16. Gender Issues and Diversity Management

Managing Diversity in Australia and Germany

How can one explain the different

application of MD concepts?

2

Abstract

This article will compare the phenomenon of Managing Diversity in Australia and

Germany. Both countries belong to the early adaptors of this innovative management

concept which has been recognised, discussed and practised almost simultaneously

in these countries. There are diverse international companies both in Australia and

Germany which prescribe to the business case for diversity (Lithvin 2002). Neverthe-

less, the MD concept in each country has been acknowledged and applied differently.

Drawing on an extensive literature analysis and the results of 10 interviews done

with national MD experts from universities, enterprises, unions and interest groups in

each country, this article will discuss the specific influences of national MD develop-

ment and the institutional framework which has played a role in the diffusion of this

management concept.

3

1. Introduction

As of the last 15 years, publications on Managing Diversity have been written by

business consultants and scientists worldwide. It all began in the 1990's with the

American pioneers of MD concepts. (Thomas 1990 and 1991; Cox/ Blake 1991; Jack-

son et.al. 1992; Loden/Rosener1992; Cox 1993; Gardenwartz/Rowe1993). Although

different to Business Reengineering (Hammer/Champy 1994), no one founder can be

allotted the responsibility for Managing Diversity and therefore, there is no singular

bestseller on which we can focus. Instead, we have the MD concept being adapted

to the individual national needs by different authors. This applies to Australia

(Cope/Kalantzis 1997), Canada (Wilson 1997), Great Britain (Kirton/Greene 2000)

and Germany (Stuber 2004). Thus, each country developed its own unique diverse

accents for the application of MD concepts (Vedder 2005a).

This article will compare Managing Diversity in Australia and Germany. Concerning

diffusion research (Rogers 1995), both countries belong to the early adaptors of this

innovative management concept which has been recognised, discussed and practised

almost simultaneously in these countries. There are diverse international companies

both in Australia and Germany which prescribe to the business case for diversity

(Lithvin 2002). Nevertheless, the MD concept has been acknowledged and applied

differently. In Germany (approx. 83 million inhabitants) only 50 firms work with

Managing Diversity and only 10 of them have established an extensive MD system

(Vedder 2005b). These numbers are greater in Australia (approx. 20 million inhabi-

tants), where this concept is applied not only within firms but also within the Public

Service (www.diversityaustralia.gov.au).

How can we explain the differences? Apparently the national MD development and

the institutional framework play a role in the diffusion of management concepts. In

4

the following analysis, these specific influences will be described and analysed for

Australia and Germany. This discourse is based on an extensive literature analysis

and on the results of 10 interviews done with national MD experts from universities,

enterprises, unions and interest groups in each country by Guenther Vedder in 2004/

2005 (the interviewed persons dealt with in this text have asked not to be identified).

2. The Development of MD Concepts in Germany

In Germany, Managing Diversity was introduced into academic discourse in the mid-

dle of 1990's. The first German academic/expert article was published in 1993 under

the title, "Managing Diversity: Postmoderne Kulturarbeit in der Unternehmung"

(Kiechl 1993), and the first German anthology in 1994 "Vielfalt gestalten - Managing

Diversity" (Jung 1994). The article, "Mono- oder multikulturelle Organisationen?

Managing Diversity auf dem Prüfstand", by Gertraude Krell (Krell 1996), finally intro-

duced the American MD elements into a German research context. At the same time,

the German Association for Personnel Management (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Per-

sonalführung/DGFP) began to preoccupy themselves with the American partner or-

ganisation Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) on very relevant

themes. The DGFP carried out within the last 10 years several MD assessments

(Ivanova 2003), offers as of several years a study group for MD firms and provides

extensive Diversity information on its Homepage (www.1dgfp.com).

The first consulting groups also began in the 1990's with Managing Diversity as a

sector within the German counselling market. Angelika Plett from MitteConsult, Berlin

came in contact with MD while working on anti-racist work and orientated herself in

her MD research to the approach of Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe (Plett 2002).

Michael Stuber founded in 1997 mi.st [ Diversity Consulting, Köln and has since then

5

advised diverse organisations on the theme Managing Diversity as well as having

published a large number of MD articles and a practice orientated expertise book

"Diversity" (Stuber 2004; www.ungleich-besser.de). The first of many Managing Di-

versity conferences took place at the University of Potsdam (Prof. Dieter Wagner)

with international participation.

Parallel to the interests of researchers, representational groups and consultants,

German firms also began to show an interest in Managing Diversity in the middle of

the 1990's. Also Ford Germany took their mother firm as an example and together

with the Personnel Department began to apply Managing Diversity. As of August

2000, there has been a Director for Diversity in Europe at Ford (Belinski, 2003, 315).

Daimler Benz and the Deutsche Bank became sensitised to MD during the fusion with

the Chrysler Cooperation and the acquisition of Bankers Trust. They had to familiar-

ise themselves with diversity questions as a result of the merging of different organ-

izational cultures. Important MD impulses within DaimlerChrysler came in 1998 from

an international work group in the framework of Post-Merger-Integration Projects

(Belinski, 2003, 280). "Managing Diversity has been part of the Deutsche Bank's

global firm strategy since 1999 (Coppi 2004, 413)". Lufthansa AG was, as of the year

2000, the first firm in Germany which took an interest in the diversity theme without

having been confronted by external developments. Personnel Diversity is of particular

relevance because the employees come from 130 different nations, 90 countries are

flown into and within the Star Alliance, 16 further airlines are working in co-operation

with Lufthansa (Rühl 2004, 72). In addition to the above mentioned firms, we can

include Shell, Kraft Foods Germany, Microsoft Germany, the Commerzbank AG, the

German Telekom, Siemens AG and others to be among the Diversity Pioneers in

6

Germany. These international companies with their headquarters in the USA focus

predominantly on the public service sector and consumer goods manufacturers.

Although the number of diversity applied programmes has increased yearly in Ger-

many (Krell 2004), and the most important German employers are interested in

Managing Diversity, the application of these concepts still remains marginal. If we

were to count the members of DGFP-MD committees and the number of publications

on applied programmes, we would have a total of about 50 MD organisations. Thus,

we can assume that Managing Diversity has greater potential for future development

(Vedder 2005b). The approach to Personnel Diversity within and between organisa-

tions, in the framework of international co-operation and demographic changes, will

definitely gain importance in the future (Stuber 2004).

3. Managing Diversity in Australia

The emergence and spread of Managing Diversity (MD) in Australia took a very dif-

ferent course to that of Germany. Australia has a national legislative framework and

long tradition of equal employment opportunity (EEO) and anti-discrimination meas-

ures (Stachan/Burgess/Sullivan 2004; Strachan/Burgess/Sullivan 2005). These first

generation initiatives had a fundamental premise of encouraging equity in employ-

ment by identifying and eliminating barriers for disadvantaged groups in the work-

place (French/ Maconachie 2004). This however has been coupled in recent years

with a “self consciously constructed political reality” to capitalise on multicultural di-

versity (Cope/Kalantzis 1995, p.179). Both of these provided the foundation for a

unique formulation of MD.

D’Netto, Smith and Da Gama Pinto (2000) suggest the MD concept and associated

terms first emerged in the public domain and published literature in Australia in the

7

late 1980s, early 1990s. One of early Australian references to managing diversity

appeared in a publication from the largest employer representative group in Australia,

the Business Council of Australia (Teicher/Spearitt 1996) and distinguished MD by

suggesting it was unlike EEO and AA because it “addresses the deep cultural as-

sumptions that create inequities” (Smith/Carmody 1991, p.34).

Thus, it could be argued that two associated public policy programs aimed at private

sector organisations began to develop alongside each other. For example, part of the

Australian public policy approach has been to actively support the diversity theme

through economic and legal EEO/AA efforts with much attention focused on women

and more recently on employees with family commitments (Davidson/Griffin 2003,

Chapter 5; Strachan/Burgess/Sullivan 2004; Strachan/Burgess/Sullivan 2005). On the

other plank of Australia’s public policy approach, the initial focus of government ini-

tiatives and publications was on a fairly narrow interpretation of ‘diversity’, that of

productive diversity which emphasized utilising Australia's language and cultural di-

versity for economic benefits (Bertone/ Leahy 2003, p.105). The use of this unique

Australian term can be traced to the beginning of the 1990s (Cope/Kalantzis 1997)

when the government introduced a policy program used to link business manage-

ment with diversity initiatives titled the Productive Diversity Program. As Hay high-

lights, the adjective ‘productive’ was to squarely focus organisations “on the eco-

nomic benefits of cultural and linguistic diversity” (2004, p. 9).

In part, these divisions can be explained because of bureaucratic separation in policy

responsibility (Bertone 2002). EEO for women is dealt with primarily by the Equal

Opportunity in the Workplace Agency (EOWA), as well as the Work and Family Unit

as national level government divisions within the Department of Employment and

Workplace Relations (DEWR). Productive diversity, (renamed in 1999 to the more

8

broad Diversity Works! Program) and multicultural relations are situated and pro-

moted in the different government portfolio of the Department of Immigration and

Multicultural Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA also finances and promotes a wide range of in-

formation campaigns and research projects from which extensive MD material has

been published. Many well-founded strategy papers, statistically orientated diversity

information publications, MD studies, case studies and training material for employ-

ers, employees, as well as for the Australian public, have been the result of this fund-

ing (see under www.diversityaustralia.gov.au). It is interesting to note from a MD

perspective that these two public policy areas have very different approaches. While

programs to promote equal opportunity for women have been mandated by legisla-

tion (at least for private sector organisations with more than 100 employees), pro-

ductive diversity programs for immigrants have been voluntary (Bertone/Leahy 2000,

p.12) and arguably utilitarian, narrowly focused on export business rather than busi-

ness in general (Bertone 2002 p.2). The Australian government has also encouraged

voluntary diversity practices through support for best practice awards for companies

in specific diversity areas (for e.g. national Work and Family Awards, Employer of

Choice for Women Awards, Prime Minister's Employer of the Year Awards for em-

ployers providing work opportunities for people with disabilities.

A key report influencing the reception of MD as a concept was the 1995 Report of

the Industry Commission's Taskforce on Leadership and Management Skills entitled

Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia’s Managers to Meet the Challenges of the

Asia-Pacific Century (Karpin 1995). Also know as the Karpin Report, it identified two

main areas of challenge for organisations, the importance of accessing the talents of

women in senior management positions and those assets specific to different cultural

backgrounds (Karpin 1995, p. 233; also see Burton/Ryall (1995). A further endorse-

9

ment of these views was published by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis in 1997 when

they used the already coined concept as their book title, Productive diversity: a new,

Australian model for work and management (Cope/Kalantzis 1997) and thus invoked

a public discourse on the theme which clearly attempted to detach it from the tradi-

tional EEO/AA efforts in Australia. As the authors emphasised, "Anti–discrimination

measures, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action might be important

ideas but they are also fraught ideas. This book is not about these ideas” (Cope

/Kalantzis 1997, 259). All of these developments concentrate the so-called business

case for diversity (DIMA 2001; DeCieri/Kramar 2003, Chapter 8; Davidson/ Griffin

2006, Chapter 5; Cope/ Kalantzis 1997).

Similar to Germany, there are a number of consultancy groups in Australia which

provide diversity services and programs for organisations. Many of these first

emerged in the 1990s (such as Diversity@work and Australian Diversity Consultants)

and report large client lists of private and public sector organizations. However,

charting the spread and take up of managing diversity practices by firms within Aus-

tralia indicates mixed views about its application. Less than ten years ago, it could be

said that MD in firms was still in its infancy in Australia (Teicher/Spearitt 1996; Ber-

tone/Leahy 2000, p.17; Dagher/D’ Netto 1997) with ‘mediocre’ use of diversity prac-

tices (D’Netto/Sohal 1999, p.541) and low reported incidence and take up of produc-

tive diversity policies and strategies (Bertone 2002, p.9). Commissioned research by

DIMIA surveyed the state of diversity management policies and practices in Australia

in 1999 (Nicholas/Sammartion 2001; Sammartion /Nicholas /O´Flynn 2004). The

survey of senior managers in 229 large organisations was representative of medium

and large firms in all industry sectors. More than half the firms surveyed identified at

least one of seventeen business and social justice case arguments surveyed (for eg.

10

cost efficiency, workforce productivity, equal opportunity compliance etc) as highly

important to their competitive advantage (Sammartion/ Nicholas/O´Flynn 2004,p.3-

4;7). However using a combined analysis of diversity capabilities (bundles of diversity

practices) and diversity resources (the heterogeneity of the workforce), the re-

searchers concluded less than a fifth of Australian firms had ‘…the bare essentials to

develop the diversity management competencies required to achieve a sustainable

competitive advantage’ (Sammartion/ Nicholas/O´Flynn 2004 p.7).

Although the number of firms applying MD concepts may be questioned, a review of

diversity consultant websites and winners of Employer of Choice Awards suggests it

is growing in practice. Not only large international firms belong to the active sup-

porters and pioneers of MD in Australia (IBM, Shell, BHP Billiton, McDonalds), but

also banks (ANZ, Westpac, National Australia Bank) and public service corporations

(Australian Post, Sydney Water, Telstra). Of particular interest for Germans is the

business contact many firms have to Aboriginal Australians (Alcoa, Rio Tinto, Gemco)

thus promoting Indigenous businesses (Diversity@work 2003). Nevertheless, it

seems difficult to appraise just how widespread MD is. A well–known Australian Di-

versity Expert looking at the largest Australian Top100-Firms said in an interview: "All

of the larger companies have diversity policies, but most employers are not strategi-

cally interested". In addition to the MD pioneers, there are also a number of diverse

small and middle-sized firms as well as public sector organisations (University of

Technology, Sydney) which have adapted this concept. The total number of Austra-

lian firms using MD has been accessed by several interviewed persons as higher than

the German counts but also substantially under the USA application.

11

4. National Agreements on Management Diversity

Personnel Diversity in various national workforces is presently subjected to significant

changes and this trend will continue during the next decade (Kirton/Greene 2000,

DeCieri/Olekalns 2001, Engelbrech 2003, Aghazadeh 2004). On one hand, this devel-

opment reflects the diversity within society and thus in the Personnel Diversity within

various organisations. The employers react to the demographic changes and other

institutionalized factors (changes to laws, changes in the education system, pressure

by certain interest groups) by applying Managing Diversity.

The following aspects of MD concepts will be more closely examined:

(1) Ethnic Diversity

(2) Demographic Change

(3) The Situation of the National Workforce

(4) Legal Intentions and Jurisdiction of the Law

(5) Political Influences on Managing Diversity

4.1. Ethnic Diversity

The German population consists of 91.2% Germans and 8.8% immigrants according

to a study done in 2004. The strongest immigrant group is formed by 2.4% Turkish,

1.8% from former Yugoslavia and 0.7% from Italy. Recognized ethnic minorities

within the German population are the Danes, Frisians, Sorbs and Gypsies, who only

sum up to 500,000 persons. More strongly represented are the Russo-German reset-

tled persons who make up 2.5% and are with their large numbers particularly impor-

tant for the labour market (Their re-settlement began with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The previous chancellor Helmut Kohl accepted their re-integration because they were

once German citizens).

12

If we exclude the Russian-German minority group of 2.5% from the German work-

force and recognize that the employment rate among Germans lies just above the

immigrant level (Granato 2003, 17), then there is only a 10% representation of eth-

nic minorities on the German labour market. This example reflects a strong ethnic-

cultural homogeneity not only within its society but also in the labour force. It is

presently assumed that ethnical diversity will increase in the future as a result of a

fluctuation in birth rates among different ethnic groups, as well as the increase in

migration (Stuber 2004, 50).

In comparison, Australia (20.4 million inhabitants) reflects a very different statistical

situation. In 2004, only 73% of the inhabitants were born in Australia. Most of the

immigrants came from Great Britain and New Zealand; approximately 13% came

from Non English Speaking Countries (NESC). Chinese and Vietnamese compose in

each case 0.8% of the population in Australia. About 15% of all Australian families

speak another language other than English (often Italian and Greek). The descen-

dants of the indigenous people consist of 2.2% of the Australian population. The

Australian workforce is much more ethnically heterogeneous than its German coun-

terpart (www.immi.gov.au). Thus we can say that the Australian government has

made greater attempts to accommodate and utilise these ethnic groups by imple-

menting and supporting MD programmes.

4.2. Demographic Change

In Australia it is estimated that the population will increase by 30% to 26 million by

2050. In the year 2004, the birth rate was 1.8 children per woman and the net mi-

gration rate was 4.1 per 1,000 residents (www.abs.gov.au). Although Australia has a

better starting point than Germany, there is, nevertheless, an intensive discussion

13

taking place on the ageing of the workforce and the possibilities of increasing the

employment rate by focusing on special groups who should receive better qualifica-

tions (Commonwealth of Australia 2004).

The situation is very different in Germany. With one of the lowest birth rates world-

wide of 1,4 children per woman (in 2004) and a net migration rate of only 2,7 per

1,000 residents, Germany's population will have decreased by 15%, from 83 million

to 70 million by the year 2050 (www.destatis.de). In 2002 only half as many children

were born as in the stronger birthing year of 1964. This means that within the next

20 years there will be a massive reduction of young workers (Allmendinger et.al.

2005). The consequences of this development for the social security system have

been discussed in depth for years. The expected problems surrounding personnel

have too seldom been a theme among politicians and management (Engelbrech

2003). German employers should have preoccupied themselves more thoroughly with

Managing Diversity by recruiting selectively more members of minority groups. This

is still seldom the case. Instead, the chronically high unemployment rates have

shifted the attention from future labour market problems (IW 2005).

4.3. Situation of the National Workforce

The German labour market has been in a crisis since the re-unification in 1990. The

unemployment rates rose from 7,9% in the year 1993, to 9,9% in 1997, followed by

a fall to 7,9% in 2001 (Allmendinger et.al. 2005, 284). As of April 2005 unemploy-

ment has risen to 10,1 % (www.destatis.de). The number of employable persons

remained relatively stable at 36 million persons (IW 2005). Although innumerable

structural shifting concepts on the labour market took place, few additional positions

were created. In particular, the long term unemployment has serious consequences:

14

in 2004, approximately 40% of all unemployed were without jobs for longer than 1

year (www.destatis.de). There has always been a re-occurring scarcity of workers in

particular professions (engineers, teachers, doctors, secretaries) or a lack of motiva-

tion in low income sectors. Nevertheless, employers have usually had enough appli-

cants to fill positions (Pudelko 2000). The female employment rate (65% in 2003)

and the employment rate of older workers between the ages of 55 to 64 years (43%

in 2003) demonstrate that these areas have not been exhausted (Allmendinger et.al.

2005, 262 and 266).

The development in the labour market took another turn in Australia. The unem-

ployment fell from 10.6% in 1993 to 8.3% in 1997 and then to 6.8% in 2001 to

5.1% in April 2005. The number employed increased by 1.7 million persons between

1995 and 2005 (www.abs.gov.au). Although there was a quick integration of immi-

grants into the labour market approximately 100,000 persons in 2003, many Austra-

lian firms have chosen to be employers of choice in order to win the most talented

applicants for many different professions. Certainly, the potential within the area of

female employment (66% in 2003) and among older workers from 55 to 64 years

(52% in 2003), has also not yet been fully exhausted (Allmendinger et.al. 2005, 262

and 266).

With the support of these figures, it is not surprising to observe that more Australian

than German organisations have used MD concepts to attain a better position in the

struggle for the shrinking young talents. Managing Diversity allows for the fulfilment

of the needs of female employees, older persons, employees with a disability, and for

the expansion of the recruiting pool. The announced success of MD programmes in

the national newspapers supports the image of a non-discriminatory employer with

whom members of minority groups can seek employment.

15

4.4 Legal Intentions and Jurisdiction of the Law

Authors such as French and Maconachie (2004) suggest approaches to equity man-

agement within organizations in Australia (like managing diversity) have arisen out of

the practical need of an organisation to ensure compliance with equal opportunity

legislation, common law developments and workplace issues. The legislative context

has provided the foundation for the development of Managing Diversity practices in

Australia. Australia’s system of government allows legislation to be created at the

level of various States/Territories (geographical divisions) within the country for ex-

ample Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and at the national or Federal (Australia

wide) level, for example the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cwth). State legislation can

act as a forerunner for, and complement national (Australia wide) level legislation. All

Australian jurisdictions have anti-discrimination and EEO legislation in the area of

employment with a focus on the treatment of particular groups who have tradition-

ally been prevented from full participation in the workforce (Ntatsopoulos 2004,

p.862). As well as specific anti-discrimination legislation prohibiting discrimination at

work on the grounds of such characteristics as sex; martial status; pregnancy;

breastfeeding; family responsibilities; sexuality; race; impairment; political or reli-

gious belief and most recently age, principles of equal employment opportunity and

anti-discrimination are incorporated industrial legislation such as the Workplace Rela-

tions Act 1996 (Cwth) (Ntatsopoulos/Kramar 2004). This legal framework applies to

all public sector (government owned or operated) and private sector organisations.

The legislation that exists in Australia for anti-discrimination is complaint based and

therefore arguably reactive in its operation (Ntatsopoulos 2004, p.863). Its focus is

on assistance for the individual complainant as a means of redress after discrimina-

16

tion has occurred (Strachan/ Burgess/Sullivan 2004, p.196) and as Thornton argued

in the 1990s, the concern of anti-discrimination legislation is only ‘with equality of

opportunity with respect to access to some specified public sphere benefit, such as

employment… it is silent as to the end result’ (1990, p.17). Hence there are argua-

bly limitations on its ability to change any underlying culture, organisational dynamics

or indeed attitudes of individuals (Ntatsopoulos 2004, p.863).

There are further legal considerations for federal Public Sector (government owned

or operated) organizations to through compliance with Public Service Act 1999

(Cwth). All Public Sector agencies are required to establish workplace diversity pro-

grams which include all existing EEO provisions but also go further by focusing on

the links between diversity and organizational effectiveness (Public Service and Merit

Protection Commission 2001; DeCeieri /Olekalns 2001, p.32). There are also further

legal considerations for larger private sector organizations to introduce EEO pro-

grams primarily focused on women. Through at first, the Affirmative Action (Equal

Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 and now the Equal Opportunity for Women in the

Workplace Act (1999), higher education institutions and private sector organizations

with over 100 employees are required by this legislation to submit annual reports (to

the EOWA, a statutory authority reporting to DEWR) on EEO for their workplaces and

demonstrate the measures they have put in place to eliminate discrimination and

promote EEO programs for women (Ntatsopoulos/ Kramar 2004,p.735). Strachan/

Burgess/Sullivan (2004, p.197) have highlighted that this legislation in its early and

current formulation rely on a presumption of ‘good corporate citizenship’, as there

were no explicit national standards for organizations to meet and weak penalties for

failing to submit a report.

17

While EEO legislation for gender equity encourages minimum compliance from large

organizations to certain reporting requirements, changes in recent times has seen it

become ‘more voluntary, less extensive and less proscribed…[with] business left to

manage its gender equity programmes with less intrusiveness’ (Strachan/Burgess

/Sullivan 2004, p.202). Indeed, as some authors have asserted, that even after over

20 years of promotion of the business case in legislation, evidence of progress to-

wards EEO is “patchy and slow” (Ntatsopoulos/Kramar 2004, p.699; also see Ber-

tone/Leahy 2000, p.17). Authors such as Strachan, Burgess/Sullivan (2004) have

predicted that many organisations will simply re-badge their existing EEO strategies

and programs as Managing Diversity initiatives. Indeed research surveyed by Ber-

tone and Leahy (2000) highlighted a minority of companies had a policy commitment

relevant to immigrants and where present, these were usually within mandatory ex-

isting EEO policies.

At present the legal framework poses little pressure on German employers with re-

spect to anti-discrimination (Baer 2003). Relevant, in terms of labour laws is the pro-

hibition of sexual discrimination see §§ 611a and 612 paragraph 3 of German Civil

Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch/BGB), also the discrimination of persons with handi-

caps, see Code of Social Law (Sozialgesetzbuch/SGB) IX as well as the discrimination

of part-time workers see § 4 Part Time Law (Teilzeitbefristungsgesetz/ TzBfG). Gen-

eral legal protection is found under Article 3 of the German Constitution which as-

sures equal treatment to all under the law, regardless of sex, origin, race, language,

place of birth, religion or political beliefs (Göbel 2003). In accordance with § 75

Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz/BetrVG), all employers and work

councils have the responsibility to protect the employees from discrimination of origin,

18

religion, nationality, birth country, political activities, activities within the unions,

gender and sexual preference. Further aspects of equal chances and anti- discrimina-

tion laws are found in § 80 BetrVG (including protection for parents and older em-

ployees), protection against unlawful dismissals in Employment Protection Act

(Kündigungsschutzgesetz/KSchG) and terms for partnership laws (any type of per-

sonal alliance without marriage) (Stuber 2004). The positive resonance of these laws

and legal impulses have played a very minor role in Germany up to now. German

employers neither fear, according to interviewed persons, the legal actions pursued

(in a legal case) nor the low fines they may incur.

The introduction of Managing Diversity in organisations not only means less discrimi-

nation in Personnel Management. It assures the systematic control of Personnel

Practices. By applying MD concepts, we can also assure that the legal forms of fair-

ness are pursued and carried out. The more restrictive the laws and the jurisdictions

are to protect equal chances in various countries, the less we need MD concepts, as

the number of legal cases will be minimized. This is certainly one reason why MD

concepts have up until now only been minimally propagated in Germany. With the

coming application of the new EU Anti-Discrimination Laws 2000/43/EG and

2000/78/EG in the German legal system we will witness a tightening up of the legal

codes (Krell 2004). This will probably also expand the positive influences of MD con-

cepts and practices.

4.5 Political Influences on Managing Diversity

In Germany the influence of politicians, union representatives, various interest

groups of minorities within the labour force as well as journalists who promote and

propagate MD concepts is still very weak (Stuber 2003). Only the homosexual man-

19

agers interest groups have actively propagated MD concepts publicly and have given

diversity prizes for particularly interesting MD projects (www.voelkinger-kreis.de;

www.wirtschaftsweiber.de). The German unions are sceptical about Managing Diver-

sity because they assume MD concepts are motivated by hidden rationalization

trends from the USA. Various women's associations reject the MD concept because

they fear a weakening of the long established women's promotional programmes

within German organisations. The strongest influence, against discrimination on the

labour market and for Managing Diversity within various organisations, will be the

European Community Institutes (Vedder 2005b; www.stop-discrimination.info). The

results of which will be the inevitable involvement of, up until now, reluctant political

parties. Till present, the Green Party is the only party preoccupied with MD issues.

In the Australian context, as in other countries, it was political pressure and the in-

troduction of legislation which prompted change in altering and constraining manag-

ers, forcing them to consider changes and produce guidelines which affirm legislative

principles of equity (Palmer 2003, p.20). Many employers have demonstrated their

commitment to pursue ‘excellence in diversity’ as members of Diversity Council Aus-

tralia (formerly the Council for Equal Opportunity in Employment) an organisation

established in 1985 by two large Australian employer associations to initially demon-

strate their commitment to self-regulation in the area of equal opportunity for

women. They now describe their expertise and services encompass ‘all aspects of the

diversity of human resources’ (www.ceoe.com.au). Unions also in Australia have

substantial commitments to equality in the workplace, as core principles underpin-

ning their general union values. For example, their policy agenda for the last three

20

years has included specific policy focus on workers with families, older and younger

workers and workers with disabilities (ACTU 2003)

What still remains in the Australian interest in MD, is substantial conflict about the

best way to resolve entrenched disadvantage. In particular, there are concerns that

the emphasis on diversity as a tool of competitive advantage comes at the price of a

specific focus on strategies for advancing the position of women and minority groups

in the workplace in Australia (Teicher/Spearitt 1996; Sinclair 2000). Further it has

been argued that despite over a decade of government support for productive diver-

sity initiatives, links between diversity management and beneficial outcomes of in-

creased workplace productivity and international competitiveness remain elusive

(Hay 2004, p.10).

There have also been some concerns within the Australian literature that the political

deregulation agenda of the current Federal (conservative) government has shaped

the formulation of EEO and Managing Diversity in Australia in recent years. Changes

in legislation in the 1990s, and as Bacchi (2000) argues, legislative emphasis (par-

ticularly for the public service organisations) realigned discussion of Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity and Affirmation Action in Australia to that of business case argu-

ments for managing workforce diversity. There are concerns the shift in public sector

initiatives towards workplace diversity has been accompanied by a shift in agenda

away from concerns for equality and scrutiny of equal opportunity (Bacchi 2000).

Similarly Strachan Burgess and Sullivan (2004, p.197-198), in their examination of

the changes in EEO legislation, highlight the changes by the (conservative) coalition

federal government included removing requirements on organisations to set specific

goals and targets for women in the workplace; to report on support from senior

management; to report on allocation of resources and consultation with women and

21

trade unions and, a weakening of emphasis on collection of employment statistics.

The concern is that the scope and application of the gender policy program in Aus-

tralia has become problematical, voluntary and private, with trade unions written out

the MD agenda with its business or management focus (Strachan, Burgess/Sullivan

2004, p.202). Finally, one of the challenges to the current government policy ap-

proach to productive diversity is that as Bertone argues “…government policy has

been allowed to get away with a ludicrously narrow preoccupation with the economic

benefits of ethnic diversity at work” to the detriment of equity concerns and ‘…the

obvious proposition that there are benefits in fully utilising the talents of all members

of a workforce regardless of ethnicity (or gender or age or sexuality etc)’ (Bertone

2002, p.2)

5. Conclusion

Germany and Australia demonstrated at the beginning of the MD movement to have

clear similarities. In both countries it took up to the middle of the 1990's before the

MD concept was openly discussed and widely practised. Pioneers of MD practises

were, in both cases, large international firms (IBM, Ford, Hewlett-Packard...) which

brought MD from their Mother firms. The next group to apply MD were the large Ser-

vice Branches (banks, post, transport, telecommunications...) and then the Con-

sumer Goods Industries.

Although few researchers, academics and consultants played a very strong role in

the propagation of MD concepts in Germany, in Australia the government has been

active in spreading the merits of MD by promoting the results of a report on the eco-

nomic advantages of cultural and gender diversity and thus encouraged the interest

in a later diversity publication (Cope/Kalantzis 1997). The two public policy ap-

22

proaches to diversity in Australia have on the one hand refocused existing legislative

EEO initiatives to an increasingly business case approach and on the other, propa-

gated the special term productive diversity, a variety of Managing Diversity consis-

tent with country context. The discourse given in section 4 clearly points out that the

growing use of MD concepts is a reaction to particular national circumstances. In

Australia, low unemployment, present labour scarcity, high ethnic diversity on the

labour force, and the massive political marketing of productive diversity have en-

couraged the development of Managing Diversity. MD has been heralded as the new

generation of EEO, one which places increased emphasis on a business rationale for

embracing equity and social justice initiatives. However its emergence has been ac-

companied by concerns about this shift in emphasis and the ability of organisations

to make strategic links in practice. In Germany, however, with its surplus of work-

force in many professions, the question of future personnel problems resulting from

the demographic change has been entirely neglected. Managing Diversity is not a

central theme for many firms as long as the ethnic diversity among the employees is

restricted, the various interest groups don't assert pressure and the Anti-

Discrimination Laws are weak.

The institutional framework plays an important role for international diffusion of

Managing Diversity. It must be analysed individually because its influences are en-

tirely different. The application should be studied comparatively, in order to explain

the MD differences between neighbouring countries like USA-Canada or UK-Ireland.

Only by using economic productivity and efficiency arguments (the business case for

diversity), we cannot explain different forms of MD application.

23

References

ACTU Congress (2003) Statement of Union Values accessed from http://www.actu.asn.au/congress2003/finalpolicies/union_values_final.html Aghazadeh, Seyed-Mahmoud (2004): Managing workforce diversity as an essential resource for improving organizational performance. In: International Jounal of Pro-ductivity and Performance Management, 53, 521-531. Allmendinger, Jutta/Eichhorst, Werner/Walwei, Ulrich (Hg.) (2005): IAB Handbuch Arbeitsmarkt. Nürnberg. Bacchi, Carol (2000): The seesaw effect: down goes affirmative action, up comes workplace diversity. In: Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, 5.2, 64-83. Baer, Susanne (2003): Recht auf Vielfalt. In: Belinszki, Eszter/Hansen, Katrin/Müller, Ursula (Hg.): Diversity Management: Best Practices im internationalen Feld. Münster u.a., 104-120. Belinski, Eszter/Hansen, Katrin/Müller, Ursula (Hg.) (2003): Diversity Management – Best Practices im internationalen Feld. Münster. Bertone, Santina (2002): Productive diversity in Australia: bureaucratic aspirations and workplace realities. In: Gabb, Diane/Miletic, Tania (ed.): Culture, race and com-munity: making it work in the New Millenium, VTPU Melbourne. Bertone, S and Leahy, M (2000), Diversity Management, Equal Employment Oppor-tunity and the Compartmentalisation of Identity: Some Australian Case Study Evi-dence, D. Kelly (ed) Proceedings of the 15th AIRAANZ Conference, Volume 1: Refe-reed Papers, pp11-18. Bertone, S and Leahy, M (2003) ‘Multiculturalism as a conservative ideology: Impacts on workforce diversity’ Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 41 (1); pp101-115 Burton, C and Ryall, C (1995) Managing for Diversity: Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia’s Managers to Meet the Challenges of the Asia Pacific Century, Industry Taskforce on Leadership and Management skills Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Chapter nine. Commonwealth of Australia (ed.) (2004): Australia’s demographic challenges, Can-berra. Cope, Bill/Kalantzis, M (1994), ‘Making diversity work: the changing cultures of Aus-tralian workplaces’, in The Abundant Culture, D. Headon, J. Hooton, D. Horne (eds), Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Chapter 19. Cope, Bill/Kalantzis, Mary (1997): Productive diversity: a new, Australian model for work and management. Sydney.

24

Coppi, Mareike (2004): Praxisbeispiel Deutsche Bank; In: Krell, Gertraude (Hrsg.): Chancengleichheit durch Personalpolitik. 4. Aufl. Wiesbaden, 413-418. Cox, Taylor H. Jr. (1993): Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco. Cox, Taylor H. Jr./Blake, Stacey (1991): Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competetiveness. In: Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45-56. Davidson, Paul/Griffin, Ricky (2003): Management: An Australasian Perspective, 2nd edition, Sydney. Davidson, P and Griffin, R (2006) Management: Australasian Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Australia, Chapter 5 Dagher, J and D’Netto, B (1997) Managing Workforce Diversity in Australia, DeCieri, Helen/Kramar, Robin (2003): Human Resource Management in Australia. Sydney. DeCieri, Helen/Olekalns, Mara (2001): Australia. In: Patrickson, Margaret/O’Brian, Peter (ed.): Managing Diversity: An Asia Pacific Focus. Sydney, 21-36. DEWR/ Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2005) Work and Fam-ily: The importance of workplace flexibility promoting balance between work and family available at http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Organisation/Employer/WorkFamily/ ac-cessed 15 Feb. DIMA/Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001): The business case for diversity management. Melbourne. Diversity@work Australia (2003): Diversity means business. Melbourne. D’Netto, B, Smith, D and Da Gama Pinto, C (2000) Diversity Management: Benefits, Challenges And Strategies, Project Number 1 Report prepared for Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Monash Mt Eliza Business School, Victoria Available for download at http://www.diversityaustralia.gov.au/_inc/doc_pdf/2.pdf D’Netto, B and Sohal, A (1999) ‘Human resource practices and workforce diversity: an empirical assessment’ International Journal of Manpower,vol.20, no.8, pp.530-547. Engelbrech, Gerhard (2003): Diversity und Chancengleichheit. In: Belinszki, Esz-ter/Hansen, Katrin/Müller, Ursula (Hg.): Diversity Management: Best Practices im internationalen Feld. Münster u.a., 62-103. EOWA/Equal Opportunity in the Workplace Agency 2006 available at www.eowa.gov.au accessed 15 January.

25

French, E. and Maconachie, G. (2004), “Managing equity: structure, policy and jus-tice influences”, Women in Management Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 98-108. Gardenswartz, Lee/Rowe, Anita (1993): Managing Diversity: a complete desk refer-ence and planning guide. New York. Göbel, Elisabeth (2003): Diversity Management und Gerechtigkeit. In: Wächter, Hartmut/Vedder, Günther/Führing, Meik (Hg.): Personelle Vielfalt in Organisationen. München und Mering, 115-137. Granato, Nadia (2003): Ethnische Ungleichheit auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt. Opladen. Hay, C (2004) Exploring diversity management skills: future directions in business education,DIMIA, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra available at http://www.diversityaustralia.gov.au/_inc/doc_pdf/dm_education_report.pdf Ivanova, Flora (2003): Managing Diversity: Neue Herausforderungen für die interna-tionale Unternehmung. Düsseldorf. IW/Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (2005): Deutschland in Zahlen 2005. Köln. Jackson, Susan and Associates (1992): Diversity in the workplace – Human resource initiatives. New York. Jung, Rüdiger/Schäfer, Helmut/Seibel, Friedrich (1994): Vielfalt gestalten – Managing Diversity. Frankfurt am Main. Karpin, David (1995): Enterprising Nation. Renewing Australia’s managers to meet the challenges of the Asia-Pacific century. Canberra. Kiechl, Rolf (1993): Managing Diversity: Postmoderne Kulturarbeit in der Unterneh-mung. In: Die Unternehmung, 47, 67-72. Kirton, Gill/Greene, Anne-Marie (2000): The dynamics of managing diversity: a criti-cal approach. Oxford u.a. Krell, Gertraude (1996): Mono- und multikulturelle Organisation? „Managing Diver-sity“ auf dem Prüfstand. In: Industrielle Beziehungen, 3, 334-350. Krell, Gertraude (2004): Managing Diversity: Chancengleichheit als Wettbewerbsfak-tor. In: Krell, Gertraude (Hg.): Chancengleichheit durch Personalpolitik. 4. Auflage, Wiesbaden, 41-56. Lithvin, Deborah (2002): The business case for diversity and the “iron cage”. In: Czarniawska, Barbara/Höpfl, Heather (ed.): Casting the other. London, 160-184. Loden, Marilyn/Rosener, Judy (1991): Workforce America: managing employee di-versity as a vital resource. Homewood.

26

Nicholas S and Sammartion A (2001) Capturing the Diversity Dividend: Views of CEOS on Diversity Management in the Australian Workplace DIMIA. Access from http://www.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/acib/diverse/reports3d.html . Niland, Carmel/Champion, Rafe (1990): Equal employment opportunity programs for immigrants: the experience of thirteen organizations. Canberra. Ntatsopoulos, J and Kramer, R (2004) ‘Discrimination and Equal Employment Oppor-tunity’ , in Australian Master Human Resources Guide 2004/5 3rd edn, CCH, McPher-son’ Printing Group. Chapter 29. Ntatsopoulos, J (2004) ‘Valuing Diversity , in Australian Master Human Resources Guide 2004/5 3rd edn, CCH, McPherson’ Printing Group. Chapter 34. Palmer, G (2003) ‘Diversity management, past, present and future’ Asia Pacific Jour-nal of Human Resources, 41 (1): pp 13-24 Plett, Angelika (2002): Managing Diversity – Theorie und Praxis der Arbeit von Lee Gardenswartz & Anita Rowe. In: Koall, Iris/Bruchhagen, Verena/Höher, Friederike (Hg.): Vielfalt als Lei(d)tkultur. Münster, 99-112. Pudelko, Markus (2000): Das Personalmanagement in Deutschland, den USA und Japan. Band 1. Die Bedeutung der gesamtgesellschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen im Wettbewerb der Systeme. Köln. Rogers, Everett (1995): Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York. Rühl, Monika (2004): Praxisbeispiel Lufthansa: Diversity – Argumente, Strategie, Maßnahmen. In: Krell, Gertraude (Hg.): Chancengleichheit durch Personalpolitik. 4. Auflage, Wiesbaden, 71-74. Sammartion A, Nicholas S and O´Flynn J 2004 'A Resource-based Analysis of Diver-sity Management: Evidence from Australian Firms', Paper20, paper presented at The VIIth IFSAM World Congress, Goteborg, Sweden, July 5 - 7, 2004. accessed from http://www.handels.gu.se/ifsam/ Sinclair, A, (2000) ‘Women within diversity: risks and possibilities’ Women in Man-agement Review ; Volume 15 ; No. 5, pp.237-245. Strachan, Glenda/Burgess, John/Sullivan, Anne (2004): Affirmative action or manag-ing diversity: what is the future of equal opportunity policies in organizations. In: Women in Management Review, 19, 196-204. Strachan, Glenda/ Burgess, John/ Sullivan Anne (2005) ‘Workforce Diversity in Aus-tralia: Programs and Policies’ in Workforce Diversity: Global Experiences, S. Reddy (ed),ICFAI University Press, India, 84-102.

27

Stuber, Michael (2003): Perspektiven der Diversity-Praxis. Wächter, Hartmut/Vedder, Günther/Führing, Meik (Hg.): Personelle Vielfalt in Organisationen. München und Mering, 233-246. Stuber, Michael (2004): Diversity: Das Potenzial von Vielfalt nutzen – den Erfolg durch Offenheit steigern. München. Smith, D and Carmody, H (1991), ‘Managing Diversity’ Business Council Bulletin Au-gust , Voll no.78 Teicher, J and Spearitt, K (1996), ‘From equal employment opportunity to diversity management’: The Australian experience’, International Journal of Manpower, vol.17, no.4/5, pp.109-133. Thornton, M (1990), ‘The elusiveness of equality’, in The Liberal Promise: Anti- Dis-crimination legislation in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.9-23. Thomas, Roosevelt Jr. (1990): From Affirmative Action to affirming diversity. In: Har-vard Business Review, 68, 107-117. Thomas, Roosevelt Jr. (1991): Beyond race and gender: unleashing the power of your total work force by managing diversity. New York. Vedder, Günther (2005a): Denkanstöße zum Diversity Management. In: Arbeit, 14, 34-43. Vedder, Günther (2005b): Diversity Management – Quo vadis? In: Personal, 57, 20-22. Wilson, Trevor (1997): Diversity at work: the business case for equity. Toronto u.a.