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)