When it comes to the topic of diversity, most of us will readily agree that it is an important and healthy part society and culture. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of organizational culture. Whereas some are convinced that a Value-in-Homogeneity policy is best for an organization and its culture, others maintain that a Multiculturalism or Value-in-Individual Differences policy is better for minority employees, the organization and its culture.
I used a sentence outline designed to open a debate to describe Gundemir et al’s research. It worked for my sentence because, as a minority, I am biased towards multiculturalism-focused organizations, which the sentence demonstrates. It also worked because the results of Gundemir et al’s research did support the hypothesis that “minorities [would] report more positive leadership self-perceptions and leadership-related goals” in a company focused on multiculturalism rather than homogeneity, so it’s likely that many believe Multiculturalism or Value-in-Individual Differences is better for an organization’s minority employees.
I found that the messages behind the Gundemir et al article and the article from last week about organizational diversity were similar in that both articles were ultimately promoting the acceptance of diversity in the workplace. As a minority, reading both of these articles was refreshing since I had never really thought about diversity in a business setting and it felt like the authors of both articles had a mindset similar to mine. In my limited experience working at FedEx and Costco, I hadn’t heard anything about company diversity policies, but there were policies about harassment and respecting other people and their cultures. I hadn’t noticed in the moment, but since reading these articles and thinking about my coworkers, almost everyone I worked with at FedEx was different from me, whether they were a different race, religion, or sexual orientation versus Costco where everyone was relatively similar.
I also agree that the Gundemir et al article and the article from last week were very similar. Although I do think that Gundemir went deeper into how to actually achieve and maintain the acceptance of diversity in the workplace. I have had similar work experience to you, as a lifeguard I worked with people from all different backgrounds. Though there was a lot of diversity in the workplace a company diversity policy was never mentioned to me either. I wonder if the companies that already have a lot of diversity fail to mention these policies with the assumption that diversity already accepts diversity.
Ian, although we used the same template, I found value in how you framed your argument. It showed me that these templates aren’t stagnant as we’re still able to craft unique sentences. Its definitely refreshing to read and see how others in our class think about the issue. I find myself more along the lines of your perspective being a minority in favor of multiculturalism. You brought up bias which I thought was an interesting point and could probably segue itself into an entirely new discussion.
One of the other benefits of thinking about these 2 articles in tandem is that we see 2 very different ways of presenting research to an interested audience. Gundemir’s audience is pretty specific, folks who read this highly specialized publication (most of whom probably have a strong background in organizational psychology). Austin & Pisano’s audience, by contrast, is probably much more diverse, hailing from a number of different fields, and more likely to consist of practicing professionals, rather than university-based academics. They’re doing similar kinds of work, but with rather different purposes and audiences, so their articles look *very* different from one another.