dfama_some thoughts on diversity 2008
DESCRIPTION
Diversity approach is revealed by the language in use, through a country culture influence, till the practice in place.Some thoughts about a possible integrated approach to detect and make progresses on diversity and inlusion management are proposed as a stimulus for further reflection/ actionTRANSCRIPT
1
Diversity Management: some thoughts
Version 1
04.11.2008
D.Famà: open workshops – Rome 2008 (c/o ANL – www.nuovi-lavori.it - e CNEL)
2
Index
• Diversity Approach: from Language in use till Company Practices (slides 3-5 )• Diversity: A Possible Integrated Path to Improve (slide 6 )• Country Culture Exploration: Wide Community, Company Level, Conctrete Outcomes (slides 7-10)• Then?.... (slide 11 )• Backup: some outcome from a 2008 country survey (slides 13-15)
3
DIVERSITY
Anti-discrimination
Equal Opportunities
Difference Valorization
(1)
(1) Source: “Dizionario dei sinonimi e contrari”, Zanichelli
DIVERSITY Approach vs LANGUAGE In use
Dissonante, divergente, contrapposto, contraddittorio, contrario, opposto
Distinto, altro, vario, disparato, ineguale, differente, dissimile, eterogeneo
Nuovo, insolito, alternativo, discrepante (raro)
4
IDENTIFY/ SANCTIONING DISCRIMINATIONS
• Laws
• Code of Practice
• Training
• Communication & Control
ELIMINATE THE OBSTACLES
• Process review (HR in particular)
• Sensitize
• participation
• Promotion and Top mngt commitment & involvement
USE THE DIFFERENCE AS A DRIVER
• Leadership model
• Element influencing the strategy process review
DIVERSITY Approach vs PRACTICE Levels
DIVERSITY
Anti-discrimination
Equal Opportunities
Difference Valorization
5(1) EIRO
…till COUNTRY and COMPANY Practices
Country Backdrop(examples)
Company backdrop(examples)
Anti discrimination laws, in every * Values individual vs individual/“collective” * Organization & Responsibilities relationship
Specific laws (active policies in * Approaches particular) * Effective Social Responsibility
* Clear results like % of femaleEffective Diversity Governance, in Middle and Top mngt positionsat every level of Public Adminand vs citizen/ non citizenrelationship
Concrete results in influencing Concrete results in leveraging an Inclusion & Diversity country Diversity for Business benefit culture consolidation, for exampleImpacting on key perforamanceslike Female Employment Rate (1):• Finland 65.4%• Italy 42.1%
DIVERSITY
Anti-discrimination
Equal Opportunities
Difference Valorization
6
1) Anti
Discrimination
2) Equal
Opportunities
3) Difference
Valorization
DIVERSITY: A Possible Integrated Path to Improve
APPROACHMATURITY
IDENTIFY/ SANCTIONING DISCRIMINATIONS
• Laws
• Code of Practice
• Training
• Communication & Control
ELIMINATE THE OBSTACLES
• Process review (HR mainly)
• Sensitize
• Participation
• Promotion and Top mngt commitment & involvement
USE THE DIFFERENCE AS A BUSINESS DRIVER
• Leadership model
• Element influencing the strategy process review
BASIC PRACTICES:
Continuous results measurement/ evaluation
Gaps’ Root cause analysis +
Dissonante, divergente, contrapposto, oppostocontraddittorio, contrario.
Distinto, altro, vario, disparato, ineguale, differente, dissimile, eterogeneo
Nuovo, insolito, alternativo, discrepante (raro)
LANGUAGE/ CULTURE:
COUNTRY BACKDROP
(examples)
COMPANY BACKDROP
(examples)
Anti discrimination laws, in every * Values individual vs individual/“collective” * Organization & Responsibilities relationship
Specific laws (active policies in * Approaches particular) * Effective Social Responsibility * Clear results like % of femaleEffective Diversity Governance, in Middle and Top mngt positionsat every level of Public Adminand vs citizen/ non citizenrelationship
Concrete results in influencing Concrete results in leveraging an Inclusion & Diversity country Diversity for business benefit culture consolidation
Improve in every area & escalate in approach quality 1)
3)
7
50 out of 95 = 53% of the scale“Masculinity vs Femininity”
20 points out of 112 = 18% of the scalefor “Individualism Vs Collettivism”
For example, let’s compare betweenFinnish and Italian cultures. The maingaps are:
Source: “Culture’s Consequences”, Geert Hofstede (ed. 2001), SAGE Publications
Let’s consider “Culture’s Consequences” by G.Hofstede. It highlights there are in place country characteristics quite stable that clearly map them along 5 dimensions.This kind of analysis shows that there are “hard” (deep & consolidated) cultural attitudes we have to face. They are “stoney guests” producing effective impacts: sometimes not expected at all (see next slide).
LET’S EXPLORE COUNTRY CULTURE DIMENSION
10 points out of 112 = 9% of the scalefor “”Uncertainty Avoidance”
15 points out of 110 = 14% of the scalefor “Power Distance”
(see at the top left page for Masculinity Definition)
8
No taxation without representation
Social services are a citizenship rights
Less State more Market
Live for your values
Democracy is the majority’s government
The communities that contribute to a greater extent to the State funding, have the right to proportionally
benefit from / influence the State’s expenses decisions
North vs South(Federalism)
The public intermediation must be reduced to a minimum because the private intermediation is more efficient,
using the same resources
Rich vs Poor(Social Inequalities,
Economical Democracy)
The citizens, by definition the natural inheritors of the long term community building effort, have the right/ priority
to benefit of the majority of community’s social expenses
Citizens vs “others”(Citizenship Rights)
The minorities have to comply with majority’s decisions.The minorities have the right to exert opposition.
Good citizen is who maintain/ exert his/ her exceptions / values
in the private life, being publicly compliant to the majority’s decisions.
“Majority” vs ‘Others’(language, religion, habits, census…..)
(Minorities’ Rights,Model for Coexistence)The democracy values like: freedom, individuality, equality,
etc., so much we struggled for in our collective history, they aren’t negotiable, nor subject to be discontinued
at discretion.
The PrinciplesTheir possible interpretation in a specific
cultural context“Fracture Lines” and “Institutional Impact”
COUNTRY CULTURE: influence at wide community level
9
(Source: Adapted from Diverse Teams at Work (Gardenswarts and Rowe, 1994)
Cultural influencing factors:
• ethnicity• social environment
• company culture
Predominant for multinational organizations (in general)
Predominant for little-medium size or local organizations (private or public sectors)
Country culture is highly relevant for Italy due to its fragmented economic structure
COUNTRY CULTURE at Company Level: influence vs company size
10
Gender analysis: %Job Grade (JG) assigned to Female (F)
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
JG
%o
f av
aila
ble
JG
as
sig
ned
to
F
%JG assigned to F
W/o Assistant role
COUNTRY CULTURE at Company level : influence on some concrete outcome
Higher management levels
Team supervisor / Expert Ind. contributors
Operative Individual contributors
Source: “Standard Job distribution per gender” in a specific Company, with sites in different countries (Analyzed Area: south EU)Note: data controlled for possible biases due to education, age, seniority.
%F on total HC
South Europe country gender stereotypes generate, as a matter of fact:- At lower contractual levels, the permanent assignment of female employees to Assistant-like roles;- At middle mngt levels, and for subject matter expert roles, the recognition of female capabilities;- At higher mngt levels, a sudden and unexpected drop of female assignments
11
Then……?Let’s promote the Courage to Change in 5 points
Excellent policies, robust process design and control…. aren’t sufficient without:
1) Results/ outcomes measurement and evaluation, to the purpose to search to understand the gaps’ root causes. Gaps continue to arouse, willingness notwithstanding.
2) Feel and assess how the cultural backdrop is acting, at all the relevant levels: (country/ region, company’s history, top management “hidden leadership model” ….: if any, there it is
the Stoney Guest, notwithstanding the explicit intents and the willingness to be inclusive vs the diversity)
3) Award the diversity champions (during hiring, all along the career …. all things being equal: award them ! )
Hr Professionals in particular: 4) Be personally daily diversity champions at workplace
“zero tolerance” ….. also against less than respectful jargon
5) As professional associations: promote public and private initiatives Lobbying as change players for better laws, effective Corporate Social Responsibility, etc wherever
an inclusive attitude could be promoted, into the workplaces and in the overall society.
12
BACK UP
Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del prossimo futuro in Italia”, R.Mannheimer – ISPO, sett. 2008Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere della Sera (Milano, 22 settembre 2008)
13
Cerchiamo altrove delle conferme (vedi Fonte)
Gli opinion leader italiani, intervistati sulla esistenza o meno di specifiche capacità del genere femminile, utili per le aziende, rispondono al 75% SI
Queste capacità distintive, sembrano essere quelle di un profilo manageriale moderno: attenzione alla relazione, negoziazione, sensibilità, capacità gestionale, determinazione e flessibilità…..
Malgrado ciò, abbiamo visto che proprio queste caratteristiche sembra non vengono valorizzate, almeno OGGI:
“Riconoscere” ≠ Valorizzare
Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del prossimo futuro in Italia”, R.Mannheimer – ISPO, sett. 2008Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere della Sera (Milano, 22 settembre 2008)
14
E DOMANI ?Intervistati sul trend futuro (a 5y) della effettiva valorizzazione delle capacità del genere femminile, la maggioranza assume un atteggiamento da “champion della diversita di genere”: personalmente/ la propria azienda perseguirà questa valorizzazione più di quanto farà il mercato in generale (79% vs 62%, un bel gap di 12pp)
Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del prossimo futuro in Italia”, R.Mannheimer – ISPO, sett. 2008Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere della Sera (Milano, 22 settembre 2008)
15
E cosa attribuiscono di negativo alla dimensione più collettiva?
-<<l’Italia è un paese maschilista>>-<<Le leggi non sono adeguate>>-<<Non c’e’ sostegno adeguato per conciliare famiglia e lavoro>>
Vengono per l’appunto richiamati:- il fattore culturale (fra l’altro “oggettivo”: nella scala MAS, l’Italia è classificabile come “mascolina”)-Il contesto facilitante ATTIVAMENTE la diversità (contesto sia normativo sia “volontario -aziendale”)
Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del prossimo futuro in Italia”, R.Mannheimer – ISPO, sett. 2008Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere della Sera (Milano, 22 settembre 2008)