally qualified. So, I think that if all of the candidates applying for a job were equally qualified, it would be in the company’s best interest to pick a diverse group of people to work for them. I also think that it would be a great idea to find out which industries were positively affected by increased diversity!
You raise an interesting point about hiring the greatest candidates regardless of race, gender, etc. This is certainly something that’s come up at work while HR is implementing new hiring guidelines in an attempt to improve overall diversity. The problem is, what defines a great candidate?
One of the suggestions that has been made is for HR to strip the candidates’ names and addresses from the resumes sent to hiring managers. The argument is that by doing so, the experience and education listed on the resume should be enough to make a determination as to whether it is worth bringing a candidate in for an interview.
One of the problems that’s been pointed out with this approach is that it would still be possible for the hiring managers to draw certain conclusions based on what’s on the resume. For example, the manager could make assumptions based on where the candidate went to school, and where they worked. Now, these assumptions could be completely false, but they’re being made all the same.
I would argue that resumes are only a small piece of the puzzle in determining what makes a candidate great. In my opinion, it is their values and their ability to think critically which will be determine whether they are good fit.
The strategy which our HR is taking right now is to work on changing and improving the perspectives of those making the hiring decisions by raising their overall diversity awareness. It’s going to take a long time.
Right–organizations move slowly. We know that. Change takes a long time because it’s complicated (not only to decide what to do and then actually do it, but to convince folks that it’s the right thing to do, so that they’re on board with it….)
And amid all these conversations, it’s hugely important to remember that race and gender aren’t the only types of diversity that matter. Consider the differences in perspective and life experiences that come with other features like language ability, religion, geography, disability, sexuality, social class. Those are characteristics that may not reflect on a resume or in a name. They might not even reflect in an interview. But they will ensure a broader range of perspectives that will ultimately enrich an organization’s culture and their work.