1991
DOI: 10.1111/j.1936-4490.1991.tb00545.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Valuing Workforce Diversity: A Model of Organizational Change

Abstract: This paper describes the real and perceived impact of increasing workforce diversity on organizations and various management approaches to dealing with the phenomenon. It proposes a model of management that values diversity and seeks to reduce the negative consequences that may arise from conflicting racial and cultural interactions, while simultaneously seeking to maximize its potential benefits. Résumé Le présent article décrit les répercussions réelles et envisagées de l'augmentation de la diversité ethniqu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The language above, from a central piece of the Act, reveals a model infused with the language of human resource management, diversity, and its management for corporate advantage. This same theme and approach to equality was evident in the human resource practitioner community (Canadian Institute, 1992;Copeland, 1988) and management theory (Mighty, 1991) in the late 1980s and 1990s (the time of the new legislation), and is still prominent (Gomez-Mejia et al, 2003;Ruby, 2006). Recurrent themes and language used in the idea and management of diversity do not, for the most part, demand structural change to tackle inequalities, such as barriers to employment experienced by workers with disabilities and those of aboriginal ancestry, or job loss and deskilling of women in female-dominated occupations.…”
Section: Equalitymentioning
confidence: 79%
“…The language above, from a central piece of the Act, reveals a model infused with the language of human resource management, diversity, and its management for corporate advantage. This same theme and approach to equality was evident in the human resource practitioner community (Canadian Institute, 1992;Copeland, 1988) and management theory (Mighty, 1991) in the late 1980s and 1990s (the time of the new legislation), and is still prominent (Gomez-Mejia et al, 2003;Ruby, 2006). Recurrent themes and language used in the idea and management of diversity do not, for the most part, demand structural change to tackle inequalities, such as barriers to employment experienced by workers with disabilities and those of aboriginal ancestry, or job loss and deskilling of women in female-dominated occupations.…”
Section: Equalitymentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Importance of senior management support for the success of diversity management is frequently cited in the literature (Mighty, 1991;Morrison, 1992). In addition, line managers' attitudes towards diversity and equality are as important as those of senior managers.…”
Section: Situatednessmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The status of the diversity offi ce and inclusion of diversity goals in corporate objectives are among the most visible illustrations of the level of integration (Joplin & Daus, 1997;Mighty, 1991;Morrison, 1992). Parker (1999, p. 39) argued that equality offi cers may gain the necessary "clout" to be effective in two ways-formally through holding a senior position and informally through having senior management support.…”
Section: Situatednessmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There is evidence from scholars, researchers, and administrators in the United States and Canada that suggest the discourses of inclusion, and attention to attracting and retaining historically underrepresented graduate students serve a neo-liberal agenda that does not really support social justice and equity (Byrd, 2009;Cress, 2008;Mighty, 1991;Siegel, 2006). Further, for a Black woman like me to work in higher education, I must be prepared to deal with pervasive and systemic racism and sexism (Henry & Tator, 2009;Lewis & Bush, 2010).…”
Section: Why Must I Be Intentional and Selfreflexive?mentioning
confidence: 99%