LA#2 Before you start working on this LA, read R4 (article on diversimilarity) carefully. This LA is based on that article and the key focus is to identify similarities and differences between you and another individual. What have you learned from doing this exercise? NOTE: The answers to the first three questions can be common to both reports, but you should submit individual responses to the fourth question. You should try to relate concepts from R4 to this LA.

The Diversimilarity Approach to Diversity Management: A Primer and Strategies for Future Managers Joseph C. OforiDankwa Scott D. Julian Saginaw Valley State University Over the last several decades, there has been an increased emphasis on diversity in the workplace. To some extent, this change was brought about by the civil rights movement and the resulting legislation and regulation. The emphasis on diversity has also been bolstered by the realization that workplace diversity can bring with it many benefits. Workplace diversity can increase creativity and problem-solving abil- ity, enhance the effectiveness of marketing efforts toward minority niche markets, enlarge the pool of potential applicants from which to hire, and improve a firm's image and reputation in the eyes of various stakeholders (Cox and Blake, 1993). However, accompanying these benefits has been an increase in workplace ten- sions and conflicts that some writers have described (Mobley and Payne, 1992: Karp and Sutton, 1993). Members of majority groups can feel threatened and diminished, creating a backlash. This backlash then causes members of minority groups to feel cut off from the interpersonal networks and mentoring resources so important for a successful career, this leads to alienation Increased diversity can thus prove to be a mixed blessing for managers who fail to manage it adequately. The question, therefore, is to identify strategies that future managers can learn in order to take advantage of the benefits of diversity while avoiding its pitfalls. We propose three interrelated strategies STRATEGY ONE:THINK DIVERSIMILARITY One possible solution lies in maintaining the increased emphasis on workplace di- versity while also emphasizing the importance of similarities between individuals and groups. It may be that a singular focus on interpersonal and intergroup differ- ences, while not diminishing the potential benefits of workplace diversity, can at the 84 OFORI-DANKWA AND JULIAN The Diversimilarity Approach to Diversity Management 85 same time magnify the negative potential of those differences. Focusing on differ- ences alone can lead to a diminished realization of the things that individuals have in common, their similarities. Thus, a focus on differences alone can lead to hostile defensiveness, alienation, increased social distance, diminished comfort levels, re- stricted intergroup communication, and ultimately to intergroup and interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, if we only look for differences, we are likely to find only dif- ferences (Ofori-Dankwa and Ricks, 2000). The concept of diversimilarity is a different way to look at workplace diversity issues that simultaneously considers the differences and the similarities between in- dividuals, and one that considers both to be equally important (Loden and Rosener. 1991: Ofori-Dankwa. 1996: Ofori-Dankwa and Bonner. 1998). Diversimilarity sug- gests that diversity can be better managed if people are simultaneously made aware of the differences and similarities that exist between them. While recognizing that differences do clearly exist across various groups, the concept of diversimilarity also stresses the importance of finding similarities across ethnicity, religion, sex, age, so cial status or levels of education. STRATEGY TWO: CONSIDER DIVERSIMILARITY PRINCIPLES Diversimilarity is based on the idea that either or thinking is too simplistic to ade quately address complex organizational problems (Quinn, 1988): either different or similar, for example. Rather, the reality of individuals and their interactions with one another can best be captured with a both/and perspective: both different and similar at the same time. This dual focus on potentially opposite perspectives is called the competing values approach, which Professor Quinn of the University of Michigan has proposed. The recognition that people are similar in some ways while at the same time being different in others is an important element in educating people to value and benefits from diversity (Loden and Roscher, 1991). Once indi- viduals recognize the commonalities that exist between them, workplace conflict associated with diversity can be reduced because people now have common points of reference around which to interact. Ofori-Dankwa and Bonner (1998) summarized the diversimilarity viewpoint using five principles: (1) creativity and adversity in diversity: (2) conformity and compatibility in similarity: (3) diversity within diversity: (4) similarity across diver- sity, and (5) managing diversity by managing diversimilarity The creativity and adversity in diversity principle recognizes the inherent trade-off of increased workplace diversity. When people of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints are brought together creativity and innovation are often increased. Previously unrecognized points of view can broaden and enrich any group's capac- ity for thinking in new ways and in finding novel solutions to long-standing problems Conversely, bringing together people of different backgrounds and viewpoints can also increase interpersonal conflict. The ways in which individuals are different can easily become points of controversy and conflict. This can happen over time even in an environment that was initially open to new ways of thinking, The conformity and compatibility in similarity principle recognizes the inher- ent trade-off of stressing similarities across different groups of individuals. Once people understand the many ways in which they are similar, compatibility between 86 SECTION II Perspectives on Organizations and Diversity them will increase because they can access common frames of reference for under- standing the world about them. On the other hand, these common frames of refer- ence can prove stifling to creativity, leading to a numbing conformity in both thinking and acting. Though individuals from different groups may indeed be dif- ferent in important ways, when together they focus on and cluster about their simi- larities and lose the ability to think creatively The diversity within diversity principle recognizes that there is a significant amount of variation even within categories such as ethnicity and sex that are some- times viewed as homogenous. Knowing a few categories into which an individual can be placed does not tell one all the information about a person. Personality, po- litical view.hobbies, and religious beliefs to name a few things can vary greatly be- tween members of supposed monolithic groups The similarity across diversity principle stresses that important similarities ex- ist between individuals in different demographic groups. Ofori-Dankwa and Bon- ner (1998) use as an example the universality of entrepreneurship across sex. ethnicity, nationality, and culture. Basic motivations such as the need for achieve- ment or a desire for self-esteem show up frequently in different demographic groups, but are manifested differently. Thus, although people may be diverse in outward and obvious demographic characteristics, for example, they may have nu- merous similarities that may not be obvious to a casual observer. The managing diversity by managing diversimilarity principle recognizes that people are simultaneously different and similar, not alike but yet alike. When the stress is put upon how individuals between demographic groups differ from one an- other, the many similarities that exist between members of these groups can be and often are overlooked. Thus, the diversimilarity approach becomes important when conducting diversity training and engaging in day-to-day management activities. Although it is important to affirm and exploit diversity (the ways in which we are different), it is also important not to forget about similarity (the ways in which we are the same). STRATEGY THREE: ACT DIVERSIMILARITY At the individual level, managers should focus on training employees to not only be aware of, and appreciate, differences but to also be on the lookout for similari- ties between themselves and those who, at least initially, may appear to be quite dif- ferent. An exclusive focus on diversity may end up asking too much of employees: They must accept people whom they perceive to be entirely different from them- selves when, in fact, these others are not so different as may be supposed. Training employees to recognize similarities between themselves and others as well as dif- ferences can make it easier to achieve higher levels of workplace diversity without suffering the potential negative side effects. At the group and organizational levels, Ofori-Dankwa and Bonner (1998) rec- ommend a more elaborate approach of managers emphasizing demographic diver- sity, demographic similation, mental diversity, and organizational similation First, managers should be aware of the benefits of demographic diversity and should continue, or seek, to maintain workplace diversity at levels that deliver di- versity's benefits. This diversity goal should exist simultaneously with respecting OFORI-DANKWA AND JULIAN The Diversimilarity Approach to Diversity Management 87 cach individual's rights to equal access and employment opportunity. Although in dustry has made progress in various areas with respect to equal opportunity and en hancing workplace diversity, managers should be ever vigilant to areas still in need of improvement. Second, managers must seek demographic similation, meaning to help indi- viduals in different demographic groups realize the things they have in common with members of other demographic groups. The goal here is nor to assimilate, which would entail changing the interests and cultural predispositions of those from differing groups, but rather to leave these differences alone while recognizing and highlighting the many areas of commonality across groups. For many, someone be ing different from them is acceptable if there are many other ways that this indi- vidual can be seen as being similar. To some extent, the similarities can legitimate the differences that exist between individuals and groups and make them accept- able (Goldstein and Leopold, 1990). Third, managers should seek intellectual/mental diversity. Group members should be encouraged to be independent and out-of-the-box thinkers. Uniformity in thinking and acting on the part of group or organization members can lead to subpar decision making and vulnerability to changes in the business environment, Hiring procedures that emphasize bringing in people who think like others in the organization are likely to be efficient in the short run (easier to fit the person in with the corporate culture, for example) but are not likely to be effective in the long run (due to a reduced capacity to think creatively or to innovate). An important point to make here is that demographic diversity should not be confused with intellectual/mental diversity: The two are often related, but are not the same thing. Thus, achieving demographic diversity may not ensure that a group or organization will achieve intellectual/mental diversity. This is particularly true if an organization has a strong, assimilationist culture. Fourth, and finally, managers should seek group organizational similation, meaning that different individuals and groups within the organization must be made to realize the common elements and interests that bind them together. Em phasizing the importance and primacy of the organization's mission, goals, and strategies is one way to do this. Also, cultivating a common culture and creating a set of values that define how the organization will conduct its business are also im. portant steps toward group and organizational similation. These efforts must not be pushed too far in such a way as to squelch the diversity that managers within the organization have tried hard to achieve. CONCLUSION Many executives and managers within industry have now accepted, at least with lip service if not with actions, the idea that workplace diversity is not only the morally cor- rect course, but also one that can significantly benefit their organization, as well. This increased emphasis on differences between people may obscure the many similarities that exist between individuals from different demographic groups and make it more difficult for firms to achieve the full potential of diversity. By paying attention to both differences and similarities, the diversimilarity approach offers future managers an 88 SECTION II Perspectives on Organizations and Diversity important perspective they can use to build on the gains in workplace diversity that have taken place, and enable them to capture the complete potential of the workers Discussion Questions Assign students to groups of three, ensuring that at least one person in each group is of a different gender or ethnic group. Give each group 10 minutes to discuss the following questions 1. Define in your own words what the concept of "diversimilarity" means and identify the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach. 2. Carefully distinguish between similation and assimilation 3. Explain in your own words the diversimilarity principles of "diversity within di- versities" and explain why these principles are important. References Cox. T. Hand S. Blake. (1993). "Manag- digms to Match Global and National ing Cultural Diversity: Implications Realities" In K. Robers and M. Wilson for Organizational Competitiveness (eds.).Policy Choices: Nafts and Miche Academy of Management Executive gan Future East Lansing: Michigan 5(3), pp. 45-46. State University Press. pp. 271-287 Goldstein. I and M. Leopold. "Corporate Ofori-Dankwa, J., and R. Bonner. (1996). Culture Versts Ethnic Culture." Person "From Affirming Diversity to Affirm- nel Journal. Nov. 1990,69(11). pp. 82-89 ing Diversimilarity: A New Look at Karp, H. B and N. Sutton. (1993). "Where Corporate Diversity Training and Diversity Training Goes Wrong" Management." Multicultural Review. Training, July, pp. 30-34 7:3, pp. 40-43,54 Loden, M. and J. B. Rosener. (1991). Work Oori-Dankwa, J. and D. Ricks (2000). force America: Managing Employer Di "Research Emphases on Cultural versity as a Vital Resource. Homewood. Differences and/or Similarities Are III: Business One Irwin We Asking the Right Questions? Mobely, M. and T. Payne. (1992). "Back- Journal of International Management. lash! The Challenge to Diversity 6. pp. 173-186 Training Training and Development Quinn, R. (1988). Beyond Rational Man December. pp. 45-52 agement Managing the Paradoxes and Ofori-Dankwa, J. (1996). "From Diver Competing Demand of High Perfor sity to Diversimilarity: Shifting Pata- mance San Francisco Jossey-Bass Joseph Ofori-Dankwa (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is a professor of man- agement at Saginaw Valley State University. He has presented seminars and writ- ten extensively on the diversimilarity concept of diversity management. He has published in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, Human Rela- tions, Journal of International Management, and Public Administration Quarterly. Scott D. Julian (Ph.D. Louisiana State University) is an assistant professor of man- agement at Saginaw Valley State University. He has published in the Journal of Small Business Management, European Management Journal, and LE.E.E. Trans- actions. His current research interests include strategic control, strategic issue man- agement, diversimilarity, and research on time. How Canada Promotes Workplace Diversity Marc S. Mentzer University of Saskatchewan When an American visits Canada, at first glance Canada is just like the United States, except it is a bit colder and has money with funny colors. Even though Canada is outwardly similar to the United States, there are deeply-rooted differences in his- tory and in society's values that are not immediately evident to the visitor. To begin to comprehend the differences between the two countries, we must go back to the time of the American Revolution. The American revolutionaries expected that present-day Canada would join them in the fight against the English king: however, the area that makes up present-day Canada stayed loyal to the king and continued under British rule until Canada became independent in 1867. As a result, Canadians have a faith in government that is very different from the usual skepticism and suspicion toward government that one sees in the United States. Another key difference is that the Canadian federal government has less power than the US government, especially where employment regulation is concerned. Canadian government law on employment issues affects only those industries that are federally regulated according to the Canadian constitution. These are broad- casting, telecommunications, banking, railroads airlines, shipping, other transport across provincial boundaries, uranium mining, and crown corporations. (A crown corporation is a company in which the government owns all the stock, such as Canada Post or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.) All other businesses are beyond the jurisdiction of the Canadian government and are affected only by laws passed by the province in which they operate. As an example, consider Sears, the department store chain. In the United States, Sears must obey the U.S. federal law regarding nondiscrimination, minimum wage, and so on. Each state has its own laws, but with some exceptions, a company as large as Sears can ignore the state laws because these laws are overridden by U.S. federal law, In Canada, Sears also has stores throughout the country, however, retailing is not federally regulated under the Canadian constitution. Therefore, Sears in Canada must obey the laws of each province in which it operates A Sears store in Ontario must obey Ontario laws; a store in Quebec must obey Quebec laws; and so on. Overall, this makes the task of obeying the law much more complicated for Scars in Canada than it is for Sears in the United States 89