Advances in technology have created an illusion of a smaller world. At the same time, they have eliminated some of the physical boundaries that separate us. As a result, people all around the world are more capable of doing business with one another and the workforce has turned into worldwide melting pot of people. Is this diversity amongst the workforce a good thing? What about at an organizational level? I’ll look at 2 things; a study conducted by Bendick, Egan, and Lanier and a Tesco case study. I’ll summarize their conclusions and compare their results in order to answer the questions I have posed.
Few people would argue that equity in the workplace has made huge steps forward over the past 100 years worldwide. Chubb’s insurance cites three reasons for hiring a diverse workforce; Access to a broader pool of potential employees, Ability to relate to diverse customers, A more productive work force. Legal reasons also present external factors that might be motivating business to have a diverse workforce as well. But outside of independent moral concerns and legal requirements, why should employers provide equal employment opportunity? These rationales are commonly referred to as the “business case for diversity” because they argue that workforce diversity advances business objectives of productivity and proﬁtability (Bendick, 2010).
Bendick’s study showed that diversity within the workforce, does not always correlate to a better ability to relate to diverse customers. The large retailer, code named Neighborhood Stores, had managers of ethnicity strategically placed in stores where the customer base was also ethnically diverse. But segmenting management did not have a direct relationship with the success of segmenting the consumer market. Furthermore, the study showed that African American managerial employees on average received lower performance ratings, earned less, took longer to be promoted, and voluntarily quit the company sooner than...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document