LEADING THOUGHTS

“Workplace spirituality”: Are those two words in direct conflict, like “progressive conservative”? Maybe not: plenty of researchers make the case that it’s good for employees to bring their “whole person” to work, including their spiritual and religious expressions. It’s assumed that workplace spirituality leads to greater employee engagement through more meaningful work, enhanced ability to cope with stress, and more effective organizations. It’s a win all ‘round, right?

Marjolein Lips-Wiersma (U of Canterbury in New Zealand), Kathy Lund Dean (Idaho State U), and Charles J. Fornaciari (Florida Gulf Coast U) argue that there is a dark side to workplace spirituality (WPS). The dark side, they write in the Journal of Management Inquiry, is in how spirituality can be misused or misappropriated, particularly for managerial control.

They say most workplace spirituality research ignores two key dynamics wielded by the employer: the degree of control and “instrumentality” (in which employees are treated as means toward a goal such as profit or productivity).

“Firms by design are instrumental, goal-driven entities with a clear focus on ends, and any means adopted into the firm will have present some level of instrumentality for its employees,” Lips-Wiersma et al write. “Consequently, the very notion of attempting to formally include spirituality in modern firms will always include the potential for misuse and misappropriation.”

In their article, the researchers offer a two-by-two matrix anchored by “control” and “instrumentality” and with the following quadrants:

Seduction
Found in: Organizations with low control and low instrumentality.
Dark side: “Because organizational members are free to select in or out of WPS activities and determine the nature and form of their WPS, cultural fragmentation occurs. Certain employees’ WPS may speak for the organization as a whole, either by contagion or by publicity, or when the WPS practice amounts to discrimination.”

Evangelization
Found in: Organizations high in control and low in instrumentality.
Dark side: “The agenda of management (hidden or overt) is to convert employees to the spiritual beliefs of management and these beliefs are judged to be superior to other beliefs. In many ways, the organization will display formal and informal characteristics of religious cults—with the most successful organization members being those that buy into management’s view and expression of WPS.”

Manipulation
Found in: Organizations with low control and high instrumentality.
Dark side: “In these organizations, spirituality is primarily a tool for improving performance, but the form and nature in which WPS is incorporated into the organization is left open for determination by individual firm members. In this worldview, upper management believes that WPS is simply another potentially manipulatable variable to try and wrest more productivity from its workers, and it will immediately focus on strategies to do so.”

Subjugation
Found in: Organizations high in control and instrumentality.
Dark side: “In these organizations spirituality is not only a clear tool for improving performance, but the form and nature in which WPS is incorporated into the organization is highly specified by management. Thus, employees are asked (through some direct or indirect spiritual practice) to bring more of themselves to work, but the culture of control encourages people to behave and even ‘feel’ in prescribed ways.”

It all boils down to the tension between the “management of meaning” versus “meaningful work” as it relates to spiritual expression. Be looking for an employee backlash in the years ahead as individuals try to take back control. Their interior lives should not be for sale.

“Theorizing the Dark Side of the Workplace Spirituality Movement,” by Marjolein Lips-Wiersma, Kathy Lund Dean, and Charles J. Fornaciari; Journal of Management Inquiry (Vol. 18 No. 4, December 2009, pp. 288-300)

photo credit: estherase

“Diversity management” (DM) has become one of the more successful management ideas of the past 25 years. It entered the lexicon in the late 1980s in the U.S. as a response to growing frustration with legislation-based affirmative action and equal employment opportunity initiatives. DM was taken up in Europe a decade later, beginning in the UK and Netherlands.

DM aims to encourage employees to be comfortable with diversity in the workplace and appreciate differences in race, gender, or sexual orientation. It focuses on demographic groups, organizational self-interest, and workplace training. “Diversity” has become an industry in itself, fed by management consultants, conferences, and publications.

Writing in the Scandinavian Journal of Management, Evangelina Holvino (Simmons School of Management, Boston) and Annette Kamp (Roskilde University, Denmark) take a hard-boiled look at diversity management in practice in the U.S. and Europe. They identify a number of DM “dilemmas”:

:: Does DM refer to individual or group-based differences? For some, diversity refers to all the similarities and differences among organizational members. For others, diversity refers to identities based on membership in social groups and their power relations in organizations.

:: Is DM all about reproducing the status quo or “catalysing change in inequalities and power relations”?

:: Should DM be based on a business case or on social justice? In North America in particular, DM is sold as an effective HR and marketing strategy, encouraging team effectiveness, increasing employee retention, and improving financial performance. But as the authors point out, assessing DM outcomes is a tricky affair. Few organizations seem interested in measuring the success of their diversity efforts, and independent findings have been inconclusive or contradictory.

“DM, like other ideas, has become blurred and blunted, distorted through inappropriate quantification, and taken over by academic researchers making it increasingly unsuited for practical purposes,” Holvino and Kamp write. “In the U.S.A., DM has provided an opportunity to discuss differences, identity, power, and equity in organizations like no other management idea has done before, but its ‘success’ as a managerial discourse has hindered its power as an idea that can make more of a positive difference in the world.”

“Diversity management: Are we moving in the right direction? Reflections from both sides of the North Atlantic,” by Evangelina Holvino and Annette Kamp; Scandinavian Journal of Management (2009, 25, 395—403)

If you cannot find this journal is your local library, email me for a copy of the article at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: PaDumBumPsh

Hail the outsider, for she will bring inspiration. Or at least help her new team solve problems more effectively.

Researchers Katherine Phillips (Northwestern), Katie Liljenquist (Brigham Young), and Margaret Neale (Stanford) wanted to test whether or not a “socially distinct newcomer” to an existing team would have any effect on how the group solved problems.

They conducted a traditional group problem-solving experiment with a number of fraternities but with a twist: a newcomer from a rival fraternity was added to each group five minutes into their deliberations. The researchers found that when the newcomer was a social outsider, teams were more likely to solve the problem successfully.

Writing in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, the researchers conclude that a socially distinct newcomer shakes up group dynamics and causes discomfort but ultimately acts as a catalyst for better outcomes. In such situations, the group tends to analyze options more critically, even if the outsider does not ask tough questions.

Interestingly, while group members felt they worked less effectively together, in fact they outperformed the socially homogeneous groups.

The lesson: next time someone from another department joins your team with a different background or education, acknowledge that there may be tense and awkward moments but that the group will be better for it.

Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing With Socially Distinct Newcomers; Katherine W. Phillips, Northwestern University, Katie A. Liljenquist, Brigham Young University, Margaret A. Neale, Stanford University; Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Vol. 35, No. 3, 336-350, 2009)

photo credit: IsaDaGreat

In these times of globalization, we often hear how important it is to cultivate a diverse workforce. But we also know there is a gulf between words and deeds, with diversity policy often little more than legal cover to protect against charges of discrimination. The question is, how effective are HR diversity management practices in organizations?

That’s the question posed by Australian academics Shen, Chanda, D’Netto, and Monga, in The International Journal of Human Resource Management. After an exhaustive review of research to date, they make these three conclusions:

1. Despite growing commitment to “equal employment opportunity” in many organizations, there is still widespread discrimination. “This is evidenced by low employment of women and minorities and the lack of minority representation at higher organizational levels. Also, female and minority employees are always disadvantaged in training, performance appraisals and remuneration.”

2. HR diversity is often restricted to “hiring by numbers.” Little is done in areas such as training, management development, and individual-based appraisal and pay. “Often, minority employees are recruited for lower positions and provided few promotion opportunities. . . While many organizations provide diversity training most training programmes reinforce norms and values of the dominant organizational culture.”

3. HR diversity management is primarily focussed on equality and fairness. Most organizations do not really have effective diversity management practices that value and make use of diversity, or that “unleash the potential of the diverse workforce they employ.”

And here’s a reality check: The authors note that there is no empirically proven association of HRM diversity practices with increases in diversity and improved organizational performance. And researchers have not investigated what HRM approaches are appropriate to manage diversity effectively.

Managing diversity through human resource management: an international perspective and conceptual framework, by Shen, Chanda, D’Netto, and Monga; The International Journal of Human Resource Management (20:2,235 — 251)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: duplamox

Does having a diverse workforce make good business sense? One body of research suggests that a max-mix of genders and races actually has a negative impact on group dynamics and communication. Now comes a study that says diversity means higher sales and customer numbers and greater profitability.

In the April issue of the American Sociological Review, sociologist Cedric Herring from the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs found that companies reporting the highest levels of racial diversity brought in nearly 15 times more sales revenue on average than those with the lowest levels of racial diversity. Gender diversity accounted for a difference of $599.1 million in average sales revenue.

Herring found racial diversity to be a better determinant of sales revenue and customer numbers than company size, the company’s age, and the number of employees at any given work location.

Other findings:

• Companies with the highest levels of gender diversity reported an average of 15,000 more customers than organizations with the lowest levels of gender diversity.
• Racial diversity is among the most important predictors of a company’s competitive positioning relative to other firms in its industry. As racial and gender diversity levels increased in a company’s workforce, its profits relative to those of its competitors also increased.

Herring analyzed data from the National Organizations Survey, reviewing a subset of 506 United States-based for-profit businesses that provided information about workforce diversity, sales revenue, customer numbers, market share and profitability between 1996 and 1997.