Article by Judith A. Starkey

Unity from Diversity

"How are we ever going to get everyone to pull together for the good of the company and 'value differences' at the same time?"  A valid question, and one asked by many skeptics of newer employee management philosophies.  How, indeed, can we derive unity from diversity?

Mitchell R. Hammer reported in an issue of Communique, "From the research perspectives, I am encouraged by the recent and more empirically rigorous studies which suggest that a strong cultural/ethnic identity (ingroup identification) makes one feel more secure and therefore more open to outgroup members.  Social identity theory also explains the mechanism in which new identities can emerge....The development of this kind of global identity represents an additional group identification; not a replacement of one's cultural ethnic group identity."

Applied to the workplace, when our uniqueness is respected, even celebrated, by the organizations where we work, we are much more motivated to contribute to the welfare of those organizations.  In so doing we are not relinquishing our own cultural identity to that of the corporate culture−rather, we are creating additional dimensions to our individuality as members of a new group.  Because we feel honored by that group, and thus a part of it, we take pride in its accomplishments and are more inclined to work for its success.  That motivation increases as we share in its growth.

Anyone who questions whether people living in America are proud of their ethnic origin or ancestry should consider this:  the reason additional ethnic/racial codes were added to the 2000 census was because 630 separate computer codes had to be added to cover all the 1990 census responses.

To demonstrate the dynamics of deriving unity from diversity, let's look at transnational organizations, where the differences among employees are even more pronounced than in America.

First, some definitions:  in a Harvard Business Review article, Christopher A. Barlett and Sumantra Ghoshal described the "transnational" organization as one which integrates assets, resources and diverse people in operating units around the world.  "Success in today's international climate...demands highly specialized yet closely linked groups of global business managers, country or regional managers, and worldwide functional managers."  Traditional hierarchies do not have the flexibility this type of modern organization demands.  Case studies of companies with successful global managers revealed these capabilities:

• Global-scale efficiency and competitiveness.

• National-level responsiveness and flexibility.

• Cross-market capacity to leverage learning on a worldwide  basis.

These capabilities reflect the extensive need for cross-cultural understanding.

In an earlier Harvard Business School Press article, Barlett and Ghoshal recommended training program elements for global managers.  Points emphasized were:

• Legitimizing diversity, maintaining a dynamic balance.
  > Developing flexibility in problem-solving.
  > Highlighting the advantages of incorporating points of view of all cultures.
  > Not just emulating a pattern which has worked in the past (which may be based on obsolete hierarchical organizational structures).
  > Managing complexity.

• Recognizing cultural differences and overcoming cultural barriers.
  > Importance of pride of heritage in all cultures.

• Encouraging transnational innovations. 
  > Working together for mutual benefit−the inevitable give and take in such an environment.

• Importance of input (vs. imposition) of all facilities into the company's vision/mission statements.
  > Ensures that all affected operations' knowledge will be incorporated and likely buy-in of all parties.
  > Results become personal as well as a corporate goals.

• Creating an atmosphere where employees work as teams, share ideas and resources, and have common values−"where people make it happen."

• Integrating local worldwide operations into a corporate network for new growth, development and worldwide competition.
  > Identifying characteristics of transnational individuals and organizations, the lessons of history, management implications and challenges.
  > The traditional vs. newer change process models.

• Redefining the manager's role in a transnational context.

• Encouraging people who train together to build bonds and personal relationships−a network of informal contacts.

These components have resounded in the management philosophies of Unilever, often described as one of the foremost transnational companies.  Unilever's credos have been summarized as "thinking globally, while acting locally."  They have a matrix of individual managers around the world who nonetheless share a common vision and understanding of corporate strategy.  In a worldwide company incorporating both unity and diversity, they have a consistent and long-standing policy:  the importance of managing people rather than simply analyzing problems.  They look for people who can work in teams and understand the value of cooperation and consensus.  They expect managers to gain experience in more than one country or product line.  Through their training programs, experiences are shared by trainees creating an informal network of equals who know one another well and usually continue to meet and exchange experiences.  Such an exchange is particularly important in an organization that has an extremely diverse group of international managers.  The company has focused on the importance of linking decentralized units through a common corporate culture.  In other words, to quote their CEO, "we strive for unity in diversity."

These concepts were corroborated at an executive conference I attended where the qualities of successful international managers were examined by representatives of Fortune 500 companies.  In evaluating various factors, such as technical skills, success on the domestic front, personal motivation to take the international assignment, family situation and language skills, all agreed that the foremost success indicator was one called "Relational Dimensions."  Aspects were tolerance for ambiguity, behavioral flexibility, nonjudgmentalism, cultural empathy, low ethnocentrism, and interpersonal skills.  In other words, more than any other factor, the degree of success American managers have had overseas correlated directly with their ability to relate to people in their new location.  They needed the desire and ability to establish relationships with the local citizenry, building trust, and the flexibility to see situations through the eyes of people from other cultures.

Whether in the U.S. or abroad we are living in a global economy, which is fast becoming a global workplace. How well we adapt to the human needs of the new marketplace will predict our success in the changing business environment. From these rich resources of diverse skills, talents, and perspectives, a world of new possibilities awaits us.  Our challenge is to recognize and nurture those resources toward mutual prosperity.

___

Author Judith A. Starkey is president of The Starkey Group, Inc., a consulting and training firm providing multicultural strategies.  For more information see www.StarkeyGrp.com.

For permission to reproduce this article contact StarkeyGrp@aol.com or the address below.

Contact Us:
Judith A. Starkey, President
The Starkey Group, Inc.
3180 N. Lake Shore Drive, Suite 17G
Chicago, Illinois 60657-4867 USA
Phone:  773 348 0421
Fax:  773 348 3683
E-Mail:  jas@StarkeyGrp.com or StarkeyGrp@aol.com
Website.  www.StarkeyGrp.com
MultiCultural Strategies

We respect your privacy and will not reveal your identity without authorization.
See our Products for more information.

Copyright © 2011 The Starkey Group, Inc., All Rights Reserved.