Dominant Discourse Orientalism and The Need For Reflexive HRM Skilled Muslim Migrants in The German Context

The International Journal of Human Resource
Management
ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
Dominant discourse, orientalism and the need

for reflexive HRM: skilled Muslim migrants in the
German context
Jasmin Mahadevan & Katharina Kilian-Yasin
To cite this article: Jasmin Mahadevan & Katharina Kilian-Yasin (2017) Dominant discourse,
orientalism and the need for reflexive HRM: skilled Muslim migrants in the German
context, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28:8, 1140-1162, DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2016.1166786
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1166786
Published online: 26 Apr 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1259
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 24 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2017
VOL. 28, NO. 8, 1140–1162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1166786
Dominant discourse, orientalism and the need for

reflexive HRM: skilled Muslim migrants in the German
context
Jasmin Mahadevan and Katharina Kilian-Yasin
Department of Management in Engineering, School of Engineering, Pforzheim University, Pforzheim,
Germany
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Muslim immigrants and their descendants are a relevant Discourse; reflexivity;
minority group in many Western European countries, and Germany; Muslim; skilled
migrants; orientalism; talent
HRM needs to concern itself with this diversity. To better
management; diversity
understand the HR requirements with regard to this group,
we analyse HR discourse on skilled Muslim migrants in a
German research company. We argue that dominant macro-
societal discourse based on Orientalist thought might result
in pre-reflexive HRM that creates inferior Muslim Others. Based
on this finding, we establish the need for reflexive HRM. Our
study contributes to International HRM (IHRM) literature in
three ways. Firstly, it highlights the need for HRM reflexivity
when managing the Muslim diaspora in the West. Secondly,
it extends the analytical scope of HRM as discourse to the
macro-societal level. Thirdly, it uncovers Orientalist thought in
HRM discourse and traces it to specific IHRM issues, such as
managing Muslim talent, thereby making reflexivity concise
and manageable in theory and practice.
Introduction
Due to work-related mobility and migration, companies need to manage an
increasingly diverse workforce (Guo & Al Ariss, 2015; Shen, Chanda, D’Netto,
& Monga, 2009). As employees have become more diverse, it has also become
more difficult to assess talent (Al Ariss, Cascio, & Paauwe, 2014; Guo & Al Ariss,
2015). Specifically, the knowledge, skills and talent of migrant employees, such
as Muslim migrants, might be undervalued (Syed, 2008; Syed & Pio, 2010; Syed
& Özbilgin, 2009; Al Ariss, Vassilopoulou, Özbilgin, & Game, 2013; Guo &
Al Ariss, 2015). Muslim migrants and their descendants are the largest
minority group in many Western European countries (Vaisse, 2008), such
as Germany, the country wherein our study is placed. An increasing lack of
CONTACT Jasmin Mahadevan jasmin.mahadevan@hs-pforzheim.de

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1141
qualified employees in Western Europe (CFR (Council on Foreign Relations),

2014) and the ‘global war for talent’ (Guo & Al Ariss, 2015) makes it an IHRM
(International HRM) requirement to utilize Muslim talent.
To better understand the HR requirements with regard to this group, our
research analyses HR discourse on skilled Muslim migrants in a German
research company. We show that dominant macro-societal discourses based
on Orientalist thought (Said, 1978) limit the interpretative scope of corporate
HRM. Based on these findings, we establish the need for reflexive IHRM.
Discourse is understood as ‘an interrelated set of texts, and the practices of
their production, dissemination, and reception, that brings an object into
being’ (cf. Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 3; based on Parker, 1992). Reflexivity
refers to ‘the situation in which one comes to choose to engage with a particular
community and be transformed by it’ (Hibbert, Coupland, & MacIntosh, 2010,
p. 56). Orientalism (Said, 1978) is introduced to IHRM as the discursive root
of much Islamophobia in the West.
This study contributes to IHRM literature in three ways. Firstly, it high-
lights the need for IHRM reflexivity (Francis, Parkes, & Reddington, 2014;
Janssens & Steyaert, 2009) when managing the Muslim diaspora in the West.
Secondly, it extends the analytical scope of IHRM as discourse (Francis et al.,
2014; Zanoni & Janssens, 2004, 2007) to the macro-societal level. Thirdly, it
uncovers Orientalist thought (Said, 1978) in IHRM discourse and traces it to
specific IHRM issues, such as managing (Muslim) talent (Al Ariss et al., 2014;
Guo & Al Ariss, 2015; Vaiman & Collings, 2013), thereby making reflexivity
concise and manageable.
For making our argument, we proceed as follows: Firstly, the theoretical
background and context of this study are highlighted. Second, the site of the
study is introduced, and research design and methods are explained. Next,
findings are presented and discussed. Finally, implications are derived and
conclusions drawn.
Theoretical background
Based on social constructivism (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), this study puts
forward a straightforward thought, namely: HRM practice and its underlying
assumptions are discursive products of the larger context wherein they emerge
while at the same time producing this very context (see Zanoni & Janssens, 2007).
With regard to a diverse workforce, this implies: Majority discourse might neglect
minority perspectives (see Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010). Hence,
in order to be truly inclusive, HRM needs to become aware of dominant discourse
via reflexivity (see Francis et al., 2014).
In the following, the concepts of discourse and reflexivity are elaborated upon
and applied to the specific IHRM context of talent management. Afterwards,
Orientalist thought as a major framework of anti-Muslim discourse is introduced.
1142 J. Mahadevan and K. Kilian-Yasin
Discourse and reflexivity in HRM
Discourse as ‘an interrelated set of texts, and the practices of their production,
dissemination, and reception, that brings an object into being’ (cf. Phillips &
Hardy, 2002, p. 3; based on Parker, 1992) encompasses numerous cultural forms
(Geertz, 1973), e.g. spoken words, pictures, written texts, symbols, artefacts, ges-
tures et cetera. Following this definition, we assume that HR discourse structures
reality and in return influences how reality is perceived collectively (e.g. Zanoni &
Janssens, 2004, 2007). For example, the discourse of 9/11 is part of US-American
collective meaning-making. Individuals referring to this event do not do so in
a value-free manner but position themselves within existing discourse, i.e. ways
in which this event has already been perceived and communicated, and within
structures, institutions and policies that have emerged as a consequence of this
discourse. Likewise, professions and academic disciplines such as HRM have their
own codified, implicit set of knowledge which structures reality and in return
shapes how reality is perceived and referred to – that is: dominant HRM discourses
(e.g. Francis et al., 2014), for example, on what it entails to manage talent.
Moving beyond dominant discourse requires reflexivity (e.g. Francis et al., 2014;
Janssens & Steyaert, 2009; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). Yet, as Janssens and Steyaert
(2009) critique, ‘a form of criticism which only resists HRM tends to remain within
the existing frame(s) and offers no theoretical alternative’. Constructive reflexiv-
ity needs to include the possibility of change, pluralism and ongoing discussion
(Janssens & Steyaert, 2009). Our definition of reflexivity as ‘the situation in which
one comes to choose to engage with a particular community and be transformed
by it’ (Hibbert et al., 2010, p. 56) meets these requirements.
Talent management
We exemplify our approach via Talent Management (TM). TM is a key aspect of

Human Resources Planning (HRP) (Kramar & Syed, 2012, p. 128). HRP seeks to
overcome skills shortages, mainly with regard to qualified employees and interna-
tional labour markets, and wishes to attract talent strategically (Kramar and Syed,
2012). Yet, there is no unified understanding of who is talent or what constitutes
TM (Al Ariss et al., 2014; Vaiman & Collings, 2013). Giving an overview on theory
and practice, Vaiman and Collings (2013) differentiate between an inclusive and
exclusive approach to TM. The inclusive approach aims at managing the talent of
all employees, regardless of their skill levels. The exclusive approach focuses only
on high-potential or high-performing employees.
This study understands talent in its exclusive sense, namely as high-poten-
tial and high-performing employees. It analyses IHRM discourse with regard to
skilled Muslim employees in a German research company. These can be consid-
ered ‘global’ talents as they are highly qualified, highly committed and interna-
tionally mobile (see Al Ariss et al., 2014; Guo & Al Ariss, 2015). These features
make them relevant to IHRM. In the company studied, this group is a key focus
point of IHRM practice.
Context of this study and Orientalist discourse
The Muslim diaspora is a social fact in most Western European countries.

However, since the European Union (EU) does not provide statistics on the matter
of religion, the exact number of Muslim residents remains unclear (CFR [Council
on Foreign Relations], 2014). The estimated total EU Muslim population com-
prises roughly 20 million of 500 million (Vaisse, 2008). The EU countries with
the largest percentages of Muslim residents are France (8%), the Netherlands
(6%), Germany (4%) and the United Kingdom at (3%). It is expected that contin-
uing immigration from Muslim countries and higher birth rates among resident
Muslims will increase this percentage (CFR [Council on Foreign Relations], 2014).
For Germany, the number of Muslim residents is estimated at 3.8 to 4.3 million
(BAMF, 2009). This makes Islamic faith the largest minority religion in Germany.
It is important to note that the ethnicity of Muslim residents in the EU depends
on the specific national context: In France, most Muslim immigrants and their
descendants originate from North Africa; in Germany, they originate from Turkey
(see comparison in Al Ariss et al., 2013). Nonetheless, public discourse tends to
speak of ‘the Muslim’ community in ‘the West’, thereby neglecting inner-group
diversity (Zanoni et al., 2010) and intersectionality (Syed, 2007; Syed & Pio, 2010).
Dichotomist and stereotypical perceptions of Muslim individuals in Western
Europe can be linked to Orientalist thought (Said, 1978). This theory has not yet
been discussed in IHRM literature. Orientalism is rooted in nineteenth-century
Europe and linked to colonial thought (overview in Prasad, 2006; and Banerjee &
Prasad, 2008). Orientalist discourse makes Islam the Other, i.e. everything that is
non Western (Said, 1978; overview and discussion in Prasad, 2006). The opposing
pairs West and East, Christianity and Islam, Occident and Orient are interrelated:
Orientalist discourse portrays Islam not as it is but as what the West is not. For
example: Whereas the West is understood as rational, enlightened, modern and
secular, the Orient is perceived as emotional, not enlightened, traditional and
religious. Whereas the West is ethical and lawful, the Orient is portrayed as sinful
and despotic. It is important to note that the Orient serves merely to define the
West – it is only via imaginations of what is Oriental that one can understand
what it means to be Western. Naturally, then within Orientalist discourse, the
West possesses superior qualities.
Orientalism is linked to the colonial zeal of educating the non-West. During the
heyday of colonialism, this perception of individuals from the non-West as inferior
justified the need for supervision, guidance, assistance and development by the
West. ‘Taking up the white men’s burden’ (Kipling, 1899) became a moral obliga-
tion in order to ‘bring light to the heathens’ (ibid.). Management is still influenced
by neocolonial discourse (Banerjee & Prasad, 2008), for example, when assuming
that presumably modern managerial theories and methods originate from the
West and need to be introduced to the non-West. In global TM, such thought can
be deduced from the widespread, yet theoretically unjustified practice (Guo &
Al Ariss, 2015) to refer to a moving individuals from the West as an (implicitly
skilled) ‘expatriate’ and to a moving individual from the non-West as a (implicitly
unskilled) ‘migrant’ (e.g. Andresen, Bergdolt, Margenfeld, & Dickmann, 2014).
Literature review and research gap

For the purpose of this article, a literature review has been conducted, focusing
on discourse and reflexivity in HRM literature.
Discourse analysis as a prominent theme in wider management and organiza-
tion studies (Fairclough, 2005) is less prominent in HRM. Still, one can identify
several related studies (Francis et al., 2014; Zanoni & Janssens, 2004, 2007; Zanoni
et al., 2010). Zanoni and Janssens (2004) analysed how HR managers define diver-
sity, how discourses reflect managerial practice and underlying power relations,
and how they reaffirm or challenge the latter. Their study shows that HR practice
with regard to diversity is never power-free and might reaffirm structural ine-
qualities. Zanoni and Janssens (2007) highlighted how minority employees might
resist such inequalities on micro-level. Francis et al. (2014) critique the discursive
dominance of e-HR in IHRM and argue for more reflexivity in its conceptual-
ization. Our work integrates these viewpoints and extends the scope of analysis
towards the macro-societal level.
As a first finding with regard to reflexivity, it has to be noted that literature on
reflexivity in HRM is scarce in wider management journals and virtually non-ex-
istent in IHRM journals. Our search delivered merely two studies on reflexivity
in this journal (Cooke, Macau, & Wood, 2013; Francis et al., 2014) and only one
study specifically focusing on the link between reflexivity and HRM research in
a wider management journal (Janssens & Steyaert, 2009).
This lack of discussion is a striking contrast to the widespread and ongoing
discussion on reflexivity in wider management and organization studies (overview
in Hibbert et al., 2010; Janssens & Steyaert, 2009; Mahadevan, 2011), or as Janssens
and Steyaert (2009, p. 151) conclude: ‘It is therefore still necessary to plea for the
first step of taking a reflective stance [in HRM] as such’. This study answers their
call, which is our first contribution.
The two articles on reflexivity in this journal of IHRM make the following con-
tributions: Cooke et al. (2013) argue that Brazilian management gurus might be
understood as reflexive practitioners, yet, they do not suggest a reflexive approach
to HRM as such. Hence, this work is not relevant to our purposes. Francis et al.
(2014) argue for higher reflexivity with regard to e-HRM discourse. Yet, discourse
is analysed mainly within the organization. We add the macro-societal level of
analysis and show how macro-level discourse dominates and limits meso-level
HRM and micro-individual interactions, which is our second HRM contribution.
Due to the lack of previous studies, we can only rely on the work by Janssens and
Steyaert (2009) when defining reflexivity in the context of HRM. As Janssens and
Steyaert (2009, p. 151) observe, HRM research is characterized by ‘pro and con-
tra-arguments’ and ‘much writing back and forth’ which leads to an ‘intellectual
impasse’. For overcoming this standstill, they suggest three practices, namely (1)
being reflexive at all, (2) understanding reflexivity not only as critiquing dominant
thought but as a constant re-construction from various angles, thereby enabling
pluralism, and (3) to move beyond widespread scholarly practices which hin-
der reflexivity, e.g. publishing as an end in itself (Janssens & Steyaert, 2009, pp.
151–152). Still, their contribution remains on a meta-theoretical level and is not
yet applied to specific IHRM issues. Focusing on managing the Muslim diaspora
in the West, and the specific IHRM issue of talent management, this article over-
comes this gap and makes reflexivity manageable for IHRM practice and theory
development. This is our third IHRM contribution.
Research design and method

This study intends to uncover discourses with regard to skilled Muslim employees
in a German research company, while paying attention to wider social discourse.
Our primary site of study is a research company which is located in provincial East
Germany near the Polish border. Prior to German re-unification it was character-
ized by a local workforce in a closed political and social system. Nonetheless, the
company targeted global markets. Since 2007, it hired migrant Muslim employees.
This change introduced the need for IHRM.
Data on meso-organizational HRM were gathered by the first author via
qualitative research that was conducted from an anthropological frame of
mind (Czarniawska, 2008). Over a period of two years, multiple methods were
employed, such as participant observation, formal and informal interviews, focus
group workshops and attendance of business meetings and informal gatherings.
This material was understood as social texts and related back to macro-societal
discourse which was distilled from governmental and official documents and
reports pertaining to matters of integration and immigration.
Our research question was to find out how IHRM deals discursively with the
increased influx of skilled Muslim employees and how it establishes what the needs
of this minority group might be. This study is relevant because it highlights how
efforts directed towards minority employees remain limited and discriminatory
when they do not reflect upon the discursive boundary conditions wherein they
take place.
Characteristics of the corporate field
Prior to 1990, the company studied had been a state-owned member of the
Academy of Sciences of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) with a high
status as a top research institution that was and still is providing cutting-edge
technology to national and international customers. Privatization after re-unifica-
tion led to a corporate crisis and to downsizing from more than 3000 to about 100
employees. From 2007 onwards, the company recovered; the number of employees
increased to about 240, about two-thirds of them being highly qualified technical
researchers. New employees, all of them researchers in specialized engineering
fields, were mainly hired from outside Germany. We call them ‘non-German
researchers’, a term which refers to their difference in nationality, for it is this
difference that introduced new IHRM requirements.
The company would have preferred German applicants, yet, was not successful
in attracting them due to two reasons: Firstly, as the company is partly funded
by state money, maximum salaries are limited by funding regulations and are
not competitive to free-market salaries offered in the metropolis. Secondly, the
company is located in an underdeveloped area of the former GDR (DIW (German
Institute for Economic Development), 2014) which is not attractive to future
employees.
By chance, about two-third of the non-German researchers turned out to be
Muslim. Almost two-third of these had previously studied or worked outside their
home countries, mainly in the EU; they spoke of themselves as being ‘interna-
tional’ or ‘cosmopolitan’. They originated from such diverse countries as Serbia,
Iran, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Turkey. Non-Muslim non-German research-
ers mainly originated from Poland, more or less commuting to work from there,
and from Serbia, Russia and China.
Only five non-German researchers (an Indian researcher who had studied in
Germany and four out of the six Polish researchers) wished to settle permanently
in Germany. This might be linked to the temporary nature of their employment. 85
per cent of the positions held by non-German researchers were project-based and
hence fixed-term (covering two to three years). During the time of research and
when the article was written, non-EU citizens were only eligible for residency after
six years of employment (BMI [German Ministry for Internal Affairs], 2011, p. 65).
The group of Muslim non-German researchers, upon whom we focus, was
diverse with regard to their ethnicity and nationality, but not diverse with regard
to education, international experience, age and gender: Most of them were male,
in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties, with a postgraduate university degree or a
doctoral degree in a highly specialized technical field, and with previous inter-
national experience.
Within the company, the total number of female researchers only amounted
to four per cent, regardless of their religion, ethnicity or nationality. HR, top and
line management solely consisted of German nationals, none of whom belonged
to a religious, ethnic or racial minority, and they represented the ethnic, racial and
religious majority. Such a homogeneous managerial team increases the likelihood
that HR neglects minority perspectives (e.g. Zanoni et al., 2010).
Data collection and analysis
Initially, the organization was studied holistically between 2009 and 2011. In order
to establish rapport, the first author visited the organization at frequent intervals,
sat in various research offices and joined coffee breaks to encourage employ-
ees to initiate contact. Step by step, organizational researchers volunteered to
be interviewed. Formal and extended informal interviews were conducted with
15 German and 20 non-German researchers (16 Muslim of 6 nationalities; one
Polish; one non-Muslim Serbian; and two Chinese), both managing directors, all
three human resource managers, all three department managers and six of the
twelve group managers in the corporate research departments. Interviews were
designed as open, narrative-biographical interviews (see Flick, 2002): Basically,
the interviewees were encouraged to narrate their life stories freely. All formal
interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim using f4 transcription software.
Informal interviews and participant interactions were documented via memory
protocol and field notes. Data analysis was conducted in three steps densifying
interpretations across discursive domains, and discursive taxonomies and their
components (Spradley, 1979). The goal was to identify discursive diversity cate-
gories and labels in the data and to reflect upon them critically by linking them
to wider discourse. Coding was done manually.
Initial analysis suggested that it was mainly the Chinese and the Muslim researchers
who were perceived as ‘different’ by German and non-Muslim non-German employees
alike. Yet, they were perceived as ‘different’ in different ways: Whereas the group of
Chinese employees were viewed as being exotic in an exciting and somewhat amusing
way, the group of Muslim researchers was perceived as threatening and unwilling to
integrate. The most frequent discursive themes with regard to Chinese researchers
were comments on the exotic food consumed by them or the ‘funny way in which
they eat with chopsticks’. The most frequent themes with regard to Muslim researchers
were ‘their alien religion’ and ‘their unwillingness to accept our culture’. ‘Being Muslim’
seemed to be perceived as a more important marker of difference than ethnicity. For
example, a white non-Muslim researcher from Serbia was referred to as ‘well inte-
grated’ and ‘just another European’ by HR managers whereas a Muslim researcher
from the same country and of the same ethnicity was referred to as being ‘culturally
different’ and ‘unwilling to accept our culture’. Such labelling of difference as based
on the identity-tag ‘Muslim’ can be understood as an essentialist, hegemonic and
stereotypical diversity discourse (see Zanoni et al., 2010). Out of this initial insight,
our research focus on Muslim researchers and on IHRM discourse with regard to
them emerged.
Findings and discussion

In this section, we present and discuss our findings on IHRM discourse with
regard to Muslim researchers and its link to wider macro-societal discourse.
We proceed in three steps: First, we identify the contours of macro-societal dis-

course in Germany. Second, we highlight the limitations and risks of pre-reflexive
IHRM on meso-organizational level. Third, we discuss how these levels shape and
limit micro-individual interactions.
The contours of dominant discourse
Immigration to Germany
The origins of current workforce diversity in Germany lie mainly in the 1960s
when both German states – West and East – actively hired workers from abroad.
These so-called guest workers (Gastarbeiter) were issued limited work contracts;
yet, in former West Germany, many of them settled permanently and brought
their families (Butterwege, 2005b). Today, the main minorities are guest work-
ers from Turkey, Spain, former Yugoslavia and Greece, and their descendants
(Butterwege, 2005b). In former East Germany, most guest workers from so-called
‘socialist brother nations’ returned home, making the region a much more ethni-
cally homogenous environment than former West Germany (Butterwege, 2005b).
The main minority in former East Germany are of Vietnamese descent.
Based on the widespread public perception that many first-generation guest
workers refused to learn German, a language course, called ‘integration course’, has
been made mandatory for all non-EU citizens who apply for residence, for a work
permit or for citizenship in Germany (Butterwege, 2005c). The goal is reaching
B1-level based on the European Frame of Reference (EFR) which constitutes the
threshold to independent language proficiency (see Council of Europe, 2011).
The ‘integration course’ is a German language course which discusses German
culture, society, history and the country’s political system. It links language to
country-specific knowledge and culture. It serves as a vehicle for transporting
presumably ‘German values’ which are perceived as the key elements for ‘suc-
cessful integration’ (Ramm, 2010, p. 187).
If one reflects upon this practice, one can identify dominant assumptions:
Firstly, language abilities are equalled with cultural integration in the sense of
cultural assimilation. Secondly, all immigrants, regardless of their individual
talent, knowledge and skills, their educational level, their mother tongue, their
personal aspirations and their country of origin are treated the same. Thirdly,
such an approach assumes that those coming to Germany actually need cultural
development which implies that their country of origin is less developed. This
understanding can be linked to Orientalist and neocolonial thought, specifically
the discourse that the – implicitly modern, lawful, enlightened West needs to
educate the – implicitly traditional, despotic and uneducated non-West.
Germanness as based on ethnicity and ancestry

The above-mentioned findings require a reflection on what ‘foreignness’ means in
the German context. Sociologically and historically, Germany is an archetypical
ethnic nation state (Heckmann & Schnapper, 2003, p. 45). Macro-level structures
reflect a discursive self-image. On the level of structure, German law classifies any-
one who ‘speaks German language, has German ancestors or lives German culture’
as ‘nominally German’ (Statusdeutsche), i.e. as de facto German without German
citizenship (Schneider, 2005), and gives them the right to settle (Butterwege,
2005a; Heckmann & Schnapper, 2003). On the level of discourse, German lan-
guage differentiates between immigrants of German ancestry (Aussiedler, literally:
out-settlers, most of whom left Germany in the nineteenth century, mainly to
Eastern Europe and Russia) and immigrants of non-German ancestry (Ausländer,
(foreigners, literally: out-country-people). Public sentiments towards these groups
differ markedly, and quantitative data provides proof of this discursive divide. In
a longitudinal and representative study on ‘group-specific hostility’ (Heitmeyer,
2012, pp. 38–40) with more than 23,000 participants, 22.2% of respondents ‘fully
agreed’ to the statement: ‘Aussiedler (immigrants of German ancestry) should
be given a higher status than Ausländer (foreigners) because they are of German
origin’.
All Germans who have at least one ancestor who immigrated after 1950 are clas-
sified as ‘having a migration background’ (Migrationshintergrund). However, based
on the concept of being ‘nominally German’, a migration background can only
be ascribed to those who bear a ‘non-German name’, who do not ‘look German’
or who do not ‘speak German like a German’. Hence, immigrants of German
ancestry from the former Soviet Union (Aussiedler) are encouraged to change
their ethnically Russian names into ethnically German names upon immigration
(Schneider, 2005). As a result, their ‘migration background’ disappears and they
‘become German’.
The longer one has ‘been German’, the better. In the previously cited represent-
ative study (Heitmeyer, 2012, pp. 38–40), 54.1% of respondents fully agreed to:
‘If someone is new somewhere, they should initially be satisfied with less’. 30.8%
fully agreed to: ‘Those who have always been living here should have more rights
than those who have moved here later’.
These findings highlight ancestry and ethnicity as crucial elements for the
construction of Germanness. At the same time, it is important to note that the
category of ‘race’ is one that is silenced in public discourse. Based on the meaning
it was given during National Socialism, the word ‘race’ itself is associated with
radical right-wing thought and has vanished from other contexts: One simply
cannot (or: may not) say ‘race’ in German. Yet, the crucial importance of distancing
the collective self from radical thought brings about an inadequacy to verbalise
critical diversity categories which are limited by and perpetuate historical imbal-
ances of power (Prasad, Pringle, & Konrad, 2006; Zanoni et al., 2010), such as
‘whiteness’ and ‘non-whiteness’. Hence, it is not reflected in public discourse that
the construction of Germanness as based on ancestry and ethnicity implies that
being German means being ‘white’, and that ‘integration’ in the sense of cultural
assimilation aims at educating ‘non-white (non-Western) Others’.
Anti-Muslim discourse
When the need for the influx of qualified labour to Germany became more
pressing (1998–2005), heated public debates emerged as to whether Germany
is an ‘immigration country’ (Butterwege, 2005c). Anti-Muslim discourse is
part of these debates (e.g. FAZ, 2011). As defined by the constitution, Germany
(and the former FRG) is a Christian country; churches are social institutions
which operate kindergartens, homes for the elderly et cetera. via them, guest
workers of Christian belief received acts of charity and support (Heckmann &
Schnapper, 2003). As a result, this group is now perceived as ‘well integrated’
whereas the descendants of former Turkish guest workers are now often per-
ceived as ‘alien’ based on their religion (Heckmann & Schnapper, 2003). In
the former GDR, atheism prevailed, and religious practice of any kind tends
to be perceived as limiting and irrationally pre-modern (e.g. Mahadevan,
2012b). For the purpose of this article, both viewpoints can be summarized
as the discursive belief that being German means to be Christian or ration-
ally-modern atheist.
In 2011, German president Christian Wulff was the first politician to pub-
licly state that ‘Islam is part of Germany’. This initiated a heated debate (FAZ,
2011). As a reaction, the minister of the interior Hans-Peter Friedrich dis-
tanced himself from this viewpoint by stating that it could not be ‘proven
historically that Islam belongs to Germany’ (FAZ, 2011). In the previously
cited study on ‘group-specific hostility’ (Heitmeyer, 2012, pp. 39), 22.6% of
respondents fully agreed to: ‘Immigration to Germany should be prohibited
for Muslims’, 30.2% fully agreed to: ‘Because of the many Muslims here, I
sometimes feel like a stranger in my own country’. Supporting views have
been on the rise since 2002 (Heitmeyer, 2012).
Due to their remaining ‘difference’, the unintended permanent settlement of
former guest workers from Turkey is often referred to as ‘failed integration’ in pub-
lic discourse (Ramm, 2010). The terms ‘parallel societies’ (Parallelgesellschaften)
and ‘building of ghettos’ (Ghettobildung) signify the perceived danger that these
– presumably pre-modern, as well as culturally and ethnically alien– individuals
do not adhere to the values, norms and public rules of – implicitly white, modern
and Christian/rationally atheist – German society and settle in a closed commu-
nity (Ramm, 2010).
Summary of macro-societal discourse

In summary, the German macro-societal discourse on immigration consists of
several elements, namely (1) the construction of Germanness through ancestry
and ethnicity (‘whiteness’), (2) the perceived need for integration in the sense of
cultural assimilation and education via language and (3) anti-Muslim sentiments.
In the next section, we trace elements of macro-level discourse to meso-level
IHRM.
The limitations of pre-reflexive IHRM
The organization studied placed a high importance on meeting the HR require-

ments of its non-German workforce. As the company was not familiar with IHRM,
it hired a new head of HR from a German global player. The other HR managers
were sent for external development and training in the areas of international
recruitment, legal requirements and IHRM. All members of HR and line manage-
ment attended an intercultural training seminar to become aware of cross-cultural
differences and religious diversity. The managing director put it as follows: ‘We
want to make our foreign employees feel at home’. This was a feeling which was
shared by many, and a lot of work-related and personal effort was made by virtually
everyone involved – an example of soft HRM (Cooke et al., 2013).
A major emphasis was placed on offering opportunities to learn German. The
company offered a German language course which was given by an American
freelance teacher living in Berlin. In reality, it was mainly the non-European
Muslim employees who attended, as virtually all Polish and Eastern European
researchers already spoke German and most Chinese researchers failed to attend
for unknown reasons.
Like its macro-societal prototype, this course was called an ‘integration course’.
The company’s managing director explained its aims as follows: ‘Through learning
German, our foreign employees will understand our culture’. This course reflects
macro-societal discourse which stresses cultural assimilation via language. Yet,
for the non-European Muslim researchers, there was no such link between lan-
guage and the need for cultural assimilation and preservation. When speaking
of the ‘integration course’, they referred to it as ‘the German language course’. To
them, German was only a language to get along in daily life. They perceived the
language of engineering research to be English. Two researchers from Iran stated
that ‘in Iran, one would never work technically in Farsi but always in English’. For
others, e.g. an Indian engineer who did his master’s degree in Sweden, English was
‘the only language you need to know to make an international career in research
engineering’. For individuals who perceive themselves as global talent, it appar-
ently makes sense to perceive English as the language of choice for pursuing an
international career.
When reflecting upon non-German employees’ life and the need to learn
German, an HR manager said: ‘It is our responsibility to care for our foreign
employees so that they can learn German’. Yet, non-German employees were never
asked what their ‘integration needs’ might be. When the first author asked corpo-
rate HR and higher management why this had not been done, she was met with
silence or statements such as ‘what a strange question’, ‘I never thought about it
this way’ and ‘how should they know what they need in order to integrate’. These
statements – or non-statements – point to Orientalist and neocolonial thought:
It is perceived as the company’s responsibility to educate non-Western Others –
as these Others are ignorant, they are not asked for their opinion, but are merely
required to receive this education passively. And, in line with dominant societal
discourse, this education does not end with developing language skills, but needs
to transmit Western values and culture.
Yet, such an approach undervalues knowledge. For example, as numerous
Muslim employees commented to the first author, the integration course’s level
was ‘too low’. To investigate, the first author attended several lessons of the course.
The course book was the same as the one used in the obligatory integration course
which all immigrants have to attend in order to gain or not to lose residency
status. It covers the basics of German history and of Germany as a democratic
political system.
During one session, the conversation between the freelance US-American
teacher and four Muslim pupils from Serbia, India, Turkey and Indonesia shifts
to the vocabulary for ‘to vote’ and for ‘election’. The teacher asks (in German):
‘Who knows what an election is?’ When no one answers, he explains the principles
of democratic elections. Afterwards, the conversation shifts to the concepts of
Bundespräsident (President) and Bundeskanzler (Chancellor). The teacher says
(slowly, in German): ‘Angela Merkel is the chancellor. It is a little bit complicated
to understand this’, and, switching to rapid English, he explains the different roles
of the representative head of state (President) and the leader of the German gov-
ernment (Chancellor). Interrupting him, the Indian researcher states: ‘We have
the same system in India, most Commonwealth nations have it; this is not com-
plicated’. The others murmur affirmatively or say: ‘Yes’. The Turkish participant
asks the Serbian participant in a low voice: ‘Are we children?’
As this exchange suggests, mixing a language course with the perceived need of
cultural education, undervalues the knowledge of those trained. All participants
are highly educated, with a postgraduate university degree. Most likely, they would
have been able to discuss the German political system and history in English which
they speak fluently, they merely lack the words in the German language. Yet, the
teacher does not ascribe their lack of answers to a lack of vocabulary or mere
disinterest, rather he assumes an incapability to grasp the underlying concepts
(such as ‘elections’ or the differentiation between president and chancellor). This
is clearly Orientalist and neocolonial behaviour: Being a US-American himself, he
did not grow up with a differentiation between a representative head of state and
a leader of the executive power. Hence, he assumes that none of the participants
is familiar with this concept. Ultimately, the knowledge of the Other is measured
against one’s own background and knowledge, and inferior Others are made who
lack any knowledge of the key concepts of the civilized world such as parliament,
elections and government. And, as their comments show, the participants feel
clearly patronized.
It was also in another context that non-German researchers felt patronized. The
company was equipped with a scientific library which provided the researchers
with access to all relevant English language journals and reference books. It was
to this library that many German employees, including HR staff, brought their
children’s storybooks ‘so that our foreign employees might learn German’. When
the first author asked questions or expressed puzzlement, no German employee
found it in anyway strange that highly qualified researchers should read story-
books for pre-school children such as ‘Hänsel and Gretl’ in order to learn German.
The fact that German employees expect non-German researchers to read chil-
dren’s books brings dominant discourse and the need to ‘take up the white man’s
burden’ (Kipling, 1899) to the point. The corporate zeal to teach German and
German culture might be viewed in this light: Not only is German language a
means of communication, it is the vehicle of culture and civilization. It is implied
that the Other is less developed and lacks both. And, like good parents do with their
children, one has to help them to learn and to develop. Ultimately, pre-reflexive
HRM creates inferior Others whose talent remains unrecognized.
The risks of pre-reflexive IHRM
The previous sections have highlighted the limiting impact of dominant mac-
ro-level discourse on meso-level IHRM assumptions and practice. This section
highlights the risks associated with pre-reflexive HRM and its impact on micro-
level interactions. It is based on a dialogue which took place between the first
author and the head of HR, a female German national in her mid-thirties who was
hired from a global player, speaks excellent English and has studied abroad. She
reflects upon an Iranian reseacher’s willingness to learn and speak German. The
respective employee is a bearded male researcher from Iran with a postgraduate
degree from a renowned university. He is in his mid-twenties and has a two-year
contract. He is seen praying at work, a practice which is commented upon nega-
tively by virtually all German employees. He does not have external contact with
German customers and only works together with colleagues who speak excellent
English; the German head of HR had told me earlier that there was no professional
need for him to learn German. Now, the topic comes up again, as she recalls talking
in German to another colleague in front of him.
Head of HR: ‘I was very surprised when I realized that he must have attended some
German classes outside work voluntarily. He must know some German
because he understands me when I talk to him in German. But it’s a pity
that he does not have a big enough interest in the language to actually
speak it. I do not understand this [referring to the corporate integration
course and the feeling that attendance is inadequate, the authors]: We are
making this offer: We want to do the other person good. Why does the
other not want our offer?’
First author: ‘How do you interpret this?’
Head of HR: ‘I wish for another reason [besides disinterest, the authors]. You could
interpret this in many ways, from completely negative to completely
positive. It could be a very human reason: He does not want to make a
fool of himself, this is not culture-specific. And this is what I wish for.’
First author: ‘So maybe, you could tell him that it is okay to speak German.’
Head of HR: ‘I did, and it really was like that, I could hardly understand him. But
maybe it is because I am a woman, maybe this is an issue for him, so
[being a Muslim, the authors] he does not want to speak to me at all.
But when I speak German to him, he understands me, but he always
answers in English.’
First author: ‘So, what could you do?’
Head of HR: [angry]: ‘Is that not enough at a certain point in time!?! How many
offers are we supposed to make?!? Is that not enough now!?! Our efforts
are way beyond what we get in return. I have just told [another German
colleague]: This is unfair towards our German colleagues; that we take
care of our foreign employees so much, we have other responsibilities to
our German colleagues as well.’
The HR manager’s considerations point to stereotypical views on Muslim males
as being traditional and discriminatory towards women. Yet, she seems unsure of
this interpretation herself and offers other interpretations as well, namely for him
‘just being human’. This interpretation – which from a critical diversity perspective
is the only non-stereotypical, discriminatory and power-free one (Zanoni et al.,
2010) – wound entail: The Muslim researcher has tried his best, has even attended
German language courses outside the office. Still, his accent remains strong; he
realizes that no one will understand him, so he answers in English when a German
(who in this case speaks excellent English) talks to him.
From a diversity studies perspective, one could argue that this is actually a very
sensible compromise of meeting in the middle (Shen et al., 2009). Yet, despite
the Iranian researcher’s willingness, the head of HR struggles with making this
positive diversity interpretation, her only attempt at doing so: ‘he does not want
to make a fool of himself ’ is discarded in the end. This suggests that dominant
discourse limits the HR manager’s ability to come to alternative micro-individual
interpretations. Her expectations to whether it is possible to overcome difference
are pre-structured by macro-level discourse from the beginning, as she did not
even expect the Iranian researcher to be able to speak German. In her considera-
tions, she continues to refer to dominant societal categories such as stereotypical
perceptions of Muslim males.
What is not considered, though, are the structural boundary conditions of the
Iranian researcher’s employment: He only has a two-year contract, and based on
national regulations, non-EU-citizens can only qualify for a full settlement per-
mit after six years of employment (BMI [German Ministry for Internal Affairs],
2011, p. 65). Furthermore, he only works for international customers and within
an English-speaking community. Hence, it makes sense for him to perceive him-
self as global talent and not to focus solely on the German labour market when
planning his career. Yet, as dominant discourse clouds alternative interpretations,
this connection is not made by corporate HR.
When the first author had asked the head of HR ‘what could you do?’, she had
expected an answer on which strategy to choose when communicating with the
Iranian employee. Instead, to the surprise of the first author, the head of HR expresses
negative emotions of anger and frustration. This can be related to the dominant neoco-
lonial assumption that it is the German side’s responsibility to define the inferior Other’s
integration needs. Sensing the inability to ‘fully integrate’ the Iranian researcher, the
head of HR interprets this question as ‘asking even more of her’. Her emotions suggest
that she somewhat senses – without being aware of the underlying reasons – that all
‘integration efforts’ are of no avail: Even though ‘everyone tries’, ‘takes care’, ‘makes
offers’, even though there is an ‘integration course’, the Iranian researcher remains
different: He looks different, he practices the Muslim religion in the office, his language
capabilities are inadequate, he will never be ‘German’ in the dominant sense and one
cannot make him so. Ultimately, and this is the inherent contradiction of dominant
discourse, Germanness in the sense of ethnic and cultural homogeneity cannot be
achieved. However, the dominant discourse has already become institutionalized in
the macro-societal and meso-organizational structural framework available to and
shaped by IHRM. Yet, these structures and discursive practices fail to fulfil IHRM
goals, and, sensing this futility, the HR manager projects ‘otherness’ and a perceived
‘unwillingness to integrate’ upon the Iranian researcher.
Furthermore, dominant discourse fails to provide IHRM with strategies and
tools for managing minority employees to whom dominant discourse does not
apply: Most Muslim researchers do not wish to settle in Germany and, even if
they wished to do so, most of them do not qualify for residency status due to the
limited nature of their employment. Hence, the structures and discursive practices
based on dominant discourse fail to achieve IHRM goals.
The limiting power of dominant discourse and its meso-level institutionalization
is highlighted by the fact that, as an individual, the head of HR, who speaks excellent
English and has studied and worked internationally, might be considered global talent,
just like the Iranian researcher. Yet, she fails to move beyond dominant discourse (for
example, when discarding the interpretation of the Iranian researcher as ‘just being
human’). The only solution offered within dominant discourse lies in projecting its
inherent contradictions upon the Muslim Other who has been made the Other by this
very discourse to begin with. Discursive categories available for doing so are Orientalist
thought, teaching German culture via language, integration as cultural assimilation
and Germanness as based on ancestry, ethnicity and ‘whiteness’. Ultimately, it becomes
the Other’s fault if one cannot ‘integrate’ them in the dominant sense, and this is the
main risk of pre-reflexive IHRM.
Summary of findings and discussion

Based on our discursive analysis, we identified the contours of dominant mac-
ro-societal discourse which entails (1) the construction of Germanness through
ancestry and ethnicity (‘whiteness’), (2) the perceived need for integration in the
sense of cultural assimilation and education via language and (3) anti-Muslim
sentiments. Findings suggest that meso-level IHRM (e.g. the integration course)
mirrors and institutionalizes societal discourse and structures and prevents alter-
native micro-individual interpretations and practices. IHRM of such kind can be
considered pre-reflexive. Due to the limitations of dominant discourses and struc-
tures, and their inapplicability to the specific corporate minority group towards
whom they are directed, skilled Muslim migrants are made inferior Others by
IHRM, and individual talent and career aspirations are neglected.
Pre-reflexive IHRM that mirrors macro-level discourses and structures is lim-
ited by the inherent contradictions of which it remains unaware: Firstly, all societal
attempts at cultural assimilation and ‘integration’ via language focus on future
residents – and most Muslim researchers do not wish to settle in Germany perma-
nently or do not qualify for residency status. Secondly, societal discourse is contra-
dictory in itself as it negates the ‘Germanness’ of those who remain ‘non-White’ or
‘non-Western’, such as former Turkish guest workers and their descendants, and
perpetuates fears of their ‘unwillingness to integrate’ based on their non-German
ancestry and perceived religious difference. This clouds HR perceptions of Muslim
employees without offering discursive solutions. It leads to anger and frustration,
and in order to overcome these negative emotions, a categorical ‘unwillingness to
integrate’ is projected upon individual Muslim migrants. For doing so, dominant
categories, such as Orientalist thought, teaching German culture via language,
integration as cultural assimilation and Germanness as based on ancestry, ethnic-
ity and ‘whiteness’ are applied pre-reflexively. Managing Muslim talent remains
impossible within the confinement of dominant discourse, regardless of how much
the company might wish to ‘care’. Furthermore, critical diversity categories such
as ‘whiteness’ are obscured by dominant discourse, and the HR meaning given
to diversity remains stuck in attempts of ‘assimilation’. If these foundations of HR
discourse are not reflected upon, they might result in the alienation of Muslim
employees who are viewed solely as representatives of the dichotomist and essen-
tialist category Muslim Other and not as diverse and complex individuals. The
power of dominant discourse can be deduced from the fact that even those major-
ity HR managers who have led an international life, such as the head of HR in
the company studied, are unable to tap into this resource when trying to devise
non-discriminatory IHRM strategy and practice.
Implications and limitations

Implications for IHRM research
From an IHRM perspective, one could simply argue that the organization studied
is not very advanced in terms of its understanding of what diversity management
entails. Indeed, many international publications critique Germany for being a
discriminatory environment based on its troubled past and a lack of reflexivity
with regard to it (e.g. Al Ariss et al., 2013). However, our study suggests that one
first needs to understand the context that produces what HRM ‘means’, prior to
judging its overall justification or effectiveness. Hence, viewing German diversity
policies and practices as insufficiently advanced constitutes a dominant IHRM
discourse in itself: It neglects the macro-level context wherein the meanings of
‘good HRM’ emerge. Likewise, IHRM research which intends to establish the spe-
cific needs of ‘Muslim HRM’ or ‘HRM in Muslim country xyz’ might not further
dialogue and understanding, but rather re-affirm dominant Orientalist discourse
and contribute to the construction of Muslim employees as the dichotomist Other.
Indeed, there are also beneficial elements in corporate diversity discourse in this
case, for instance, the high willingness ‘to care’ which can be considered untypical
from a cultural perspective (Mahadevan, 2012a). Still, due to the dominance of
macro-societal discourse, it remains doubtful whether these potential benefits
might be utilized with regard to Muslim minorities in particular.
This brings about critical questions with regard to the widespread IHRM prac-
tice of understanding ‘diverse identities’ as fixed, clear-cut and easily measurable
categories, ‘ready to be operationalized as the independent variable to explain the
specific phenomenon under study’ (Zanoni et al., 2010, p. 13). For the specific
context of Muslim employees this bears the danger of understanding them only in
terms of ‘religious diversity’ (e.g. Gröschl and Bendl, 2013). Such a practice tends
to take dominant identity – namely ‘white, heterosexual, western, middle/upper
class, abled men’ (Zanoni et al., 2010, p. 13) – as the implicit point of reference,
thereby constituting marginal others (Zanoni et al., 2010): Non-Muslim (implicitly
Western) IHRM then becomes the normality, and Muslim Others – due to their
own, inalienable, and presumably traditional Otherness – need to be ‘taken care
of ’ by the enlightened HR majority in theory and practice. Our study suggests that
skilled Muslim migrants in Western Europe should rather be viewed as global tal-
ents of their own, individual right, and that ongoing IHRM reflexivity is required
for building and applying adequate theory with regard to them.
Our understanding of discourse and reflexivity as categories which need to be
traced beyond the meso-organizational level and across multiple intersections
underscores the relevance of relational HRM (Syed, 2008; Syed & Özbilgin, 2009).
We contribute to the relational approach by suggesting that it is not only the
structural/institutional but also the discursive boundary conditions which need
to be considered. Further research might deepen this link between discursive
reflexivity and relational HRM.
In contrast to Zanoni and Janssens (2007), we did not find widespread proof for
minority employees’ agency which enables them to overcome dominant discourse
by creating ‘space for their own micro-emancipation’ (Zanoni & Janssens, 2007,
p. 1371). This is most likely due to strong structural imbalances of power, e.g. the
limited nature of their employment. However, the insistence on treating English
as the lingua franca of technical research or the unwillingness to read storybooks
in order to learn German are isolated indicators of resistance.
Ultimately, our study highlights the need to acknowledge the imbalances of power
and implicit assumptions which shape IHRM research and practice. This calls for
critical IHRM research (Watson, 2010) beyond managerialism (Delbridge & Keenoy,
2010) and the need to develop a de-essentialized understanding of managing the
Muslim diaspora in the West that acknowledges power (based on Zanoni & Janssens,
2004). For doing so, IHRM research needs to incorporate the need for reflexivity
and to embrace pluralism (based on Janssens & Steyaert, 2009). Otherwise, if IHRM
should remain pre-reflexive and overly unitarist, Muslim voices will remain unheard
(for employee voice, see Wilkinson, Gollan, Kalfa, & Xu, 2015).
Previous suggestions for how to develop reflexive HRM practice as made by
Janssens and Steyaert (2009) have remained at the level of theory. We suggest
that reflexivity needs to be applied to specific and concise IHRM issues in order
to become manageable in theory and practice. We exemplified this approach for
the context of talent management, which is a widespread, yet theoretically under-
developed (Guo & Al Ariss, 2015) IHRM practice. Following our goal, we did
not discuss TM in detail, but rather used it as a vehicle to highlight the need for
reflexive IHRM with regard to the Muslim diaspora in the West. Further reflexive
research needs to investigate specific IHRM issues in-depth.
Implications for IHRM practice
This study highlighted how even soft IHRM efforts to ‘care’ for minority employ-
ees, despite their potential benefits on organizational level (Mahadevan, 2012a),
remain limited and discriminatory when they do not reflect upon the discursive
boundary conditions wherein they take place. Even though corporate IHRM
might invest much effort in trying to figure out the HR requirements of minority
groups, they might be unable to do so, because they fail to move beyond domi-
nant discourse, and to look at the limitations of their pre-reflexive assumptions.
Hence, our practical recommendations focus on questioning oneself, rather than
on providing a prescriptive manual of ‘how to manage Muslim employees’.
Practitioners should firstly identify the implicit assumptions associated with
IHRM strategy and practice. What is ‘meant’ when one speaks of IHRM concepts
such as diversity? Who is considered ‘talent’ and why? What is the dominant
understanding of invisible concepts such as ‘knowledge’, ‘skills’ and ‘competencies’?
They should then try to view these concepts and assumptions from alternative
viewpoints. This is best done when including the Other: One should not devise
IHRM for Muslim employees but together with them.
Limitations
Our research succeeded in studying a diverse group of skilled Muslim employees

who differ with regard to nationality and ethnicity. Yet, as a major limitation,
our study does not shed light on the intersectionality of this minority group,
specifically concerning gender (e.g. Alberti, Holgate, & Tapia, 2013; Syed, 2007;
Syed & Pio, 2010), as the technical field wherein our research was conducted is
male-dominated. Further research needs to close this gap. Still, our study considers
intersectionality in the sense that it suggests that ‘Muslim identity’ entails more
than just a collective religious label.
Conclusion
Our study suggests that IHRM theory building requires constructive reflexivity lest
the discipline be discriminatory and stereotypical. This contribution is exemplified
and made manageable via the specific IHRM issue of managing Muslim talent. We
conclude that pre-reflexive IHRM risks being clouded by Orientalist thought and
might create inferior Muslim Others. For building and applying adequate theory
with regard to the Muslim diaspora in the West, we suggest that IHRM needs to
move beyond essentialist and dichotomist ‘Muslim’ identity markers and reflect
critical diversity categories and their discursive making. Only then will Muslim
migrants cease serving as the imagined and collective IHRM Other and become
IHRM subjects of their own, individual right.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Al Ariss, A., Cascio, W. F., & Paauwe, J. (2014). Talent management: Current theories and
future research directions. Journal of World Business, 49, 173–179.
Al Ariss, A., Vassilopoulou, J., Özbilgin, M. F., & Game, A. (2013). Understanding career
experiences of skilled minority ethnic workers in France and Germany. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1236–1256.
Alberti, G., Holgate, J., & Tapia, M. (2013). Organising migrants as workers or as migrant
workers? Intersectionality, trade unions and precarious work. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 24, 4132–4148.
Andresen, M., Bergdolt, F., Margenfeld, J., & Dickmann, M. (2014). Addressing international
mobility confusion – developing definitions and differentiations for self-initiated and
assigned expatriates as well as migrants. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25, 2295–2318.
BAMF. (2009). Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland [Muslim living in Germany]. Retrieved
from http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Politik_Gesellschaft/
DIK/vollversion_studie_muslim_leben_deutschland_.html
Banerjee, B., & Prasad, A. (2008). Guest editorial: Introduction to the special issue on critical
rreflections on management and organizations: A postcolonial perspective. Critical
perspectives on international business, 4, 90–98.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City: Doubleday.
BMI (German Ministry for Internal Affairs). (2011), Migrationsbericht 2009 [Migration report
2009]. Retrieved from www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2011/
Migrationsbericht_2009_de.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Butterwege, C. (2005a). Neue Zuwanderungs- und Integrationspolitik seit 2005 [New
immigration and integration policies since 2005]. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/dossier-migration/56340/neue-
migrationspolitik
Butterwege, C. (2005b). Migration in Ost- und Westdeutschland von 1955 bis 2004 [Migration
to east- and west Germany from 1955 to 2004]. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/dossier-migration/56367/
migration-1955-2004
Butterwege, C. (2005c). Von der ‘Gastarbeiter’-Anwerbung zum Zuwanderungsgesetz [From
guest worker debate to immigration law]. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Retrieved
from http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/dossier-migration/56377/migrationspolitik-
in-der-brd
CFR [Council on Foreign Relations]. (2014). Europe: Integrating Islam. Retrieved from http://
www.cfr.org/religion/europe-integrating-islam/p8252
Cooke, B., Macau, F., & Wood, T., Jr. (2013). Brazilian management gurus as reflexive soft-HRM
practitioners: An empirical study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24, 110–129.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages. Retrieved
from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf
Czarniawska, B. (2008). A theory of organizing. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Delbridge, R., & Keenoy, T. (2010). Beyond managerialism?’. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 21, 799–817.
DIW [German Institute for Economic Development]. (2014) Ostdeutschland – Ein langer Weg
des wirtschaftlichen Aufholens [East Germany – the long route of making up economic
leeway]. DIW Wochenbericht (weekly bulletin) 40. Retrieved from www.diw.de
Fairclough, N. (2005). Peripheral vision: discourse analysis in organization studies: The case
for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26, 915–939.
FAZ. (2011). Islam gehört historisch nicht zu Deutschland [Historically, Islam does not belong
to Germany]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.faz.
net/aktuell/politik/inland/bundesinnenminister-friedrich-islam-gehoert-historisch-nicht-
zu-deutschland-1609731.html
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
Francis, H., Parkes, C., & Reddington, M. (2014). E-HR and international HRM: A critical
perspective on the discursive framing of e-HR. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25, 1327–1350.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gröschl, S., & Bendl, R. (Eds.). (2013). Managing religious diversity in the workplace. Farnham:
Gower.
Guo, C., & Al Ariss, A. (2015). Human resource management of international migrants: Current
theories and future research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
26, 1287–1297.
Heckmann, F., & Schnapper, D. (2003). The integration of immigrants in European societies:
National Differences and trends of convergence. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius.
Heitmeyer, W. (Ed.). (2012). Deutsche Zustände [German conditions], Vol. 10. Berlin:
Suhrkamp.
Hibbert, P., Coupland, C., & MacIntosh, R. (2010). Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in
organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management:
An International Journal, 5, 47–62.
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2009). HRM and performance: A plea for reflexivity in HRM
studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 143–155.
Kipling, R. (1899, February 12). The white man’s burden. McClure’s Magazine.
Kramar, R., & Syed, J. (2012). Human resource management in a global context - a critical
approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mahadevan, J. (2011). Reflexive guidelines for writing organizational culture. Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management, 6, 150–170.
Mahadevan, J. (2012a). Utilizing identity-based resistance for diversity change: A narrative
approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25, 819–834.
Mahadevan, J. (2012b). Are engineers religious? An interpretative approach to cross-cultural
conflict and collective identities. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 12,
133–149.
Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics. London: Routledge.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction.
London: Sage.
Prasad, A. (2006). The jewel in the crown: Postcolonial theory and workplace diversity. In A.
M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 121–144).
London: Sage.
Prasad, P., Pringle, J. K., & Konrad, A. M. (2006). Examining the contours of workplace diversity.
In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp.
1–22). London: Sage.
Ramm, C. (2010). The muslim makers. Interventions – International Journal of Post-colonial
Studies, 12, 183–197.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Schneider, J. (2005). Aussiedler: Migration in Ost- und Westdeutschland von 1955 bis 2004
[Out-settlers: Migration to East- and West Germany from 1955 to 2004]. Bundeszentrale
für politische Bildung. Retrieved from http://bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/dossier-
migration/56394/aussiedler
Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human
resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 235–251.
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Chicago, IL: Wadsworth.
Syed, J. (2007). ‘The other woman’ and the question of equal opportunity in Australian
organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1954–1978.
Syed, J. (2008). Employment prospects for skilled migrants: A relational perspective. Human
Resource Management Review, 18, 28–45.
Syed, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2009). A relational framework for international transfer of diversity
management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20,
2435–2453.
Syed, J., & Pio, E. (2010). Veiled diversity: Workplace experiences of muslim women in
Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 115–137.
Vaiman, V., & Collings, D. G. (2013). Talent management: Advancing the field. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1737–1743.
Vaisse, J. (2008). Muslims in Europe: A short introduction. US-Europe Analysis Series, September
2008. Brookings: CUSE Center on the United States and Europe.
Watson, T. J. (2010). Critical social science, pragmatism and the realities of HRM. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 915–931.
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P., Kalfa, S., & Xu, C. (2015). Special issue of international journal
of human resource management: Voices unheard?. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 26, 1913–1915.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2004). Deconstructing difference: The rhetoric of human resource
managers’ diversity discourses. Organization Studies, 25, 55–74.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2007). Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management:
an analysis of control, agency and micro-emancipation. Journal of Management Studies, 44,
1371–1397.
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Guest editorial: Unpacking diversity,
grasping inequality: rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17,
9–29.

Dominant Discourse Orientalism and The Need For Reflexive HRM Skilled Muslim Migrants in The German Context

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dominant Discourse Orientalism and The Need For Reflexive HRM Skilled Muslim Migrants in The German Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Human Resource

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Dominant discourse, orientalism and the need

Jasmin Mahadevan & Katharina Kilian-Yasin

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1166786

Published online: 26 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1259

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 24 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Dominant discourse, orientalism and the need for

CONTACT Jasmin Mahadevan jasmin.mahadevan@hs-pforzheim.de

qualified employees in Western Europe (CFR (Council on Foreign Relations),

Discourse and reflexivity in HRM

We exemplify our approach via Talent Management (TM). TM is a key aspect of

Context of this study and Orientalist discourse

The Muslim diaspora is a social fact in most Western European countries.

Literature review and research gap

Research design and method

Characteristics of the corporate field

Data collection and analysis

Findings and discussion

We proceed in three steps: First, we identify the contours of macro-societal dis-

The contours of dominant discourse

Germanness as based on ethnicity and ancestry

Summary of macro-societal discourse

The limitations of pre-reflexive IHRM

The organization studied placed a high importance on meeting the HR require-

The risks of pre-reflexive IHRM

First author: ‘How do you interpret this?’

First author: ‘So, what could you do?’

Summary of findings and discussion

Implications and limitations

Implications for IHRM practice

Our research succeeded in studying a diverse group of skilled Muslim employees

You might also like

First author: ‘How do you interpret this?’

First author: ‘So, what could you do?’