One Step Forward, or Two Steps Back? - Waikato Management School

One Step Forward, or Two Steps Back? Diversity Management And Gender In Organizational Analysis Gloria E. Miller Faculty of Administration University of Regina Regina, SK S4S 0A2 1-306-585-5407 (fax) 1-306-585-4805 [email protected]

Julie I.A. Rowney Faculty of Management University of Calgary Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 1-403-220-6592 (fax) 1-403-282-0095 [email protected]

Abstract This paper describes a beginning analysis of the diversity management discourse that has emerged over the past fifteen years (approximately). Using an approach based on Foucaldian historical analysis, it begins by asking how it is possible that this discourse emerged; what conditions supported its emergence and what forms has it taken? Origins of the discourse are in the perceived need of consultants for a suitable response to the backlash to legislated change. The body of knowledge was given a scientific basis by using parallel scholarship in such areas as organizational culture and group composition research, and eventually, organizational demographics was invoked as the appropriate ‘scientific’ approach. Doing so accomplished a connection to the psychology of individual differences with its roots in biology and social Darwinism, and subsequently opened the conversation to the inclusion of modern-day evolutionary psychology, a discipline which argues for the essential nature of behavioural differences. It is suggested that, although the Foucaldian concept of power emphasizes its non-valenced productivity, what was perceived originally as a step forward by diversity consultants may be described as (at least) two steps backward in the project of non-discrimination in the workplace. Although the situation in most organizational behaviour/theory textbooks has changed somewhat from that described by Mills and Hatfield (1998) from their survey of texts published between 1959 and 1995, to the point where there is mention of differences between male and female leaders, which is at least one indication that the years of work on women in management and women in the workplace has had some effect, it is the related topic of diversity management that has virtually exploded. Diversity management is generally viewed as a larger concept which includes, at a minimum, all groups which have been traditionally marginalized in organizations, including women, non-whites (i.e. visible minorities), the dis/differently-abled and indigenous peoples, American Indians in the United States and First Nations/Aboriginal peoples in Canada. An interesting aspect of the diversity management discourse is that it appears to have very quickly moved from its origins in the consulting arena into the majority of textbooks in

organizational behaviour, organizational theory, human resource management and other disciplines in organizational analysis. In fact, an often used description of a diverse workforce comes from a publication of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and Society of Management Accountants of Canada (1996). This has led the first author to the rather interesting experience of teaching about the importance of diversity management in organizations (in keeping with a current management textbook) in Eastern Maritime Canada which is generally homogenous in terms of there being few visible minorities. Subsequently, Miller came to teach in a university in Western Canada where there is a smattering of visible minorities but where, in the general population, there is a large percentage of First Nations and Aboriginal peoples who are not proportionally represented in the university. The experience of the second author, on the other hand, in a neighbouring Western Province, is radically different. The university she teaches at has a highly diverse student population. Assuming that these experiences are not particularly anomalous in different regions of Canada, and the U.S., how is it that textbooks present diversity in the workforce and in the workplace as a fact of current organizational life? Text authors didn’t so quickly acknowledge scholarly work on women in management, or workplace race or ethnic representations, or gendered organizations. The question being pursued in this paper is how did diversity management come to be what it is. What were the conditions that allowed it to emerge in the manner that it has, and what are the ramifications for it in the future? Or, in language related to a Foucaldian analysis, how may we understand the production of this body of knowledge? One Step Forward: Diversity Management When the concept of diversity emerged in the United States (U.S.) in the late eighties, it appears to have been viewed as a step forward in terms of stemming some of the backlash against legislated affirmative action and employment equity. Yakura, in describing the relationship between EEO and diversity management, said, “because affirmative action has been at the center of a storm of controversy, it has been abandoned in favour of managing diversity. By focusing on managing diversity and its inclusion of all individuals, the tensions created by affirmative action debates can be ignored” (1995: 43). The focus on diversity management was also perceived by some to move inclusion from the back waters of organizations, i.e., from the realm of the human resource practitioners, to where it’s really at: the bottom line. One of the consultants who initially wrote, consulted on, and popularized, diversity said, “the current interest in multicultural diversity is embraced by equal employment opportunity specialists, who view it as a chance that EEO never had. It puts their issues in the mainstream” (Copeland, 1988). Since we are writing from a Canadian perspective, and the diversity rhetoric originated in the U.S. it is important to mention differences between the two countries related to this issue. Briefly, although the populace of both Canada and the U. S. have been created through immigration, adding to any indigenous peoples in those countries not eliminated entirely, diversity in the workforce hasn’t really been an issue (for many reasons) until relatively recently. In the U.S., Johnston and Packard’s Workforce 2000 (1987), and in Canada, Betcherman et. al.’s The Canadian Workplace in Transition (1994) both highlighted the changing nature of the workforce available to organizations. The ‘new’ faces of the workforces which have emerged in the two countries are different from what previously existed, and from each other. In the U.S. there is a relatively large proportion of Black Americans and increasing numbers of Hispanics (Americans of Spanish origins). In Canada, which retained its ‘white’ face for longer through the 2

marginalization and segregation of its First Nations peoples and through highly restrictive immigration laws, there has been an influx of immigrants during the eighties and nineties of people originating in southeast Asia and in the nineties and beyond from Latin America. And, of course, the first settlers in Canada included both French and English immigrants. In addition, in both countries, women have moved into the workplace in large numbers. There are also important cultural and public policy differences relating to population demographics in the two countries which influence perspectives on diversity. The U.S. melting pot value system is the opposite of the official federal policy of multiculturalism which has existed in Canada since 1971 and which was enshrined in the Multiculturalism Act of 1988. This creates a threat in the U.S. to what they hold to be a basic value which does not exist in Canada although there has certainly been widespread criticism of multiculturalism (e.g. Bissoondath, 1994). And, contrary to the situation in the U.S., where consultants initiated the discourse on diversity, in Canada, government agencies have taken the lead in enhancing public awareness of diversity issues (Miller & Rowney, 1999). The underlying question here is whether analyses of conditions in the U.S. apply equally to Canada and whether it is acceptable to examine emergent issues in both countries without discriminating carefully between them. Generally, the influence of the U.S. on Canada is pervasive and trends in the U.S. are usually mirrored in Canada, with a lag in adoption due to more limited resources and to a more conservative culture. Thus, we would argue that analyses of U.S. phenomena will generally apply to Canada with some adjustments. So, whatever the specific make-up of the two populations, workforce demographics are changing in both countries. And the consultant driven diversity movement in the U.S. was not materially different from the government agency driven movement in Canada, except in terms of reflecting differing values regarding individualism and the role of government in everyday life. A Foucaldian Lens on Knowledge Systems Oseen (1997), following Foucault, points out that “our identity—who we are, and whether we are the same or different . . . (is) constructed within capillary-like power relations, power everywhere and nowhere . . . within regimes of truth” (p. 56). Although there appears to be general consensus regarding the lack of a theory of power in Foucault’s writings (see Cousins & Hussain, 1984; 225; Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982; 184), he does provide what might be labelled a ‘tool-kit’ for the analysis of power relations (Cousins & Hussain, 1984: 225). He is concerned with the techniques, as opposed to the nature, of power. His description of power is quite different than traditional notions of it as capacity to influence. Foucault’s conception begins with the Nietzschean argument that power may be both positive and negative, and that it is not always synonymous with repression. He argues that power is ‘productive’, but not necessarily valenced negatively. He also suggests that power and knowledge are intimately bound, in fact that knowledge cannot be emancipated from power relations, i.e. “there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations (Foucault, 1984: 175). This definition does not abrogate individual choice and freedom since he argues that those free to choose do so within the confines of the field of knowledge. In other words, for Foucault, power determines individual behaviour by controlling decisions about behavior.

3

Foucault developed two approaches to analysis, the earliest of which he referred to as archaeology, or the “analysis of systems of knowledge” (Davidson, 1986: 221), and the second of which was an adaptation of the Nietzschean concept of genealogy. He described genealogy as “a form of history which can account for the constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects, etc.” (1984: 59). A concept central to the knowledge-power one is that of discipline (taken from his investigation into the social sciences) which suggests control and power, as well as the process of learning new knowledge. Disciplinary power, however is not coercive and does not request consent, rather: “it is a power exercised over one or more individuals in order to provide them with particular skills and attributes, to develop their capacity of self-control, to promote their ability to act in concert, to render them amenable to instruction, or to mould their characters in other ways” (Hindess, 1996: 113). Such power is exercised through social networks, which provide constant surveillance to ensure that individuals are acting in accordance with ‘normal’ behaviour. Such surveillance maintains the disciplined individual in his/her subjection through what Foucault described as the “objectification of those who are subjected” (1984: 197). Individuals make what they believe are freely chosen decisions; but they actually make these choices according to the norms established by the disciplines through their observations: “the constraint of conformity” (1984: 195). Thus, individuals are both subjected to power-knowledge and created by it. Foucault’s reconceptualization of power makes individuals both objects, and instruments, of its exercise. Thus, in Foucault’s system, power does not have a single, identifiable locus. The power is the network itself, the “webs of significance (man) himself has spun” in Geertz’s (1973: 5) definition of culture. A genealogical analysis involves a mapping of the network to identify the techniques of power, the ‘hows’ rather than the ‘wheres’ of power. As Oseen (1997) explains, for Foucault, the analysis of power everywhere enables the question, not of who says what about diversity and what that means, but rather what makes it possible for certain things to be said, or not said. The Diversity Management Body of Knowledge The diversity management literature falls generally into three categories: first are a large number of books, articles, and videotapes which are focused on both understanding and practice in organizations; second are a number of empirical studies which take a variety of approaches to delineating the effects (ultimately on productivity) of some of the variables related to diversity in the workforce, and; third, is a much smaller body composed of critical approaches. Since we are not interested here in reviewing the literature, these works will not be summarized in detail although some individual approaches will be referred to. The primary interest in this paper is to follow developing threads through the discourse. The critiques of the area often focus on the first category which includes many consultant produced writings and videos. One such critique of the area suggests that the consultants who originally jumped on the diversity bandwagon had pragmatic personal and economic interests to do so. Kelly and Dobbin (1998), for example, argue that, in the context of Reagonomics, EEO/AA (equal employment opportunity and affirmative action) specialists “collectively retheorized antidiscrimination practices through professional returns in terms of efficiency, using the rhetoric of diversity management” (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998). They suggest that, when the Reagan regime curtailed enforcement of legislation related to inclusion in organizations, EEO/AA specialists became diversity managers in the face of potential job loss. They suggest that this practice spread, at the interorganizational level, through professional networks, consistent with Meyer and Rowan’s neo-institutional theory (1977). Kelly and Dobbin (1998) 4

rely heavily upon the suggestion that “EEO and AA managers constructed new goals for the practices they (had) shepherded” (1998: 961) in the face of crisis, i.e. that inclusion policies were rewritten from the language of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity to the language of diversity management. However, their analysis falters since, although this is difficult to disentangle, it appears that it was not internal organizational employees who initiated the diversity talk, but external consultants (to be described in more detail later in this paper). Consultants would be a much more effective dissemination tool for the spread of any rhetoric since they move among organizations. Employees would quickly become knowledgeable about diversity and become part of a quickly growing network of knowledge through being exposed to external, highly mobile management consultants. Another critical reaction to the diversity management discourse is exemplified by the author of The Diversity Machine (Lynch, 1997). In his book length report, Lynch argues that the diversity movement is another in “a series of social movements designed to transform American ethnic relations” (p. 21), suggesting that it is almost identical to the early twentieth-century Progressive movement in the U.S. which he characterizes as “stridently moralistic” and pushing for “grandiose, ill-fated moral reforms such as . . . the ill-fated prohibition . . . (with) pompous plans to establish world peace after World War I” (p. 24). Not unexpectedly, his conclusion is that the diversity machine is dangerous, posing “a substantial threat to the values of the generic liberalism enshrined in modern American law and culture: free speech; individualism; non-discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, or religion; equality of opportunity; equal treatment under universalistic laws, standards, and procedures; democratic process; and, above all, a sense of national unity and cohesion” (1997: 325). He suggests that “there are too many true believers in ‘equity, inclusion, access, diversity’ who now have organizational clout . . . hence, the diversity machine’s ideology of proportionalism, identity politics, and cultural relativism has spread” (ibid.: 325-6). Lynch’s openly expressed fear of the loss of ‘Western values’ through multiculturalism is interesting, particularly to Canadians, and probably reflects some of the feelings driving more strategic criticisms of diversity in the workplace. Finally, he doesn’t appear to sense the double irony in one of his concluding statements: “Ironically, the future of the diversity machine’s drive to change the ‘white male workplace’ depends on how its policies are perceived by several different classes of white males: working- and middle-class white men, those in the executive suites, and the president of the United States” (p. 359). Of importance in the network of information around diversity management are his expressions of negativity toward cultural relativism and his very solid statement about the hierarchical place of white males. It was not only literature directly related to diversity or to equal employment opportunity and affirmative action that facilitated the development of this area. Another body of knowledge that had proliferated just before the beginning of the diversity management talk was important in setting the stage for the change from affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. The organizational culture literature had begun its explosive growth in the early eighties with the publication of Peters’ and Waterman’s In Search of Excellence, (1982), Deal and Kennedy’s Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (1982), and Ouchi’s Theory Z: How American Business can Meet the Japanese Challenge, (1981). During that decade, the number of published articles grew from 20 in 1982, to 192 by 1986 (Barley, Meyer & Gash, 1988) and to an amazing 2,550 by the end of 1990 (Alvesson & Berg, 1991). This manner of 5

thinking about organizations not only opened the way to identity based cultural differences, particularly when it was combined with feminist writing on women’s ‘culture’, but probably caught the attention of organizational cross-cultural consultants who may have perceived an opportunity to provide their expertise to a much broader group than those being transferred to other countries. Indeed, some of the first consultants to work in the diversity area had previously been cross-cultural management trainers. Lennie Copeland and Lewis Griggs who, in 1987, offered for sale a videotape on “Valuing Diversity” (San Francisco: Griggs Productions) had, in 1985, published a training book titled, Going International. And Thomas (1990), in his article introducing the term ‘diversity’, recommended that organizations “audit their corporate culture” in a step toward enhancing performance in diverse workgroups. In 1991, in the Academy of Management Executive, Cox constructed a model of “the multicultural organization” (1991: 34) and a developmental stage model to classify organizations on cultural diversity. So, although it may be reasonable to argue that diversity management may have been created as a career move by some EEO/AA specialists, as Kelly and Dobbin (1998) have, its initiation as a discourse was undoubtedly considerably more complex than their analysis would suggest. By far, the largest literature on diversity is composed of prescriptive, ‘how to’ manuals which appear to be marketing tools for consultants (e.g. Copeland, 1988; Jamieson & O’Mara, 1991; Loden & Rosener, 1991). The strong theme that runs through these publications is related to the acceptance and valuing of differences among individuals. Somewhat later the language changed to the importance of managing diversity. Significant changes over the life of the literature are related to which ‘differences’ were included in diversity, and the argument for acceptance by organizations. The initial focus was on visible differences, especially race and gender, but this has tended to broaden to include ethnicity, age, national origin, religion, disability, sexual and affectional orientation, values, personality characteristics, education, language, physical appearance, marital status, lifestyle, beliefs and background characteristics such as geographic origin, tenure with the organization, and economic (class) status (Caudron, 1992; Carr, 1993; Thomas, 1991; Triandis, 1994; Wheeler, 1994). The original consultants involved with diversity included Lewis Griggs and his domestic, and business, partner, Lennie Copeland. As mentioned earlier, Griggs and Copeland restructured a consultancy based in cross-cultural training for overseas postings to the valuing of diversity in organizations. The California-based couple produced the first training video series in the area in 1987, beginning with “Valuing Diversity: Managing Differences; Diversity at Work; and, Communicating Across Cultures.” Most interesting is Griggs’ description of himself “as a ‘recovering rascist, classist, and sexist’ who urges others to ‘do the inner work’ to undertake similar personal change through the . . . formula of talking, sharing, confessing and bonding” (quoted in Lynch, 1997: 48). Griggs goes on to describe the second video in the Valuing Diversity series as being designed to teach workers how to “succeed without sacrificing personal cultural values and how to deal with the stress of being bicultural” (ibid: 49). That such a goal would be unquestionably accepted is certainly related to observations of the “rise of a therapeutic culture of the self” (Rose, 1992). And, in Rose’s analysis, which is based in Foucault’s approach, “therapeutics . . . may be analysed as techniques of the self through which human beings are urged and incited to become ethical beings” (ibid.: 148) “in the hope of personal happiness and an ‘improved quality of life’ (ibid.: 149). In Rose’s conceptualization, experts such as Griggs become ‘governors of the soul’, promising “that modes of life that appear philosophically opposed – business success and personal growth, image management and authenticity – can be 6

brought into alignment and achieve translatability” (ibid.: 150). Thus the valuing differences rhetoric would immediately resonate with what was already an embedded cultural theme, work as a “site within which individuals represent, construct and confirm their identity, an intrinsic part of a style of life” (ibid.: 154). The second significant change in language which has occurred is in the argument for the organizational adoption of diversity. And, although the rationale for organizations’ to take up the management of diversity always included mention of competitiveness, the emphasis on this element became stronger over time. The initial focus was on the inevitability of diversity in organizational employee groups due to changes in population demographics and workforce characteristics (e.g. see Copeland, 1988; Foster, et. al., 1988). In 1991, however, Taylor Cox, Jr. specifically linked the management of diversity to organizational competitiveness through focusing on cost reduction through reduced turnover, resource acquisition through recruitment of “excellent employees” (ibid.: 48), marketing through improved corporate image and mirroring client pools, creativity in heterogeneous work teams, improved problem-solving, and enhanced organizational flexibility through the inclusion of women and bilingual minority groups with greater cognitive complexity. In 1995, Christine Taylor of the Conference Board of Canada, was “Building a Business Case for Diversity” (Taylor, 1995a), arguing that the globalization of world trade and the increasing ethnocultural diversity of Canadian markets has made diversity management a “business issue” for Canadian corporations and that they have “improved profitability and competitiveness by linking diversity directly to other key business strategies and initiatives (Taylor, 1995b). The moves from valuing, to managing, diversity, and from a picture of organizational helplessness and passivity in the face of changing population demographics to an active, strategic focus on productivity, sales, and profitability is important in terms of reflecting “the preoccupations of employers or managers” (not to speak of the masculine cultures of organizations), and ultimately, the “enhance(ement of) workplace regulation” (Hollway, 1991: 187). It is noteworthy that the apparent originator of the label, managing diversity, was both an academic and a consultant. In 1983, R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr. set up the American Institute for Managing Diversity, based in Atlanta, Georgia, where he had been the Dean of the Atlanta University Graduate School of Business Administration and was Secretary of the College at Morehouse College. In 1990, he brought some high-profile attention to diversity through the publication, in the Harvard Business Review, of his article, “From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity”. His subsequent book, Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Work Force by Managing Diversity, (1991) reported on a lengthy consulting project he had undertaken for Avon Products, Inc. in the mid-eighties. Although the book was a prescription for the management of diversity, Thomas provided a theoretical framework in organizational culture and total quality management, both of which were in vogue in organizations, and in academia, at the time. He later extended his theoretical framework to create what he referred to as a conceptual model for managing diversity (Thomas, 1991). Importantly, not only was Thomas one of the first academics to work in the area, he effectively added his voice to that of Taylor Cox, Jr., another academic and consultant, in the process of linking diversity in organizations to the existing academic literature. As mentioned earlier, Cox (1991) had provided an argument for the management of cultural diversity which was linked to organizational competitiveness and which drew on the academic management literature.

7

Of greater significance, however, was a later publication. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice, by Cox (1993) which extended the connections he and Thomas had begun to make between the emotional literature produced by the consultants, to the scientific literature. What Thomas and Cox accomplished was significant in terms of creating openings for re-introducing traditional psychological approaches on human behaviour in organizations into the diversity rhetoric. Cox, who has a Ph.D. in organizational behaviour from the University of Arizona, linked the research literature on variables related to individual differences and intergroup factors in organizations, to organizational contextual factors creating a model that he called the “Interactional Model of Cultural Diversity” (Cox, 1993: p. 7). He concluded each of the ten chapters which reviewed the literature in different areas with ‘propositions for discussion’ which resembled testable hypotheses. Thus, the “grounding of authority in claims of ‘scientificity’ and objectivity” (Rose, 1990: 148), its plausibility for individual subjects, and their willingness to self-regulate to “ensure normality, contentment and success” (ibid.: 149). As Hollway (1991: 7) points out, “there is virtually no debate about the status of knowledge which makes up work (industrial/organizational psychology and organizational behaviour) psychology and this state of affairs is the result of the uncritical identification of work psychology with behavioural science, which in turn identifies with natural science.” The academic discourses which Thomas and Cox used to support their arguments and to claim expertise based in science predated, and continued to grow in parallel to, the growth of the diversity management one. A particularly important body of knowledge to organizational analysis is in industrial and organizational psychology. This literature, which is written in the disembodied, third person style required by ‘science’ is not readily accessible to most of the everyday world. It reduces many of the terms included under the umbrella of diversity management to individual variables and labels these organizational demography (see Tsui, Egan and O’Reilly, 1992 for a short summary), and rather than speak of diversity, most of the studies refer to heterogeneous groups. This research stream, often referred to as group composition research, was generally carried out in laboratories (the ideal), using student ‘subjects’, and manipulating single attributes of heterogeneity as independent variables to determine their effects on various types of group and organizational performance factors. This approach to diversity is viewed as more scientific than that carried out by organizational practitioners. It is precise; it is clear; it is carefully controlled; it observes only the measurable; it measures only the readily quantifiable. A recent book, entitled, Demographic Differences in Organizations by Tsui and Gutek (1999) differentiates ‘demography’ in organizations from ‘diversity’ research. In a three-page segment of the book subtitled “Distinction between Demography and Diversity”, the authors contrast demography with diversity on the basis of demography’s ‘scientific’ underpinnings. The way the authors achieve this is quite interesting. To begin with, they suggest that the demographic approach studies “the distribution of worker characteristics along dimensions studied by other demographers” (p.13) thereby making a clear connection to other ‘scientists’ who use accepted statistical methods. This perception is solidified through numerous language strategies: “demography analysts do not assume that any one group is necessarily advantaged or disadvantaged because of its demographic attribute” (p. 13); in other words, this is an objective, unbiased approach to the evidence; there is no assumption that groups are either privileged or oppressed on the basis of their race or gender. In contrasting the subject matter of demographic approaches with that of diversity researchers, they invoke Roosevelt Thomas’ (1991) definition 8

of diversity which they finally conclude is virtually identical to that used in demography, however, they refer to Thomas as a “diversity guru” (p. 14), i.e. someone suspect in academic circles, and they suggest that it is the practice in diversity research to actually focus on only a few dimensions, implying this is a methodological problem which is not the case in demographic research, in spite of the bulk of studies which do exactly that. They go on, suggesting that there are significant differences in the methods used by the two approaches, and in the purposes of the research streams. They then describe only the methods used by diversity researchers (i.e. case studies, field research, and laboratory studies) but reiterate that “diversity research tends to focus on the employment experiences of individuals in minority categories . . . how women or handicapped people are treated” (p. 14). Although the methods used by demographers are not described, the purpose of this section is made obvious: “In contrast, demography research focuses on the effect of demographic distributions or differences on everyone, not only on minorities” (p. 14). The difference between the two approaches in terms of purpose is described in familiar terms: “the major objective of the diversity school is changing the practices of managers and organizations in order to improve the employment status of individuals in the minority categories” (p. 14. Thus, the research is “not only descriptive” but has a “prescriptive overtone” (p. 14), that is, not real science and not objective. “Demography experts, on the other hand, seek understanding and explanation” and their research “tends to be theoretical, rather than descriptive” (p. 15-16). There is also the suggestion that demographic research is ‘pure’ research (i.e. real science) since it focuses “on topics that strike researchers as interesting, whether or not they have immediate practical application” (p. 15). And the capstone argument is that demographic diversity researchers have put much effort into “finding and developing appropriate measures” (p. 16). Although the authors take some care not to openly denigrate the diversity researchers, they very effectively establish their lack of scientificness. The result is the establishment of organizational demography as scientific and legitimate. The recapture of the workplace at the level of the diverse workforce in the language of demographic differences returns the workplace to the expert domain of psychology and establishes diversity management as a part of the scientific discourse on organizations. It legitimates the area and connects it to the language, thought and value structures of textbook authors who would be convinced that it is worthy of inclusion. Two Steps Back: Recycling Individual Differences - Eugenics in New Clothing Invoking the foundations of psychology and science would have certainly been at least partly responsible for the seemingly rapid inclusion of the topic of diversity in organizations in textbooks. The particular labelling choice made by Tsui and Gutek (1999), however, creates the conditions for another connection. Through their use of the phrase demographic differences, Tsui and Gutek (1999) establish their connections, not only to organizational scholars such as Pfeffer (1983), but to the study of individual differences, or correlational psychology. This would seem to be a particularly appropriate connection, since, as Cronbach, one of its founders, stated in 1957, “the program of applied experimental psychology is to modify treatments so as to obtain the highest average performance when all persons are treated alike – a search, that is, for ‘the one best way.’ The program of applied correlational psychology is to raise average performance by treating persons differently” (p. 657). Although this could be construed to be rather benign and consistent with the goals of diversity management practitioners, in fact, as Rose (1985) mentions, the objects of the psychology of individual differences were groups which 9

posed an administrative efficiency problem, either on the level of a society or within organizations. And, as Hollway (1991: 59-60) points out, the psychology of individual differences “was closely allied to Social Darwinism, specifically to eugenics, which has spawned the statistics on which psychometrics was based. . . The theoretical and political principle of eugenics . . . is that individual differences are largely determined by genetic inheritance.” Hollway goes on to quote Sir Cyril Burt, one of the most prominent of the British psychologists of individual differences, in a 1952 lecture, remarking on how, when psychology made the transition from being a branch of philosophy, it was “effected through the influence of those who were primarily biologists, particularly the earlier advocates of evolutionary doctrines” (ibid.: 60). Hollway goes on to trace the emergence of the human relations approach with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s and 30s and its dominance of organizational behaviour and industrial/organizational psychology until the 1970s. She points out that the influence of this approach is still widespread with many of its assumptions taken for granted. In spite of the dominance of human relations in organizational behaviour and industrial/organizational psychology, in the discipline of psychology there has been a resurgence of evolutionary approaches to human behaviour in the last few years. Recently the approach has also begun to appear in the organizational literature (it should be noted here that we are effectively excluding several books related to the topic, particularly those which have incorporated evolution into the population ecology theory originated by Hannan and Freeman [1977]). It seems inevitable that some enterprising academics would make the next step, given the conditions created by the rhetoric of demographic differences and its embeddedness in the psychology of individual differences with its historical connections to biology and evolutionary theory. Although one article appeared as early as 1984 in Human Relations using sociobiology as an analytical framework (Glassman), it did not appear to generate follow-up interest, probably because sociobiology was subject to considerable criticism. In 1994, an article relying on evolutionary psychology’s twin studies was published in Research in Organizational Behavior (Arvey and Bouchard, 1994), and in a 1997 article in Human Relations and another in 1998 in Harvard Business Review, Nigel Nicholson, professor of organizational behaviour and dean of research at London Business School, applies concepts directly from evolutionary psychology to organizations and management. Subsequently, in 1999, a related article by Barbara Decker Pierce and Roderick White, both of the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, was published in The Academy of Management Review. And in 2000, Linda Krefting revisited biological differences between the sexes in “Reconsidering Essentialism” in the Journal of Management Inquiry. This certainly constitutes the importation of evolutionary psychology concepts to the mainstream. Although none of these papers directly took up the topic of diversity management in organizations, they certainly have implications for the topic. Nicholson, for example, makes direct inferences from the ‘findings’ of evolutionary psychology to behaviour in organizations, arguing, for example, that “people naturally sort others into in-groups and out-groups” 1998: 140), that males have an “ingrained desire to do public battle” while “women found contests among themselves unnecessary” (ibid.: 143), and finally, that “hierarchy is forever” (ibid.: 146). And Krefting (2000) argues on the basis of evolutionary psychology interpretations that sex differences based in biology should be taken into account in the study and design of organizations. It seems fairly obvious that a space has opened for the application of evolutionary psychology theories in organizational analysis. 10

Evolutionary psychology, although it explicitly attempts to distance itself from sociobiology, continually draws upon publications from that arena, and utilizes the same core theories (see Gould, 1997 for a summary and critique). And, as Dusek (2000) has pointed out, there has been enormous coverage of these approaches in the media and popular science press. Both areas resonate with the views of most non-academics that gender and racial differences are biologically based and unchangeable, i.e. Dusek says that “notions of character ‘running in the blood’ and ‘bar room wisdom’ about sex differences eased acceptance of ‘gee whiz’ accounts of sociobiology in the major news and popular science magazines” (ibid.: 2). These arguments are likely to add to the normative beliefs most employees working in diverse groups already hold, i.e. that the ‘differences’ being equally valued and celebrated, in fact, reflect a hierarchy of value. Individual employees will discipline their own behaviour on the basis of such a belief system. Although Foucault’s notion of power was as a non-valenced productive force, its results do hold a directional value for us. What was initially heralded as a ‘step forward’, the focus on diversity in organizational workforces rather than on legislatively defined oppressed groups, appears to be taking backward steps. The incorporation of a scientific approach with its solid legitimacy in the everyday world, and then to evolutionary psychology with its foundational belief in the genetic basis of differences in human behaviour does seem to have the potential for two steps, if not more, backward. This seems particularly likely in the case where some very brave scholar decides, on the basis of the neutrality of science, to apply some of the more extreme theories associated with evolutionary psychology to organizational behavior. For example, the work of J. Phillipe Rushton, a researcher and faculty member in the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario who argues in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Lifehistory Perspective (2000; original edition 1995), that there are consistent differences between East Asians, Europeans (and their descendants) and Africans (and their descendants) in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint, maturation rates, law abidingness and social organization, with East Asians being the highest ranked, Europeans next, and Africans bottom. One easily envisions preferential selection and promotion policies based on a combination of Rushton’s theories with others, as an example, those of emotional intelligence theorist Daniel Goleman (1998). Combining Darwinian natural selection of genetic racial and sex differences in behaviours with a manifest of workplace self-regulatory ‘competencies’ could create a whole new marginalization project. References Alvesson, M. & Berg, P.O. (1992). Corporate Culture and Organisational Symbolism: An Overview. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Arvey, R.D. & Bouchard, T.L. (1994). “Genetics, Twins and Organizational Behavior,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, 47-82. Barley, S.R., Meyer, G.W. & Gash, D.C. (1988). “Cultures of Culture: Academics, Practitioners and the Pragmatics of Normative Control,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 24-60.

11

Betcherman, G., Mcmullen, K., Leckie, N. & Caron, C. (1994). The Canadian Workplace in Transition. Kingston, ON: Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s University. Bissoondath, Neil (1994). Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and The Society of Management Accountants of Canada (1996). Measuring the Impact of Diversity. Ontario. Caudron, S. (1992). “U.S. West Finds Strength in Diversity.” Personnel Journal, 71, 40-44. Carr, C. (1993). “Diversity and Performance: A Shotgun Marriage?” Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6, 115-126. Copeland, Lennie (1988). “Learning to Manage a Multicultural Work Force,” Training, May, 49-56. Copeland, L. & Griggs, L. (1985). Going International. New York: Random House. Copeland, Lennie & Griggs, Lewis (1987). Valuing Diversity. San Francisco: Griggs Productions. Cousins, M. and Hussain, A. (1984). Michel Foucault. London: MacMillan. Cox, T.H. (1991). “The Multicultural Organization,” The Academy of Management Executive, 5, 2, 34-47. Cox, Taylor (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research & Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cronbach, L. (1957). “The Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology,” American Psychologist, 12: 671-84. Davidson, A. (1986). “Archaeology, Genealogy, Ethics,” in Couzens-Hoy, D. (ed.), Foucault: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 221-33. Deal, T.E. & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Sussex: Harvester. Dusek, Val (2000). “Sociobiology Sanitized: The Evolutionary Psychology and Genic Selection Debates,” www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/dusek.html Foster, B.G., Jackson, G., Cross, W.E., Jackson, B. & Hardiman, R. (1988). “Workforce Diversity and Business,” Training and Development Journal, April, 38-42. 12

Foucault, M. (1984). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. In, Rabinow, P. (Ed.) The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon. Geertz, Clifford (1973). “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures. US: Harper-Collins, 3-30. Glassman, R.B. (1984). “A Sociobiological examination of Management Theory Z,” Human Relations, 37, 367-95. Goleman, Daniel (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam. Gould, Stephen Jay (1997). “Darwinian Fundamentalism,” New York Review of Books, June 12. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). “The population ecology of organizations,” American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964. Hindess, B. (1996). Discourses of Power. Oxford: Blackwell. Hindess, B. (1996). Discourses of Power. Oxford: Blackwell. Hollway, Wendy (1991). Work Psychology and Organizational Behavior: Managing the Individual at Work. London: Sage. Jamieson, D. & O’Mara, J. (1991). Managing Workforce 2000. New York: Guilford Press. Johnston, W.B. & Packer, A.H. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute. Kelly, Erin & Dobbin, Frank (1998). “How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management.” American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 7, 960-984. Krefting, Linda A. (2000). “Reconsidering Essentialism.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 2, 186-92. Loden, M. & Rosener, J.B. (1991). Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin. Lynch, Frederick R. (1997). The Diversity Machine. The Drive to Change the “White Mail Workplace.” New York: Free Press. Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977). “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-63. Miller, Gloria E. & Rowney, Julie I.A. (1999). “Workplace diversity management in a multicultural society.” Women in Management Review, 14, 8, 307-315.

13

Mills, Albert J. & Hatfield, Jean C. Helms (1998). “From Imperialization to Globalization: Internationalization and the Management Text,” in Clegg, S.R., Ibarra, E., & Buenol, L. (eds.), Theories of the Management Process: Making Sense Through Difference,” Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Nicholson, Nigel (1997). “Evolutionary psychology: Toward a new view of human nature and organizational society,” Human Relations, 50, 9, 1053-78. Nicholson, Nigel (1998). “How Hardwired is Human Behavior?” Harvard Business Review, July-August, 135-147. Oseen, Colleen (1997). “The Sexually Specific Subject and the Dilemma of Difference: Rethinking the Different in the Construction of Nonhierarchical Workplace,” in Prasad, P., Mills, A.J., Elmes, M. and Prasad, A. (Eds.). Managing the Organizational Melting Pot. Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 54-79. Ouchi, W.G. (1981) Theory Z: How American Businesses Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1982) In search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run Companies. New York: Harper & Row. Pfeffer, J. (1983). “Organizational Demography,” in Cummings, L.L. & Staw, B.M. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 299-357. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pierce, Barbara Decker & White, Rodney (1999). “The evolution of social structure: Why biology matters,” The Academy of Management Riview, 24, 4, 843-53. Rose, N. 1985. The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics and Society in England, 18691939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rose, Nikolas (1990). Governing the Soul: The Shapin g of the Private Self. London and New York: Routledge. Rose, Nikolas (1992). “Governing the enterprising self,” in Heelas, Paul & Morris, Paul (eds.), The Values of the Enterprise Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Rushton, J. Phillipe (2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life-history Perspective (3rd Ed.). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. (Note: original 1995 edition withdrawn by publisher Transaction Publishing). Schneider, Sherry K. & Northcraft, Gregory B. (1999). “Three Social Dilemmas of Workforce Diversity in Organizations: A Social Identity Perspective.” Taylor, Christine (1995a). “Building a Business Case for Diversity,” Canadian Business Review, Spring, 12-15.

14

Taylor, Christine (1995b). Dimensions of Diversity in Canadian Business: Building a Business Case for Valuing Ethnocultural Diversity. Canada: Conference Board of Canada. Thomas, R.R. Jr. (1990). “From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity,” Harvard Business Review, Mar/Apr., 68, 2. Thomas, R.R. Jr. (1991). Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Workforce by Managing Diversity. New York: AMACOM. Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tsui, Anne S., Egan, T.D. & O’Reilly, C.A., III. (1992). “Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-79. Tsui, Anne S. & Gutek, Barbara A. (1999). Demographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future Directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington. Wheeler, M.L. (1994). Diversity Training. (Research Report No. 1083-94). New York: The Conference Board. Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yakura, E.K. (1995). “EEO Law and Managing Diversity,” in Kossek, E.E. & Lobel, S.A. (eds.), Managing Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Workplace. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

15