Workplace diversity management in a multicultural society

Gloria E. Miller, Julie I.A. Rowney.

Women in Management Review. Bradford: 1999. Vol. 14, Iss. 8; pg. 307

Abstract (Summary)
Scholars have become increasingly interested in a variety of issues related to workplace
diversity with particular interest in the evaluation of the performance of diverse groups. In
spite of the wide, generally positive publicity given to workplace diversity initiatives, there
are some indications that diversity also creates problems for organizations. Although US
trends are often mirrored, with a lag in adoption time, in Canada, they also tend to be adapted
to the unique Canadian culture. Legislation related to multiculturalism and diversity issues
lags by about 20 years behind similar legislation in the US. The process of change also
appears to have a different locus in Canada than in the US. Given these differences in
approach in Canada and the US, one might expect differences in the penetration of diversity
management knowledge and practices into organizations themselves. This paper reports on a
preliminary study to determine the status of diversity management knowledge and practice in
organizations located primarily in Calgary, Alberta. One-half of the organizations surveyed
gave little indication of being particularly concerned with diversity management issues.

Full Text (5712 words)

Copyright MCB UP Limited (MCB) 1999

Gloria E. Miller: Gloria E. Miller is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior and

Human Resource Management in the Faculty of Administration at the University of Regina,
Regina, Canada.

Julie I.A. Rowney: Julie I.A. Rowney is Professor, Management of Organizations and Human
Resources, in the Faculty of Management at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Introduction

The topic of diversity management has rapidly filtered into organizations and into business
school texts over the past few years. The USA and Canada have both been built on the
immigration of groups from various parts of Europe, but it is only in the past few years that
organizations in North America have become aware that the make-up of the workforce was
changing visibly. Since Workforce 2000 (Johnston and Packard, 1987) alerted many US
organizations to radical changes occurring in population and workplace demographics, the
management of diversity has become a consulting business of considerable magnitude in that
country. One estimate suggested it was in the multimillion dollar range in the USA several
years ago, and that approximately 40 percent of companies in that country had instituted
some form of diversity training (MacDonald, 1993). In Canada, immigration (Statistics
Canada, 1994) and the large numbers of women continuing to enter the workplace are also
creating a diverse workforce although the composition differs from that in the USA
(Betcherman et al., 1994; Lattimer, 1993).

The term "diversity management" refers to efforts by organizations to actively recruit, retain,
and facilitate working relationships among individuals from a variety of backgrounds
(Thomas, 1991). The term diversity has come to designate not only a variety of demographic
and cultural differences but "a workforce made ... distinct by the presence of many religions,
cultures or skin colors, both sexes (in non-stereotypical roles), differing sexual orientations,
varying styles of behavior, differing capabilities, and usually, unlike backgrounds" (Canadian
Institute of Chartered Accountants and Society of Management Accountants of Canada,
1996).

Management scholars have become increasingly interested in a variety of issues related to

workplace diversity with particular interest in the evaluation of the performance of diverse
groups (Kirchmeyer and Cohen, 1992; Maznevski, 1994; Milliken and Martins, 1996). In
spite of the wide, generally positive publicity given to workplace diversity initiatives, there
are some indications that diversity also creates problems for organizations (Betters-Reed and
Moore, 1992: Gottfredson, 1992; Nemetz and Christensen, 1996). At the same time that the
academic and popular literature acknowledges these problems, there has been a scarcity of
scholarship into how organizations are actually responding to workforce diversity, especially
in Canada.

Multiculturalism in Canada

Although US trends are often mirrored, with a lag in adoption time, in Canada, they also tend
to be adapted to the unique Canadian culture. Canada's much smaller population has
developed differently than that of the USA, with a much smaller proportion of visible
minorities and a relatively large proportion of citizens of French origins. And, contrary to the
melting pot value system in the USA, the government of Canada adopted an official policy of
multiculturalism in 1971. The Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, chaired by
Judge Rosalie Abella, issued a report in 1984 which led to the 1986 Employment Equity Act
being passed. The Act designated four disadvantaged groups: women, Aboriginal peoples,
people with disabilities, and members of visible minorities (Department of Canadian
Heritage, 1997). The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed in 1988.

Legislation related to multiculturalism and diversity issues lags by about 20 years behind
similar legislation in the USA. President John F. Kennedy's executive order establishing the
Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity was signed in 1961 and the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 prohibited discrimination. In Canada, the Employment Equity Act was passed in
1986. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 is a form of affirmative action which
applies to federal institutions and, although Section 3(2) of the Act says, "that all federal
institutions shall: (a) ensure that Canadians of all origins have an equal opportunity to obtain
employment and advancement in those institutions;" (Department of Canadian Heritage,
1997), pains are taken to differentiate that Act from the Employment Equity Act on the
grounds that the Employment Equity Act "focuses on the workplace, whereas
multiculturalism policy...has a wider scope, focusing on the whole of society" (Department of
Canadian Heritage, 1997).

The process of change also appears to have a different locus in Canada than in the USA.
While in the USA it appears that consultants recognized that a change in approach was
necessary because of a growing public backlash against employment equity and affirmative
action, in Canada, a number of public task forces and commissions were charged with
responsibility for studying and reporting on various aspects of discrimination against women
and minorities. As mentioned earlier, the Abella Commission Report (Abella, 1984) found
that significant obstacles faced four groups which were later designated in the Employment
Equity Act of 1986. In the same period, several other authors reported on the status of visible
minorities (Daudlin, 1984), the disabled (Halliday, 1990), Aboriginal peoples (Cawsey, 1991;
Hamilton and Sinclair, 1991), and women's advancement in the federal Civil Service
(Edmonds, 1990). In general, Canadians have tended to rely on a strong and paternalistic
government for leadership (Porter, 1991). Consistent with this, in Canada the diversity
management movement, rather than being driven by consultants, has been led by government
agencies. In one province (Alberta), for example, the provincial Multicultural Commission
has been holding Managing Diversity Summer Institutes and Fall Symposia on Diversity
Management since 1989 to enhance public knowledge of diversity issues.

Diversity management in organizations

Given these differences in approach in Canada and the USA, one might expect differences in
the penetration of diversity management knowledge and practices into organizations
themselves. There is some evidence that this is the case. Based on his consulting experience,
Trevor Wilson, a Canadian, has suggested that approximately 50 percent of organizations do
not perceive diversity management to be an issue. It is possible that because Canada has a
history of officially encouraging the acceptance of cultural differences, formal diversity
management initiatives in organizations would simply be unnecessary. However, it is very
unlikely that anything but assimilation was ever the expectation in organizational settings.

Speculation regarding incentives to implement diversity management initiatives in

organizations will, however, remain fruitless without empirical knowledge regarding the
current state of organizational responses to changes in the workforce. This paper reports on a
preliminary study to determine the status of diversity management knowledge and practice in
organizations located primarily in Calgary, Alberta, a city of approximately 800,000 residents
in western Canada.

Research strategy

A list of 180 companies in Calgary with more than 250 employees was compiled and
circulated to the members of the Leadership Diversity Committee for identification of
potential contacts. The Leadership Diversity Committee is a sub-committee of the Faculty of
Management Advisory Council at the University of Calgary, and comprises industry and
other community organization representatives. This process identified 58 potential
participants who were sent a letter describing the project, inviting their participation, and
advising them that they would be called to arrange for a face-to-face, or telephone, interview,
at their convenience. The targeted participants were Vice Presidents, Directors, or Managers
with overall responsibility for diversity management programs in their organizations.

As the initial telephone calls were made, it became quickly apparent that virtually all of the
participants preferred the efficiency of a telephone interview (only two of the final 40
participating organizational representatives requested a face-to-face meeting) and, if a senior
executive had overseer responsibility for diversity strategy, they referred to a human resource
department representative as being more knowledgeable. In smaller organizations, referral
was usually to a person with broad-based responsibilities in human resources.

The final sample included 40 companies from a variety of sectors, including oil and gas,
petrochemicals, tourism and entertainment, food distribution, finance, regulatory, agriculture,
professional services and municipal government. Participants from those companies were
asked the following questions which were based on Duxbury's (1996) investigation into
gender diversity in Canadian organizations: "Could you identify the ways in which your
company/organization has created an environment in which diverse human resources may be
more effectively used?" "Could you identify issues which still need to be addressed in your
own organization and/or organizations in general with respect to a diverse workforce?"

Finally, just before the termination of the interview, participants were asked to identify study
participants in their companies/ organizations who were at the line manager/supervisor level
with responsibility for implementation, and day-to-day management, of diversity initiatives,
and line workers who had responsibility for actually working in diverse groups. The
interviews were of between 20 minutes and one hour duration.

Results and discussion

One-half of the organizations surveyed gave little indication of being particularly concerned
with diversity management issues, although some of them did mention the need to conform to
regulatory pressures. Many of these organizations did not feel that the lack of women and
minorities at representative levels was a problem. Of the remaining 50 percent of companies,
15 (37.5 percent) were beginning to focus on diversity management for altruistic reasons or
because they were having difficulty recruiting skilled employees. Only five (12.5 percent)
had extensive diversity programs aimed at women, Aboriginal people, visible minorities, and
the physically disabled. Programs in these companies had sometimes been "championed" by
a CEO; in other instances, they were driven by a senior executive in the human resources
area. These organizations were at the large end of the size range and were subject to either
federal employment equity legislation or the federal contractors program.

To put these results into some context, a survey commissioned by the Alberta Multicultural
Commission (Citizenship and Heritage Secretariat, 1993) found that 80 percent of 59 Alberta
organizations were attempting to incorporate diversity programs into their workplaces. It is
noteworthy that the organizations in the sample were chosen on the basis of their reputed
progressive human resource management practices, and that most of them were engaged in
diversity programs because they were required to do so by federal law or regulations. A 1996
survey of 123 Canadian organizations (Watson Wyatt Canada and McLarren Consulting
Group, 1997), which focused primarily (though not exclusively) on employers in central
Canada, found that 49 percent had no policy, position, or initiative related to diversity
although 22 percent of the respondents were federally-regulated and 48 percent were subject
to the employment equity requirements of the federal contractors program. That particular
survey found size of organization was the most significant factor, i.e. that most differences
occurred between employers with fewer than 1,000, or more than 10,000, employees, with
larger employers tending to have diversity management programs of some sort. Although the
data are limited, that was the case in the present study as well, with the larger employers
being most likely (though not necessarily) to have some type of diversity management
initiative.

Developmental models of diversity management practices

Several recent models suggest a developmental process for the implementation of diversity
management programs in organizations. A current approach developed by Wilson (1997)
uses a scale he refers to as an equity continuum to place organizations in terms of their
practices in dealing with issues of fairness to employees. Wilson's continuum is based on an
earlier framework developed by Schwartz (1992) from her studies of the progress of women
into positions of influence in companies in the USA. Schwartz found that the companies she
had exposure to fell into patterns in terms of their motivation to develop opportunities for
women. She identified six stages which she labeled unaware, regulatory, morality, multiple
initiatives, leveling field, and true equality.

The Schwartz model

Generally, Schwartz labeled companies that believed they simply had no problem as
"unaware". In such companies, she felt there was little appreciation of any benefit they might
derive from developing women. In fact, she described them as dead to the issue. In some
companies, there were policies and tracking systems in place to satisfy labour laws, but no
initiatives to respond to women's needs. These Schwartz categorized as "regulatory". A third
category where women's needs were beginning to be perceived as important and where a few
policies related to child care and part-time jobs at the clerical level were in place, she
categorized as driven by "morality". The next pattern in the spectrum that she identified
appeared in organizations that had "multiple initiatives" to promote women. These
organizations tended to focus on acceptance and valuing of talent across cultural and other
differences, broadening the focus beyond the promotion and development of women. Finally,
there was a stage she saw a few organizations trying to move toward, to a "level playing
field". Schwartz also suggested a stage beyond the level playing field, which she labeled as
"true equality". She suggested that this state is an unreachable, Utopian one in the context of
current thinking in organizations.

The Wilson model

Wilson (1997) built on Schwartz's model to develop a scale he referred to as an equity

continuum. The continuum, similarly to Schwartz's, is based on the underlying motivations
for organizations' adoption of equitable employment practices. Wilson's stages, again based
on Schwartz's, include: Zeros - No Problem Here, Ones - Legislated Fairness or the Sheriff is
on the Corner; Twos - Good Corporate Citizens; Threes - The Business Reasons; Fours -
Transition; Fives - Still Only a Goal. A comparison of the data Wilson had collected in his
study of Canadian companies with those collected in the present study shows some
interesting differences (see Table I).

Organizations in the Calgary area that could be classified as being between stages 0 and 1,
that is, between lacking awareness that human resource diversity is an issue at all and
complying with labour legislation, are roughly equivalent to the numbers Wilson found,
approximately 50 percent of organizations.

We found fewer companies than Wilson in stages 1-2 and 2-3, but about 12.5 percent more at
level 3-4, somewhere between valuing diversity for business reasons and valuing it for
innovative, creative reasons.

Similarly to Wilson, none of the organizations in our sample was in the level 4-5 stage, the
"mythical stage" (Wilson, 1997, p. 42) where employment systems are equitable in the
perception of the employees themselves.

Thematic data
In this type of study, the richest information is often drawn from themes that emerge from the
data. Although a thematic content analysis was restricted in this study by the lack of tape
recording of interview data, nevertheless, some interesting information did emerge.

In the majority of organizations either where there was no diversity initiative, or where there
was regulated compliance (i.e. "legislated fairness" in Wilson's terms (1997)), two
overarching themes emerged, one related to the lack of a problem, and a second to the
difficulty in changing entrenched cultural beliefs. One participant pointed out that they had
no need for a formalized program since "formalization means there's been a problem; there
hasn't been any." The same participant went on to describe the fact that her company
comprised 80 percent females overall but that only three of ten executive officers are female.

Another said that they "treat people as people and hire the best person for the job, regardless
of gender, ethnicity, and so on." She went on to describe some initiatives that her
organization had taken regarding diversity in their employee group: they allowed shift change
requests on the basis of religion and they "recognized diverse backgrounds by having
international days, for example a Christmas luncheon which included multi-ethnic foods."
There seemed no irony attached to a multi-ethnic, multi-religious group having a celebratory
lunch around a Christian holiday.

A participant from another very large organization with a lengthy history in western Canada
said that although they actively tried to recruit Aboriginal peoples, deeply rooted beliefs
about the work styles of Aboriginal people made it extremely difficult. He went on to say that
they found it "difficult to recruit women to work in rural areas or who will stay when we do
find them - they leave when their husbands get transferred or they get pregnant." An indicator
of progress in this organization was that their representatives who deal with farmers used to
only consult with husbands, but, recognizing that wives are also involved in decision making,
they now talk with them both.

Similarly, an organization that is involved in the promotion of the traditional western lifestyle
to tourists said that they "don't track employee backgrounds but that more than 50 percent of
the employees are female. Two of 14 senior managers are female." However, they also
reported having an increased number of women in lower management positions in the past
three years, but the contact said, "most are considering whether they want to progress in their
careers or have families." This contact also reported that women simply do not apply for the
jobs they advertise. They "only got two women applicants out of 300 for a recent senior
service manager's job, and for the recently open position of Controller, one-third of applicants
were women." In both cases, they hired men.

The general feeling from these participants is that changes embracing workforce diversity run
into a barrier at the level of organizational culture. And there is some indication of
particularly intense resistance to change in those organizations with cultures that may fall into
the category of enhancing, that is, whose members tend to adhere more fervently to the core
values of the dominant culture (Martin and Siehl, 1983). Although Martin and Siehl's
argument was based on sub-cultures internal to organizations, it is also possible that, in an
environment dominated by a single industry with values clearly embedded in a particular
historical construct, organizations with clear ties to that construct may become fervent in
upholding the core values. In Calgary, the energy industry dominates all aspects of society
and it has recently been suggested that its core values are embedded in the cowboy, frontier
myth (Miller and Rowney, 1998) as it is in the USA (Prasad, 1997). Two of the organizations
quoted from above have close ties to the frontier, either in agriculture or in
ranching/cowboying. Typically, that particular cultural framework does not include diversity.

Some of the problematic issues identified by organizations in this category were related to
backlash, either from customers toward a diverse staff, or from other employees toward those
who appeared "favoured." One company spokesperson mentioned that there was a feeling
they had gotten "too flexible toward the needs of single parents which was creating anger
among other employees." There was also mention of a lack of support, or outright resistance,
at the senior management levels and of the disregard for, and anxiety of, technical
professionals toward any issues having to do with the non-technical.

A second broad category consisted of organizations where awareness and change were being
focused on in various ways, but, in the words of one spokesperson, "initiatives were ad hoc
not proactive." These organizations began with a focus on the importance of gender to work-
life issues and secondarily, became aware of other sources of diversity. In most of these
companies there had been deliberate efforts to recruit a diverse employee group, in some
cases, by sending job postings to ethnic organizations and by participating in Career Fairs.
Recruiters had been trained regarding legal and cultural issues. Virtually all of the
organizations had sexual harassment policies in place and some had flexible hours and job
sharing arrangements.

Issues identified by this group of companies related to a lack of time for training in their
organizations, implications of restructuring such as competition and conflict among workers
and the creation of a contingent work force with its more remote relationship to the company,
the taboo nature of issues related to sexual orientation, and "lots of rhetoric, but resistance to
change, at the top." Participants also mentioned more specific problems such as the "old boys'
club in the oil industry," and the rigid value system in technical/chemical engineering
environments. In spite of considerable time and energy input from human resources people,
they saw little change in either numbers or attitudes. The difficulty in integrating Aboriginal
people, in spite of extensive programs to do so, was frequently mentioned.

Organizations in the third category, those with more extensive programs, tended to be quite
large and some were multinationals. A number of these companies were involved in
production on Aboriginal lands and they had gone to great lengths to accommodate
Aboriginal peoples in various ways. They were required to ensure that a certain percentage of
Aboriginal and local people were paid participants in projects carried out on their local lands
and they had arrived at some quite innovative strategies for accomplishing this. Some
mentioned having a formal Aboriginal Relations position, and providing cultural sensitivity
training to all employees. Others gave scholarships for post-secondary education to
Aboriginal people and then hired them when they graduated. They provided start-up capital
for Aboriginal businesses which they then contracted work from. They had Aboriginal liaison
workers with responsibility for supporting recruitment to these programs and for the
provision of ongoing support once the contracts were generated. Some of the companies
focused internally on the strategic importance of working cooperatively with Aboriginals in
terms of the impact on the business: reduced turnaround times, for example, for land-use
approvals and faster, easier access to lands which reduced costs.

Other interesting initiatives included the training and use of an internal alternative dispute
resolution team to assist in instances of employee conflict. One spokesperson mentioned
dealing with the problem of the evaluation of the credentials of foreign-trained workers using
a service company which had been set up specifically for that purpose. One company
financially supports initiatives geared toward highlighting the contributions of women (e.g.
the Alberto Famous Five), and subsidizes lunches for women employees with high profile
women speakers. Another has a long list of projects designed to promote the value of women
to their organization including training workshops on gender differences, a formal mentoring
program for women, a Women's Issues Network and internal research on barriers to women.

In spite of the larger companies having relatively large and well-trained human resource
departments, they mentioned as a major issue a lack of time to do all that was needed. In
particular, the difficulty and long-term nature of changing values and attitudes drained the
professionals in these companies. They described their organizations as being led by "aging,
white, male, engineers" which created environments not conducive to women, or to other
working styles. One participant mentioned that the "techies just freeze at anything warm and
fuzzy." Backlash was also mentioned frequently here and the suggested solution was to use
an inclusive definition of diversity rather than focusing on women and ethnic differences. It
was fairly obvious from listening to these participants that diversity initiatives were very
much driven by the human resources departments, even when there was support from senior
executives. There was discussion of the need to promote diversity as a business and
competitive imperative and to do more internal promotion of the value of diversity in the
companies.

Generally, the most persistent and resistant variables identified as barriers to the
implementation of diversity initiatives were reported to be at the level of attitudes, values and
beliefs: at the cultural level. Those organizations which had the most extensive diversity
programs also had fairly large human resource departments. But 50 percent of the
organizations did not have any diversity initiatives in place, and some of them also had
human resource departments. Thus, the presence of a human resource department did not
explain the presence of a diversity management program. Some organizations were spurred to
an interest in diversity because of their experience at working on Aboriginal lands or in other
countries; again, though, there were companies with similar types of experience that had
developed extensive cross-cultural training programs but had no local programs to train staff
in diversity issues. Direct contact with a culturally diverse customer base also did not appear
to influence companies to incorporate diversity initiatives. In companies where recruitment
and selection were from the surrounding community, increasing the likelihood that their staff
mirrored their customer base, there was not necessarily a program to value or deal with
differences. Assimilation of minorities into the corporate culture was expected. This variety
and lack of predictability, although they may have been entirely due to the small sample size,
also lead one to speculate on potential differences in the cultures of the human resource
departments in these organizations and their relationship with the human resources
occupational community (Van Maanen and Barley, 1984).

Because Canada is heavily influenced by US culture and trends through various media,
branch offices, consultant exchange, etc., and since a large portion of the popular literature on
diversity focuses on the showcasing of successes of workplace diversity (Prasad and Mills,
1997, p. 12), it is conceivable that Canadian corporations might perceive a benefit in being
exemplars of current practices. Institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and
Rowan, 1977; Scott and Meyer, 1991) suggests that, although organizations are subject to the
influences of law, regulation, public opinion, etc., their structures and practices are also
powerfully mediated by normative influences in their environments.
From an institutional theory perspective, organizations are likely to adopt workplace diversity
management practices for social legitimacy. This view suggests that, rather than the
efficiency arguments of human capital theorists for the uptake of diversity management
practices, the operative pressures would be toward isomorphism with institutional
environments in order to gain the legitimacy and resources needed to survive. One would
expect that as powerful and prominent organizations in the USA engage in diversity
initiatives, Canadian organizations are likely to mimic them whether they fit local patterns or
not. This would be particularly likely in larger organizations with human resource
departments where knowledge of the American "success" stories is most likely and where the
legitimacy of the human resource department itself may depend on such imitation.

Conclusion

Management of a diverse workforce through various human resource training programs has
apparently become quite common in the USA. Canadian organizations are the recipients of
much of the popular practitioner literature from the USA and are very interested in current
trends in that country. If any conclusions can safely be drawn from this study, as mentioned
earlier, it appears that it is mainly the larger organizations and those competing in
international markets who have incorporated much of the consulting literature knowledge
(though this was not uniformly the case). Those organizations with a more local focus tended
to incorporate knowledge either on an as-needed basis, or as a response to legislative
requirements. Whether changing workforce demographics are presenting organizations with
recruitment and performance problems is, aside from legislative requirements, not really
known. Canada is itself a highly diverse country, with pockets of intense homogeneity (e.g.
the province of Newfoundland is 98 percent white, drawing its heritage from the UK), and
several magnets for ethnoculturally diverse groups (for example, Toronto, Vancouver,
Calgary). It does seem inexplicable that in such an environment so few organizations
perceive any need for diversity programs. Possibly the recent history of restructuring and
downsizing may have created a situation where workforce recruitment is not a problem.

What this study does highlight is the need for considerably more research into "diversity
management" in organizations. What it did uncover suggests that what is going on is
probably not simple or straightforward. The type of research that is needed is at multiple
organizational levels. Research at the level of individual and group behavior should help us
gain a better understanding of the emotionally-based backlash that was often mentioned by
participants as a problem. At the organizational level, the openness of particular
organizational cultures to "difference" needs documentation. We also need a better
understanding of the cultures of human resource departments in organizations and their
susceptibility to institutional processes in the extra-organizational human resource
occupational culture.

References

1. Abella, R.S. (1984), Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report, Supply and
Services Canada, Ottawa.

2. Betcherman, G., McMullen, K., Leckie, N. and Caron, C. (1994), The Canadian
Workplace in Transition, Industrial Relations Center, Queen's University, Kingston, ON.
3. Betters-Reed, B.L. and Moore, L.L. (1992), "Managing diversity: focusing on women and
the whitewash dilemma", in Sekaran, U. and Leong, F.T.L. (Eds), Womanpower: Managing
in Times of Demographic Turbulence, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 31-58.

4. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts and The Society of Management Accountants of

Canada (1996), Measuring the Impact of Diversity, Ontario.

5. Cawsey, R.A. (1991), Justice on Trial: Report of the Task Force on the Criminal Justice
System and Its Impact on the Indian and Metis People of Alberta, Department of the
Attorney.

6. Citizenship and Heritage Secretariat, General Department of the Solicitor-General,

Edmonton (1993), Moving Forward: Corporate Initiatives in Managing Diversity, Alberta
Community Development.

7. Daudlin, R. (1984), Equality Now! Report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities
in Canadian Society, House of Commons, Ottawa.

8. Department of Canadian Heritage (1997), "Appendix B: About the Canadian

Multiculturalism Act'', www.pch.gc.ca/multi/html/english.html

9. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), "The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields", American Sociological
Review, Vol. 48, pp. 147-60.

10. Duxbury, L. (1996), Men and Women Working as Partners: A Reality Check of Canadian
Organizations, Centre for Research and Education on Women and Work, Ottawa.

11. Edmonds, J. (1990), Beneath the Veneer, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.

12. Gottfredson, L.S. (1992), "Dilemmas in developing diversity programs", in Jackson, S.E.
(Ed.), Diversity in the Workplace: Human Resource Initiatives, Guilford, New York, NY, pp.
319-38.

13. Halliday, B. (1990), A Consensus for Action: The Economic Integration of Disabled
Persons, House of Commons, Ottawa.

14. Hamilton, A.C. and Sinclair, C.M. (1991), Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of
Manitoba: The Justice System and Aboriginal People, Queen's Printer, Winnipeg.

15. Johnston, W.B. and Packer, A.H. (1987), Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the
21st Century, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis.

16. Kirchmeyer, C. and Cohen, A. (1992), "Multicultural groups: their performance and
reactions with constructive conflict", Group and Organization Management, Vol. 17, pp. 153-
70.

17. Lattimer, R. (1993), "Managing workforce diversity: problems similar in Canada and the
USA", Towers Perrin Focus, Spring, pp. 9-10.
18. MacDonald, H. (1993), "The diversity industry", The New Republic, Vol. 209 No. 5,
July, pp. 22-25.

19. Martin, J. and Siehl, C. (1983), "Organizational culture and counterculture: an uneasy
symbiosis", Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 52-64.

20. Maznevski, M.L. (1994), "Understanding our differences: performance and decision-
making groups with diverse members", Human Relations, Vol. 47, pp. 531-49.

21. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), "Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as
myth and ceremony", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-63.

22. Miller, G.E. and Rowney, J.I.A. (1998), "Entrepreneurialism, the frontier 'cowboy' myth,
and professional women in the culture of the Alberta oil industry", Proceedings of the 1998
Annual Conference, Women in Management Division, Vol. 19, Administrative Sciences
Association of Canada.

23. Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), "Searching for common threads: understanding
the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups", Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 21, pp. 402-33.

24. Nemetz, P.L. and Christensen, S.L. (1996), "The challenge of cultural diversity:
harnessing a diversity of views to understand multiculturalism", Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 21, pp. 434-62.

25. Porter, M.E. (1991), Canada at the Crossroads: The Reality of a New Competitive
Environment, Business Council on National Issues, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.

26. Prasad, A. (1997), "The colonizing consciousness and representations of the other: a
postcolonial critique of the discourse of oil", in Prasad, P., Mills, A.J., Elmes, M. and Prasad,
A. (Eds), Managing the Organizational Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 285-311.

27. Prasad, P. and Mills, A.J. (1997), "From showcase to shadow: understanding the
dilemmas of managing workplace diversity", in Prasad, P., Mills, A.J., Elmes, M. and Prasad,
A. (Eds), Managing the OrganizationaI Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-27.

28. Schwartz, F. (1992), Breaking with Tradition: Women and Work, the New Facts of Life,
Warner, New York, NY.

29. Scott, W.R. and Meyer, J.W. (1991), "The rise of training programs in firms and
agencies: an institutional perspective", in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.A. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 297-326.

30. Statistics Canada (1994), Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, Ottawa,
Catalogue No. 91-209.

31. Thomas, R.R. Jr (1991), Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total
Workforce by Managing Diversity, AMACOM, New York, NY.
32. Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S. (1984), "Occupational communities: culture and control in
organizations", in Staw, B. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 2, pp. 121-39.

33. Watson Wyatt Canada and McLarren Consulting Group (1997), 1996 Survey of Equity
and Diversity Practices: Report of Findings, Toronto.

34. Wilson, T. (1997), Diversity at Work, John Wiley & Sons, Etobicoke.

Further reading

35. Copeland, L. (1988a), "Learning to manage a multicultural workforce", Training, May,

pp. 49-56.

36. Copeland, L. (1988b), "Valuing workplace diversity: ten reasons why employers
recognize the benefits of a mixed workforce", Personnel Administrator, November, pp. 38-
40.

37. Copeland, L. (1988c), "Pioneers and champions of change", Personnel, July, pp. 44-49.

38. Cox, T. Jr (1991), "The multicultural organization", Academy of Management Executive,

Vol. 5, pp. 34-47.

39. Cox, T. Jr (1993), Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

40. Cox, T. Jr and Blake, S. (1991), "Managing cultural diversity: implications for
organizational competitiveness", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5, pp. 45-56.

41. Golembiewski, R.T. (1995), Managing Diversity in Organizations, The University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.

42. Jamieson, D. and O'Mara, J. (1991), Managing Workforce 2000: Gaining the Diversity
Advantage, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.

43. Loden, M. and Rosener, J.B. (1991), Workforce America Managing Employee Diversity
as a Vital Resource, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL.

44. Lynch, F.R. (1997), The Diversity Machine: The Drive to Change the "White Male
Workplace", The Free Press, New York, NY.

45. Morrison, A.M. (1992), The New Leaders: Guidelines on Leadership Diversity in
America, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

46. Taylor, C. (1995), "Building a business case for diversity", Canadian Business Review,
Vol. 22, Spring, pp. 12-15.

47. Thiederman, S. (1991a), Bridging Cultural Barriers for Corporate Success, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
48. Thiederman, S. (1991b), Profiting in America's Multicultural Marketplace: How to Do
Business across Cultural Lines, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

[Illustration]
Caption: Table I; Comparison of this study's data with Wilson's

References

 Cited by (1)

Indexing (document details)

Subjects: Studies, Multiculturalism & pluralism, Differences, Trends,
Human resource management
Classification Codes 9172, 9190, 9130, 2500, 6100
Locations: United States, US, Canada, Calgary Alberta Canada
Author(s): Gloria E. Miller, Julie I.A. Rowney
Document types: Feature
Publication title: Women in Management Review. Bradford: 1999. Vol. 14, Iss. 8;
pg. 307
Source type: Periodical
ISSN: 09649425
ProQuest document 115922206
ID:
Text Word Count 5712
Document URL: https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=http://proquest.umi.
com/pqdweb?did=115922206&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=4565&RQT
=309&V Name=PQD

Copyright © 2009 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions
Text-only interface