Guest editorial

Citation

Metcalfe, B.D. and Fielden, S.L. (2007), "Guest editorial", Women in Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/wimr.2007.05322daa.001

Guest editorial

Gender, and gendered and racialized power relations are major defining features of most organizations and managements. Diversity and difference however, is culturally and socially constituted and needs to be explored within specific socio-political and geographic regions. Understanding the dynamics of diversity can assist management scholars and practioners in creating and sustaining competitive management behaviours and attitudes that are inclusive, not exclusive. Diversity initiatives are particularly relevant to an understanding of European management initiatives on account of the new enlarged Europe and Europe's relations and networks with the international economy. The economics and politics of transition, and the implications for management systems and structures are important features that need to be critically evaluated as Europe moves towards greater democratization and liberalization. There is also a need to consider how developments in European feminism(s) and diversity agendas are translated and communicated to the global community.

This special issue has been developed from the Gender, Diversity and Management track of the European Management Conference that was held in Oslo 2006. These papers were selected because they encapsulated the ethos of the track and highlight some of the key issues in the understanding of diversity and the implications for organisations in developing and implementing diversity initiatives.

Diversity management emerged as an autonomous research domain in the 1990s following practioners growing interest in how to manage an increasing diverse demographic workforce (Nkomo and Cox, 1996). These managerial origins have influenced the first generation of diversity studies as scholars have sought to explore the effects of socio-demographic characteristics on work processes or on discriminatory practices such as the glass ceiling, wage differentials, occupational segregation and exclusion from informal networks (for example, Ibarra, 1995). These studies have largely been instrumentally driven and primarily focused on advocating the business case for diversity. There have also been frameworks designed to reveal how diversity is broadly managed ranging from resistance, discrimination and fairness, access and legitimacy and learning and effectiveness. In line with business case models the more advanced approaches tend to treat employees as strategic asset in organizations as well as aligning diversity values with the organizations mission and business strategy.

Influenced by gender mainstreaming philosophies in EU institution policy making and increased migration of immigrants across European borders, European scholars have begun to question these business case strategies and approaches, particularly the assumptions about the nature of diversity and how diversity should be managed (Walby, 2007). Within organisation studies especially, particular attention has sought to show how socio-demographic categories under investigation, such as race, ethnicity or gender represent a fixed essence. Relatedly, this perspective in marginalising differences of specific categories, such as women, pays little attention to individual or within group variation. Increasingly scholars stress the fluidity of diverse identities in organizations and of the importance of social and organizational contexts and how they shape and the dynamics of managing of diversity. Dominant discourses in specific socio-political and geographic regions are also noted as influencing the formation of diversity themes and meanings.

The papers in this special edition encapsulate the need to unravel diversity organization demographics in more critical ways. Following Janssens and Zanoni (2005) the papers stress that while diversity can incorporate within group characteristics, diversity is also embedded in existing power structures and relations, and in societal conceptualisations of diversity values and priorities, rendering diversity management processes and practices as highly variable in the European terrain.

The first paper by Aulikki Sippola investigates how multiculturalism is developed and promoted through empowerment and participatory organisation development approaches. Based on case study analysis of 15 Finnish organizations over a two year period the paper highlights the value of a “culture bridge method” to help transform organization values about diversity and inclusion. The organizations had previously participated in a three year long EU community initiative programme aiming to promote the tolerance and multi-cultural values in response to the increasing number of immigrant workers in Finland. The findings suggest that the participatory method can be an important diversity development tool for policy makers and practioners.

The second paper by Iris Barbosa and Carlos Cabral-Cardosa examines how higher education systems in Portugal are responding to the challenges of an increasingly diverse academic workforce, and how academic cultural values are changing. As with all educational institutions the Bologna declaration has advocated the recognition of being able to teach, research and train without facing discrimination. That said, while diversity in Academia is a serious subject of study in the UK Barbosa and Cadosa stress that in most European countries diversity issues are largely under researched. In their study of 45 academics via in depth semi-structured interviews they reveal that the academic organization culture is characterised by preference for Portuguese national's inclusion in decision-making processes and in senior university appointments, thereby marginalising other ethnic groups and limiting opportunities. They suggest that sameness rather than difference is the key (anti) diversity organising process (Liff, 1999; Marginson, 2000) and argue that this needs to change if the university is going to attract and retain talented individuals. While they note their results cannot be generalised to other institutions they argue that replications of this study in other European universities is a valuable research project in order to shed light on how the Bologna agreement is shaping diversity transformations or not.

The paper by Caroline Straub investigates the work-life balance policies in fourteen European countries, exploring whether or not these policies actually enhance the career prospects of women in senior management positions. The findings are positive in that at an overall European level companies seem to be committed to work-life initiatives which eliminate the structural barriers to women's advancement in the workplace. However, earlier studies have shown that the implementation of policies and practices does not guarantee people making use of them (Allen, 2001). One of the main inhibitors to this is organisational culture and Caroline concludes that European companies still need to review their organisational cultures is there are to make such initiative truly successful.

Jennifer Tomlinson's paper examines the experiences of female part-time workers in the UK who work in the service industry, particularly their work satisfaction, access to occupational mobility and career progression in the hotel and catering sector. The research is significant since it was conducted following the EU Part Time Workers Directive which was intended to provide regulatory safeguards and employment protection for part-timers especially in terms of career and development opportunities (Walby, 2007). Jennifer's study found that PT work experiences were shaped by the occupational context, the structuring of part time and full time jobs and the degree to which the legislation was being adapted or rejected in policy and practice. Drawing on Weber's concept of closure which refers to open and closed relations/opportunities in organizations, Jennifer highlights how this model is useful in explain stratification of workplaces and job structures. Overall she found that for many who worked part time their were limited and different expectations about their commitment and performance, as well as many of them feeling as though they were closed off from certain entitlements regarding career paths and development opportunities. Given that the PT work is set to increase over the next decade there are clear challenges for diversity policy makers since part-time social demographic intersects with other forms of difference and inequality (Walby, 2007).

The final paper by Fiona Sheridan examines the construction of gendered communications in organizations and the implication for women and men's careers and professional identity in a UK professional organization. Her key focus is on conversation of men and women in leadership roles. Contributing to the expansive gender and communication literature Fiona highlights how speech patterns by men and women are different and that they are differently reacted to in organizations. What she terms the “conversations rituals” of men and women are often misunderstood and misinterpreted and impacts an individuals sense of self-worth, confidence, acceptability and authority in organizations settings. Significantly her research differs from previous communication research as it reveals that female speech patterns which tend to be collaborative and facilitative in style are appropriate to expected leadership behaviours in today's modern organizations. Specifically she shows how listening, attentiveness enhance morale and productivity in work settings reflect highly valued leadership behaviours.

Beverly D. MetcalfeUniversity of Hull Business School, UK, and

Sandra L. FieldenManchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK

ReferencesAllen, T.D. (2001), “Family-supportive work environments: the role of organisational perspectives”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, p. 58.Ibarra, H. (1995), “Race, opportunity and social circles in managerial networks”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 673-703.Janssens, M. and Zanoni, P. (2005), “Many diversities for many services: theorising diversity (management) in service companies”, Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 311-41.Liff, S. (1999), “Diversity and equal opportunities: room for a compromise?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 65-75.Marginson, S. (2000), “Rethinking academic work in the global arena”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 23-35.Nkomo, S. and Cox, T. (1996), “Diverse identities in organizations”, in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, London.Walby, S. (2007), Gender (In)Equality and the Future of Work, Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester.