Managing diversity in academicorganizations: a challenge to

organizational cultureIris Barbosa and Carlos Cabral-Cardoso

School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to look at the way higher-education institutions areresponding to the challenges of an increasingly diverse academic force and the extent to whichorganizational culture welcomes and values diversity, thus allowing the university to benefit fromtalented people with diverse backgrounds.

Design/methodology/approach – The study was conducted in a Portuguese university. Data werecollected from 45 interviews with faculty members from different backgrounds and affiliations.

Findings – The organization studied is failing to promote equal opportunities policies and to managethe increasingly diverse academic workforce. Behavioural pressures to conform and parochial andinward looking attitudes appear to prevail. Values-in-use and artefacts seem to reflect the assimilationideals. National origin came out as the key diversity issue. The integration of foreign academics is leftto the individuals concerned and little effort is made to accommodate and to take advantage of theirunique contribution.

Originality/value – The paper provides an in-depth account of subtle discriminatory mechanismsfaced by non-native academics in a university that does not value diversity.

Keywords Equal opportunities, Organizational culture, Universities, Portugal

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionSignificant changes in society and in the markets are responsible for the growingworkforce diversity. The globalization process compels organizations all over the worldto deal with more international customers and suppliers (Cox and Blake, 1991; Millikenand Martins, 1996). Improvements in transportation and communication, and thechange in lifestyles contribute to the growing mobility of people (Kossek and Lobel,1996). The participation of social groups traditionally seen as minorities ordisadvantaged groups in the workplace has increased in numbers, qualifications, andinfluence (Carr-Ruffino, 1996). Women, older people, individuals with disabilities, andpeople with different ethnic backgrounds, lifestyles, religious faiths, and sexualorientations, are becoming regular players in the labour market (Dass and Parker, 1996).

In this context, managing the increasing workforce diversity has become a strategicissue that organizations aiming to achieve and/or maintain an international competitiveadvantage can no longer neglect. However, the view of diversity as an asset worthvaluing (Cornelius et al., 2000) seems to contradict the traditional preference for strongorganizational cultures that encourage uniformity in thinking patterns and behaviours(Granrose, 1997). Thus, considerable changes are required in the organizational cultureif organizations are to attract and benefit from a diverse workforce.

There is consistent evidence that demographic diversity is also raising in highereducation. Student and staff exchange and cross border recruitment is increasing

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm

WIMR22,4

274

Women in Management ReviewVol. 22 No. 4, 2007pp. 274-288q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0964-9425DOI 10.1108/09649420710754237

(Marginson, 2000; Schapper and Mayson, 2004). The Erasmus, Socrates and otherEuropean funded exchange programs support learning, researching, and teachingopportunities for academics and students in different European cultural contexts(Corbett, 2003). The Bologna Declaration is another important step towards thecreation of the “Europe of knowledge and higher education” promoting theemployability and the mobility of everyone involved in education and research.Under the Bologna framework students will get the chance to pursue their studies orget their degrees at a different university or country from the one where they originallyenrolled. For academics and administrative staff, the Bologna Declaration admitted“the recognition and valorisation of periods spent in European context researching,teaching, and training, without prejudicing their statutory rights” (European Ministersof Education, 1999). By 2010, when this process is expected to be fully implementedacademic institutions will face new challenges derived from the increasingly diversework environment. In order to attract, integrate, motivate, and develop the fullpotential of academic diversity, European universities must become moreinternationally oriented and have organizational cultures that truly values andcreatively manages such human diversity.

Diversity remains considerably under-researched in European higher education.To examine these issues, a study was conducted looking at the way a particularhigher-education institution is responding to the challenges of diversity, and assessingthe extent to which organizational culture is supporting diversity and allowing theorganization to benefit from talented people with several cultural backgrounds.

Conceptual frameworkThe concepts of diversity, minorities, prejudice, and discriminationIn the organizational context, diversity usually refers to the variety of humanresources, customers and suppliers. Minorities refer to groups of people that in somefeatures – like national origin, race, gender, physical condition, age, sexual orientation,religion, financial or social condition, lifestyle, education, or values – differ from the“pattern” (Kossek and Lobel, 1996; Milliken and Martins, 1996).

Two types of groups coexist in the workplace: the organizational groups andthe identity groups. Organizational groups result from aspects that are strictly related tothe work (like the job or function, the hierarchical level, the department or section, theskills and abilities). On the other hand, the individuals’ cultural backgrounds define theiridentity groups. As pointed out by Brickson (2000), minorities belong to identity groupstraditionally seen as disadvantaged groups in terms of power and opportunities. Theybecome recurrent targets of organizational prejudice and discrimination in recruitment,selection, career opportunities, wages, and training (Kossek and Lobel, 1996). Prejudiceis the tendency to view “different” people as inferior, less hard-working, less intelligent,and less skilful (Carr-Ruffino, 1996). It results from the ancestral belief that differencesmean some human deficiency (Wentling and Palma-Rivas, 1998). The cognitive natureof prejudice makes it harder to deal with in organizations than discrimination(Cox, 1991). Discrimination occurs when decisions are made based on some of theemployee’s features, like gender or ethnicity, in spite of their irrelevance to theaccomplishment of the task. Broadly speaking, it refers to policies and practices thatresult in members of a subordinate group being treated differently in ways thatdisadvantage them (Carr-Ruffino, 1996). Prejudice and discrimination can result from

Managingdiversity

275

individuals’ thoughts and attitudes “or be part of an institution’s policies and practices”(Carr-Ruffino, 1996, p. 92). They constitute strong barriers to the minorities’ access towork and career advancement, self-esteem, motivation, and productivity.

Dealing with the difference at the workplaceDifferent approaches to dealing with workforce diversity, prejudice, anddiscrimination have been suggested, ranging from the legalistic ones to the morepragmatic and managerial vision of valuing diversity. Originally brought up in theUSA, equal opportunities policies were intended to guarantee equal opportunities forall in the workplace and to give to the victims of discrimination the legitimacy and themeans to complain (Carrington et al., 2000). The emphasis was on legal requirementsand penalties for non-compliance (Prasad and Mills, 1997). In the Portuguese context,the constitution states that nobody can be privileged, favoured, harmed, deprived ofany right or discriminated against on the grounds of sex, race, language, nationalorigin, religion, political or ideological convictions, education, financial situation, orsocial condition. These principles have been translated into ordinary law enforcingequal opportunities in the work context. Within this framework it is up to the workersto prove they have been discriminated against.

According to Liff and Wajcman (1996), this approach underlines the “sameness”among the individuals from several identity groups. Liff (1999, p. 66) summarizes thisperspective:

The thinking is that discrimination occurs because social group characteristics, such asgender and ethnicity, are taken into account when they are irrelevant to the requirements ofthe job, and that equality consists of rejecting such criteria and ensuring instead thatindividuals are judged against each other only on job-relevant bases.

This approach has been criticized on the grounds that it does not take into account theinitial disadvantages women and minorities have to deal with. In the case of women,they result from the traditional family roles and/or the different patterns ofqualifications and work experiences (Liff and Wajcman, 1996). Under this perspectivethe organization is supposed to act as if all individuals were from the same race, genderand ethnical background, thus assuming that the diverse workforce does not influencethe organizational culture and work practices (Thomas and Ely, 1996). This approachwas strongly criticized for failing to preserve the different groups’ identities and tobenefit from their unique contributions (Carr-Ruffino, 1996). Despite these weaknesses,Dickens (1999, p. 13) argues that anti-discriminatory legislation must be in place“because the market tends to produce discrimination, not equality”.

Affirmative action is also an originally US legalistic approach based on the premisethat organizations must reflect the social diversity of the community at large. Withinthis framework, the several social groups in society are supposed to be convenientlyrepresented in the workplace, so that it begins to look like a “patchwork quilt”(Gilbert et al., 1999). In Europe in general, affirmative action has remained limited to afew specific cases and never made it to mainstream legislation. This approach has beencriticized on several grounds, not least because it goes against the basic principles ofmeritocracy (Thomas, 1990). Its emphasis on quota hiring seems to imply the rejectionof the more skilled candidates (Groschl and Doherty, 1999), and minorities tend to bestigmatized on the grounds that they did not get their job and promotions by their ownmerit (Gilbert et al., 1999). In sum, affirmative action fails to eradicate the deep roots of

WIMR22,4

276

prejudice and inequality and does little to enhance the full potential of minorities andto promote a multicultural environment (Groschl and Doherty, 1999).

The management of diversityTo overcome the drawbacks pointed out above, a new approach emerged during 1980sthat became known as diversity management. According to Ivancevich and Gilbert(2000, p. 75), it “refers to the systematic and planned commitment by organizations torecruit, retain, reward, and promote a heterogeneous mix of employees”. Thisvoluntary and strategic-oriented approach recognizes the worker’s individuality andbelieves in the benefits of diversity to the organization (Cornelius et al., 2000). It is notintended to guarantee the assimilation of minorities into a dominant culture, but tochallenge the organization policies and practices so that everyone can succeed by beinghim or herself (Thomas, 1990). Under the diversity framework, the equality based onsameness is replaced by the equality based on difference (Liff and Wajcman, 1996).

Diversity management also questions the traditional way to face equalopportunities at work: more than a legal or moral issue, diversity is now regardedas a business case (Thomas and Ely, 1996). Several contributions are expected from adiverse workforce (Cox and Blake, 1991; Thomas and Ely, 1996):

. improvements in decision-making processes;

. increased flexibility;

. innovation and learning; and

. market competitiveness.

Organizations that follow this orientation will probably also reduce costs associatedwith turnover, absenteeism, stress, lawsuits related to discrimination, and lowproductivity of minority workers (Cox and Blake, 1991).

The interaction of culturally diverse workers is not without problems, such as theincreased turnover among individuals from the dominant group, decreased groupintegration, and communication barriers (Cox, 1991; Brickson, 2000; Milliken andMartins, 1996). In order to overcome these obstacles and to benefit from a diverseworkforce, several authors argue that organizations must develop cultures thatwelcome, support and value diversity (Carr-Ruffino, 1996; Cox, 1991; Cox and Blake,1991; Miller, 1998).

Organizational culture and the management of diversitySince, it became prominent in the management field in 1980s, organizational culture isregarded as a powerful and original tool to understand and analyze the human behaviourin the workplace (Meek, 1992). Organizational culture can be defined as the set oftaken-for-granted values, beliefs, practices, and norms that indicate to its members theappropriate behaviours in each specific circumstance (Louis, 1985; Schein, 1985). To beaccepted in the workplace, newcomers are encouraged to adopt the current organizationalvalues and artefacts (Louis, 1985; O’Reilly et al., 1991), whereas existing members tend “todistrust, fear, and dislike people with other ideas” (Trice and Beyer, 1993, p. 11).Organizations tend to attract and retain individuals from similar social and demographicbackgrounds and to discriminate dissimilar ones in recruitment, selection, careerdevelopment, and informal integration (Kossek and Lobel, 1996; O’Reilly et al., 1991).

Managingdiversity

277

Organizational culture works as a mechanism of social control that promotesbehavioural uniformity and the assimilation of the dominant values. Such demandoriginates high levels of stress in people from minority cultural backgrounds that wantto preserve their identity (O’Reilly et al., 1991). Therefore, cultural barriers may preventmembers from minority identity groups from developing their full potential (Miller,1998). These barriers can be tangible like the stairs that limit the mobility of people inwheelchairs, or more subtle like the refusal to pay attention to someone’s suggestionsand opinions because he or she is a member of a minority group (Miller, 1998).

Strong cultures in particular demand workers to develop unilateral efforts to fit intothe existing norms and values (Granrose, 1997). In academic settings, members of strongacademic cultures share ideologies, values, and quality judgments, and those who seemto contradict these common cultural elements risk to be penalized (Becher, 1989).

In contrast with strong cultures, in which individuals are expected to fit into theexisting cultural practices and norms, a more inclusive organizational culture has beensuggested in which values, practices, and policies are developed that welcome thecharacteristics and needs of employees from minority identity groups (Clair et al., 2005;Liff, 1999). For that purpose, Cox (1991) recommends a socialization process in whichmembers of the dominant culture and members of the alternative cultures are invited toshare some important values and norms while keeping their own cultural identity,hoping to facilitate both the full “structural integration” of minorities (the presence ofminorities at all organization levels) and their integration in the informal networks.

In the particular case of academic institutions, a culture that appreciates innovation,cooperation, teamwork, and mutual trust must be encouraged in order to promote andrespect diversity (Creamer, 2004; Gersick et al., 2000; Hinings and Greenwood, 1996).In sum, an organizational culture that is sympathetic to diversity and promotesdiversity is a key factor for the success of any diversity management strategy.

MethodologyAims, research setting and procedureThis study was conducted looking at the way a particular Portuguese academicinstitution is responding to the challenges of the growing diversity in higher education.The study examines whether organizational culture in this particular institution issupporting diversity and allowing the organization to benefit from talented people withseveral cultural backgrounds.

The university was founded in the early 1970s and like most institutions in this partof the world is historically filled with a homogenous academic workforce. It currentlyemploys over 1,000 faculty members from nearly all subject areas. Despite someincrease in recent years in the number of foreign academics roughly 95 per cent of thefaculty is still of native origin. Apart from sex, age, and nationality, no records are keptin the university files concerning other diversity dimensions.

The qualitative methodology is normally considered the most appropriate to explorethe dynamics of organizational culture (Hatch, 1993; Thomas, 1990; Wentling andPalma-Rivas, 1998). Overall, 45 in-depth interviews were conducted with faculty membersfrom different backgrounds and affiliations. The number of interviews was notpredetermined. The data collection ended when the saturation of information becamevisible. When selecting the interviewees, an attempt was made to have as much varietyas possible in terms of their background. A total of 38 individuals were of native origin.

WIMR22,4

278

The remaining seven interviewees were foreigners from different nationalities:French (two individuals), and Chinese, German, the US, Russian, and Spanish(one each). Five individuals were junior members at the assistant level (three of them offoreign origin) and 40 had positions at the professorial level. Nearly all of them worked atthis university for at least five years.

During the interviews, it was found that only 2 out of 45 interviewees werenon-white: one black and one Asian. In terms of religious background, 28 individualsclaimed to be Catholic, and two others belonged to the Evangelical Church and to theOrthodox Church. Of them, 15 individuals present themselves as not interestedin religious matters. All participants assumed to be heterosexuals. Among theinterviewees no one lived with disability.

The initial contact was made by e-mail and by conventional mail. Individuals chosethe time and the location for the interviews (almost all interviews were conducted intheir own offices). The interviews took from 30 to 75 minutes. All interviews weretape-recorded with the permission of the interviewees, transcribed verbatim, andcontent analyzed.

Participants were asked to share their views on the cultural values, artefacts, andmanagement practices of their departments, particularly with regard to diversityissues. Foreign nationals were also invited to describe their experience and process ofjoining and integrating in this institution. An open-ended format was adopted so thatthe individuals could express themselves freely, using their own words. Theindividuals’ line of thought was respected and specific questions were only raisedwhen interviewees did not voluntarily address specific topics considered relevant.Examples of the topics raised during the interviews include:

. Exposed values and values-in-use.

. Decision-making procedures and major criteria in recruitment, selection andpromotions processes.

. Policies and practices in the socialization of newcomers.

. Description of what is considered proper behaviour.

. Reactions to whoever challenges the dominant values and practices.

. Specific policies and measures addressing minorities and disadvantaged groups.

. Benefits and problems associated with demographic diversity.

Anecdotal evidence was often volunteered by the interviewees to illustrate a particularpoint they were making. The interviews were conducted in Portuguese but furtherexplanations were sometimes given in English when the interviewees seemed lessfamiliar with the Portuguese language.

The content analysis of the interviews was conducted considering the followinganalytical categories:

. “organizational culture” (reference to general values and values concerning issuesof diversity, artefacts, formal and informal relationships, and HRM practices);

. “managing diversity” (reference to policies and practices of recruitment,integration and career development of individuals from minority identity groups,organizational discriminatory policies and practices, costs and benefitsassociated with workers from minority identity groups); and

Managingdiversity

279

. “foreign academics” (reference to the barriers experienced by foreign individualsin their recruitment process, integration and career development, perceptionsand feelings in terms of expressing their views and assuming their identity in thework setting).

FindingsIn the analysis, an attempt was made to assess the extent to which the culture of thisparticular organization has incorporated the values of diversity and adopted thepractices of diversity management. Bearing in mind, the limited representation of otherminorities, national origin emerged as the key diversity issue in this organization.

ValuesIndividualism, selfishness, and competition were pointed out by the interviewees asvalues-in-use in the organization. Few individuals referred to collectivism, cooperation,and solidarity that the literature defines as values more suitable to an increasinglydiverse workforce (Creamer, 2004; Chatman and Flynn, 2001; Hinings and Greenwood,1996). It is not unusual in academic settings that individual academics decide to workalone rather than in teams, presuming that it is a safer way to develop a professionalidentity (Quinn et al., 1996).

There seems to be little openness to what is “new” and “different” and a strongresistance to change appears to prevail unless change brings direct advantages to theindividuals involved:

People come here with several ideas. Newcomers tend to be very dynamic and willing toimprove things in many areas, such as research, management, or teaching. But the machine istoo heavy; there is no openness to change, to new approaches to do things (Spanish professor).

There are always some negative points of view concerning innovation and change becausethese individuals fear the consequences in their security and welfare (Native professor).

An environment that resists the newness and the difference is unlikely to be receptiveto individuals from minority cultural backgrounds with distinct ways of looking atlife in general and the academic career in particular, thus failing to take advantage ofthe more significant benefits of a diverse workforce – new ideas and work practices,and innovative problem solving approaches (Cox and Blake, 1991).

Structural conditions also seem unfavourable to diversity. Decentralization hasbeen found more suitable to a heterogeneous workforce (Thomas and Ely, 1996), butdecision-making procedures and communication processes seem to remain in thisparticular university, strongly controlled by organizational hierarchies. The freeexpression of ideas is sometimes referred to as naıve and inappropriate behaviour.Interviewees often describe an authoritarian climate and an environment whereretaliation and the abuse of power are not uncommon:

In terms of expressing individual opinions at the school level or in the department meetings,there is no actual freedom. (. . .) I know cases of individuals that threatened others telling themto be careful because one of these days they could be sitting in their promotion committees.(. . .) That’s why in faculty meetings some individuals prefer to keep their opinions tothemselves (. . .) Expressing a certain point of view can put individuals in serious trouble(Native professor).

WIMR22,4

280

Both native and foreign academics admit they suffered pressures to conform and toadopt values and behaviours more in line with the dominant cultural pattern. On theother hand, academics from distinct cultural backgrounds may have more difficultiesunderstanding what is acceptable behaviour and whether and when to express theiropinions. The following quote highlights this aspect:

If someone behaves differently, people criticize it. (. . .) There was a [foreign] professor whosebehaviour was somehow eccentric. At the city festivities she used to go to the street, jumpinto the stage and dance with her students. Those kinds of jokes aren’t very common here.And people used to comment: “That’s not a proper behaviour for a respectable professor”(Native professor).

ArtefactsAlthough there is no formal dress code and informal dressing rules are not particularlystrict, a conservative attitude and pressures for behavioural conformity prevail.Piercings, visible tattoos, “strange” haircuts or other peculiar looks would not besocially accepted. In other words, there is some flexibility in the way faculty memberspresent themselves, but only up to a (relatively limited) point.

The use of language reflects the strong hierarchical relationships pointed out above.Some level of informality is apparent in daily interactions but the language normallyreflects hierarchical differences. Academics from less formalized cultures or cultureswith lower levels of power distance (Hofstede, 1991) seem to face some difficultiesadjusting to this use of language:

In Germany you don’t call a peer a “doctor” even when this person is a PhD. That’sconsidered ridiculous. But here, in Portugal, you call everybody “doctor” even if that’s not thecase. That’s a practice that is very difficult to get used to (German assistant).

Despite legal provisions for access to public buildings for individuals with physicaldisabilities, some architectural barriers also remain that prevent the full access of staffand students with disabilities:

This Institute isn’t adapted to people with wheelchairs. We don’t have an elevator. I’ve alreadyseen students with disability that had to be carried upstairs [3rd floor] by their fellows.

Here again, there is little concern for the difference and for the benefits that a diverseworkforce would bring to the organization.

Formal and informal relationshipsInformal networks seem to be relatively stable and mainly developed aroundprofessional and, above all, personal affinities. It takes some time for a “stranger” to beaccepted, which makes it harder for non-natives to develop informal relationships andto get access to mentors:

I’ve already told my colleagues that I feel too lonely and that I would like to go out with them, toget closer to them. I used to ask if they would like to go to the cinema, to a pub, or elsewhere, butthey didn’t answer me or they simply said they couldn’t. (. . .) They don’t understand theloneliness of someone who is far from their country and family (French assistant).

Some informal networks seem to develop around internal politics. Foreign academicsnormally show little formal power and tend to stay out of these networks. As a result,

Managingdiversity

281

their structural and informal integration, and career opportunities are limited from thestart (Gersick et al., 2000; Quinlan, 1999). Milliken and Martins (1996, p. 419) explainedthat:

. . . people who feel less psychologically linked with other members of their group (. . .) mayengage in a kind of self-censorship, whereby they hold themselves back from contributingtheir thoughts to the group.

The following quote from a foreign professor illustrates this point:

I’m a member of the Board but I feel a bit lost there. I don’t really know anyone there andI really don’t catch what they discuss. If someone asks me to do a specific thing, it’s okay.Otherwise, I don’t want to get involved. I don’t understand how things work here (Chineseprofessor).

Several members of faculty reported difficulties in their integration processes. In mostdepartments integration is dealt with informally. The success of such processesdepends almost entirely on the newcomers’ own efforts, which represents an additionalburden for individuals with no previous connections in the organization. As reportedby non-native academics, little efforts are made to promote the integration of foreignindividuals:

The efforts they make to integrate foreign faculty are exactly the same they make with thenative ones. (. . .) It’s quite hard to face a class with hundreds of students when you have justarrived and you aren’t familiar with the language, the values, or the rules of the Portugueseacademic institutions (Spanish professor).

There wasn’t anyone formally in charge of my socialization. (. . .) I’ve been working here forabout three years and still there are a number of issues I don’t understand. The truth is thereisn’t anyone that really explains things or, at least, some kind of guidebook with relevantinformation for foreign academics (French assistant).

The comment made by the Spanish professor is consistent with Liff and Wajcman’s (1996)argument that sometimes minorities are disadvantaged not because they are treateddifferently but because they are treated equally . . . If their particular needs are to be takeninto account, different procedures rather than the same procedures should apply.

Human resource management practicesSelection decisions tend to favour familiar applicants in order to avoid the uncertaintyassociated with “unknown” or “different” candidates, thus leading to “homosocialreproduction” (Gilbert et al., 1999; Kossek and Lobel, 1996). Individuals with no formerconnections with the organization such as foreign applicants are likely to bediscriminated against. On the other hand, there seems to be little concern for theconsequences of inbreeding:

There’s a great concern that the newcomer perfectly fits into the department environment.(. . .) We can determine if a person fits into our lines of research through the curriculum.But in terms of individual fit, it’s safer to recruit applicants that are already known. Peoplewho have studied or made research here have an advantage over the other candidates (Nativeprofessor).

Some interviewees admitted that their faculties prefer academics that appear to be“easy to deal with” and have “a normal looking” and share the organizational values.

WIMR22,4

282

In brief, the interviewees show that the “difference” is not valued and sometimes it iseven avoided. These findings are consistent with cultures that show high levels of“uncertainty avoidance” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 109). In this case, “what is different isdangerous” and organizations prefer to stick to the candidates they already know.A native professor acknowledged this reluctance to accept diverse staff: “I must admitthat conformity with the prevailing values and attitudes is a criterion when it comes torecruit academics”.

Objective criteria such as research output are certainly taken into account in careeradvancement decisions. But quite often influence made through networks plays animportant part and seems to prevail over individual merit when it comes to promotions.In this context, flattering the higher ranks, particularly those who determine careeradvancement decisions, becomes a common political tactic among academics:

You must behave politically. That’s the fundamental factor, I guess. You’d better not annoypowerful people and flatter them once in a while. You have to be extremely prudent with yourrelationships. It is important to show work, of course. But the main criterion is the other,I guess (Native professor).

There’s a lot of favouritism around here. There isn’t a culture that guarantees thatprofessional merit is always rewarded. (. . .) People get promoted if they accept the way thingsare and if they blindly follow the ones who decide one’s career advancement. It’s the culture ofobedience and subservience (Native professor).

Career advancement not based on merit certainly penalizes the politically less skilledacademics. Here again, individuals from minority identity groups who tend to be lessfamiliar with the local mechanisms of political manoeuvring are disadvantaged(Thomas, 1990). As argued by Bajdo and Dickinson (2001), an inclusive workplacewould require career advancement to be determined by performance rather thanpolitical connections.

Equal opportunities and diversity management practices and policiesSome members of minority identity groups were interviewed, including foreignindividuals, Black and Asian individuals, and individuals from religious minorities.None of the interviewees assumed to be homosexual or bisexual, though somerespondents suggested that it would be more “appropriate” to hide sexual orientationin this organization. No policy statement was issued with regard to the recruitment andpromotion processes of individuals from social minorities.

Most interviewees claimed to be aware of the advantages of working with peoplefrom different cultural backgrounds. Native individuals believed that their facultieswelcome and value foreign academics in their ranks. Non-natives who felt that theuniversity was not making use of their talents did not share such a view. They thinkthat, in practice, native peers tend to show little interest in benefiting from theirparticular experiences and knowledge. A good example was provided by the wayforeigners were disregarded and ignored in department meetings. A French academicworking in the French department illustrates this attitude:

Well, in the council meetings people speak Portuguese and in my first year here I didn’t knowthis language. (. . .) I didn’t understand anything they said. In this aspect, I was discriminatedagainst because all of them teach French and work in a School of French. Then, why didn’tthey speak French? (French assistant).

Managingdiversity

283

Other foreign individuals related their perception of discriminatory mechanisms incareer advancement with the lack of access to management positions. A Germanlecturer puts it very clearly:

I think it’s very difficult to find foreign academics performing management tasks in thisinstitution. Native peers don’t trust them enough [and] find it hard to identify with them.

Some native interviewees also pointed out disadvantages associated with a diverseworkforce. Communication and cultural barriers may arise when working with foreigncolleagues; they argued admitting that these barriers lead to misunderstandings andimproper behaviours that ultimately threaten organization stability. Prejudice towardsnon-whites and foreigners from particular nationalities were also pointed out, thoughindividuals from religious minorities denied having experienced discrimination orprejudice in this organization:

I think that some people consider that individuals from specific geographic origins don’t fitinto the institution. There seems to be an ethnocentric belief that academics from Brazil,Africa or Asia aren’t as effective and talented as individuals from either Northern Europe orthe US (Native assistant).

In sum, the organizational culture of this particular university does not seem towelcome and value a diversified workforce. Parochial and inward looking attitudesappear to prevail. Values and artefacts seem to reflect assimilation ideals whilepreserving explicit and implicit discriminatory mechanisms that prevent real equalopportunities. In an environment somewhat hostile to individuals from minorityidentity groups, it will not be easy to implement the proclaimed internationalizationgoals recommended by the Bologna Declaration, let alone to develop a culture ofinclusion that values diversity.

Discussion and conclusionsThe international and multicultural environment in which universities have to operatethese days requires the management of an increasingly diverse workforce. In order tobenefit from the potential of such diverse workforce, it is important to ensure that allindividuals are making full use of their skills, knowledge, and work experiences. In thatsense, an inclusive culture that values diversity and encourages the free debate of ideaswould be a major asset (Thomas and Ely, 1996). The findings show that this particularuniversity does not seem to promote real equal opportunities and does not benefit fromthe potential of an increasingly diverse workforce.

The study was conducted in a Portuguese university that at least in numericalterms is increasingly “plural” given the growing number of faculty members fromminority identity groups, most of them of foreign origin. However, their participation isclearly limited due to structural, political and cultural barriers that came out in theinterviews. Some organizational values may reflect dimensions of Portuguese culturesuch as uncertainty avoidance and power distance (Hofstede, 1991). The prevalence ofparochial attitudes and the importance of personal connections over individual meritcriteria in recruitment and promotion decisions contribute to restrict the access,integration and career advancement of whoever might be regarded as “different” or“outsider”. In a time when the Bologna Declaration is promoting the mobility of facultymembers and students in Europe, the development of a welcome environment forindividuals from other nationalities is a critical element for the success of the

WIMR22,4

284

internationalization of higher-education institutions. In this particular case, failure tocreate a level playing field providing equal opportunities for all faculty membersregardless of their racial or ethnic origin may jeopardize talented academics that do notfit into the dominant group.

Minority groups remain easy targets for prejudice and for “institutionaldiscrimination” argued Liff (1999), and “sameness” tends to prevail over “difference”(Liff and Wajcman, 1996). In other words, individuals from minority groups have todevelop unilateral efforts to fit into the organization, while the organization does notseem to make any special effort to accommodate or to take advantage of thoseindividuals. Additionally, institutional pressures to conform inhibit the free flow anddebate of ideas that is expected in an academic institution, thus precluding thedevelopment of a creative and innovative environment. Organizations devoted toresearch were expected to be more receptive to newness and difference, thoughapparently that is not the case everywhere.

Unless important changes take place, this organization will not be able to attracttalented people from distinct cultural backgrounds who want to preserve their identityand keep their distinct perspectives, knowledge, and work experiences. While at therhetorical level the benefits of a diversified workforce were acknowledged, little respectfor diversity was detected in practice. No evidence was found of polices and practicesdesigned to promote diversity and to benefit from the unique contribution of aheterogeneous workforce. A native professor summarizes the prevalent orientationtowards minorities:

There is no evidence that someone was excluded or avoided because that person belonged toone or another minority group. But the institution doesn’t develop efforts to value and tobenefit from talented minorities. Well, I think that people tolerate minorities. I guess that’s thebetter description of what happens here. Minorities aren’t especially welcome, but theirpresence isn’t faced as a disaster. It’s like a rainy day: It’s boring but you must live with it(Native professor).

Recommendations, limitations and suggestions for future researchThe successful implementation of the Bologna Declaration does require considerablechanges in organizational culture and a different attitude towards the difference. Somesuggestions were made regarding the development of formal mentoring programstargeting social groups that are likely to be disadvantaged in informal mentoringactivities and networks (Kram and Hall, 1996; Quinlan, 1999). Practical measures suchas information about local idiosyncrasies, leisure events and language courses fornon-native speakers could also help in the socialization process of newcomers. Theneed was also felt for some diversity training, raising awareness of stereotypes andprejudices in order to prevent subtle discriminatory mechanisms. More transparentand more professional styles of management would also contribute to limit theinfluence of political networks and parochial rainmakers. Raising accountability to thewhole community is perhaps the decisive factor for changing the currentstate-of-affairs.

The findings and conclusions drawn from this study cannot be generalized to otherhigher-education institutions, though similar findings would possibly be found inmany other places. National origin emerged in this study as the critical diversitydimension, but it is believed that other methodologies rather than face-to-face

Managingdiversity

285

interviews would more easily allow other visible and non-visible minority identitygroups to voice their concerns in these matters. Replicate the study in other institutionsand in other points in time would also allow to monitor and shed some more light onthe transformations taking place in European higher-education as a result of theBologna Declaration.

References

Bajdo, L.M. and Dickson, M.W. (2001), “Perceptions of organizational culture and women’sadvancement in organizations: a cross-cultural examination”, Sex Roles, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6,pp. 399-414.

Becher, T. (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the CulturalDisciplines, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press,Milton Keynes.

Brickson, S. (2000), “The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizationaloutcomes in demographically diverse settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25No. 1, pp. 82-101.

Carr-Ruffino, N. (1996), Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace,International Thomson Executive Press, London.

Carrington, W.J., McCue, K. and Pierce, B. (2000), “Using establishment size to measure theimpact of title VII and affirmative action”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 35 No. 3,pp. 503-23.

Chatman, J.A. and Flynn, F.J. (2001), “The influence of demographic heterogeneity on theemergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 956-74.

Clair, J.A., Beatty, J.E. and MacLean, T.L. (2005), “Out of sign but not out of mind”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 78-95.

Corbett, A. (2003), “Europe: a threat or an opportunity for national systems of higher education?”,Society for Research into Higher Education, No. 53, pp. 1-5.

Cornelius, N., Gooch, L. and Todd, S. (2000), “Managers leading diversity for businessexcellence”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 67-78.

Cox, T. (1991), “The multicultural organization”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 34-47.

Cox, T.H. and Blake, S. (1991), “Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizationalcompetitiveness”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 45-56.

Creamer, E.G. (2004), “Collaborators’ attitudes about differences of opinion”, Journal of HigherEducation, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 556-71.

Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1996), “Diversity: a strategic issue”, in Kossek, E.E. and Lobel, S.A. (Eds),Managing Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Workplace,Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 365-91.

Dickens, L. (1999), “Beyond the business case: a three-pronged approach to equality action”,Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 9-19.

European Ministers of Education (1999), The European Higher Education Area: Joint Declarationof the European Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999,available at: www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/bologna_declaration.pdf (accessed15 December 2005).

WIMR22,4

286

Gersick, C.J.G., Bartunek, J.M. and Dutton, J. (2000), “Learning from academia: the importance ofrelationships in professional life”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6,pp. 1026-44.

Gilbert, J.A., Stead, B.A. and Ivancevich, J.M. (1999), “Diversity management: a neworganizational paradigm”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 61-76.

Granrose, C.S. (1997), “Cross-cultural socialization of Asian employees in US organizations”, inGranrose, C.S. and Oskamp, S. (Eds), Cross-cultural Work Groups, Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA, pp. 186-211.

Groschl, S. and Doherty, L. (1999), “Diversity management in practice”, International Journal ofContemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 262-8.

Hatch, M.J. (1993), “The dynamics of organizational culture”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 657-93.

Hinings, C.R. and Greenwood, R. (1996), “Working together”, in Frost, P.J. and Taylor, M.S. (Eds),Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 225-37.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Ivancevich, J.M. and Gilbert, J.A. (2000), “Diversity management: time for a new approach”,Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 75-92.

Kossek, E.E. and Lobel, S.A. (1996), “Introduction: transforming human resource systems tomanage diversity – an introduction and orienting framework”, in Kossek, E.E. and Lobel,S.A. (Eds), Managing Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming theWorkplace, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-19.

Kram, K.E. and Hall, D. (1996), “Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence”, ManagingDiversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Workplace, Blackwell,Cambridge, MA, pp. 108-36.

Liff, S. (1999), “Diversity and equal opportunities: room for a constructive compromise?”, HumanResource Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 65-75.

Liff, S. and Wajcman, J. (1996), “Sameness and difference revisited: which way forward for equalopportunity initiatives?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 79-94.

Louis, M.R. (1985), “An investigator’s guide to workplace culture”, in Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F.,Louis, M.R., Lundberg, G.C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture, Sage, BeverlyHills, CA, pp. 73-93.

Marginson, S. (2000), “Rethinking academic work in the global era”, Journal of Higher EducationPolicy and Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 23-35.

Meek, V.L. (1992), “Organizational culture: origins and weaknesses”, in Salaman, G. (Ed.),Human Resource Strategies, Sage, London, pp. 192-212.

Miller, F.A. (1998), “Strategic culture change: the door to achieving high performance andinclusion”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 151-60.

Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding themultiple effects of diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 402-33.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profilecomparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516.

Prasad, P. and Mills, A.J. (1997), “From showcase to shadow: understanding the dilemmas ofmanaging workplace diversity”, in Prasad, P., Mills, A.J., Elmes, M. and Prasad, A. (Eds),

Managingdiversity

287

Managing the Organizational Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-27.

Quinlan, K.M. (1999), “Enhancing mentoring and networking of junior academic women: what,why, and how?”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 31-42.

Quinn, R.E., O’Neill, R.M. and Debebe, G. (1996), “Confronting the tensions in an academiccareer”, Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 421-7.

Schapper, J.M. and Mayson, S.E. (2004), “Internationalisation of curricula: an alternative to thetaylorisation of academic work”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 189-205.

Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA.

Thomas, R.R. (1990), “From affirmative action to affirming diversity”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 107-17.

Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), “Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managingdiversity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 79-90.

Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1993), The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice-Hall, London.

Wentling, R.M. and Palma-Rivas, N. (1998), “Current status and future trends of diversityinitiatives in the workplace: diversity experts’ perspective”, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 235-53.

About the authorsIris Barbosa is a Teaching Assistant at the School of Economics and Management at theUniversity of Minho, in Braga, Portugal. In 2003 she completed her Master’s degree in HumanResource Management with a dissertation entitled “Organizational subcultures in the academiccontext in the perspective of the management of diversity: a case study”. She is currentlyattending a PhD program in the same institution. Her PhD thesis focuses on the rhetoric andpractices of equal opportunities and diversity management in the Portuguese organizationalcontext. She aims to confront the perspectives of different organizational actors with regard tothese issues. E-mail: iris@eeg.uminho.pt

Carlos Cabral-Cardoso is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Minho,Portugal, where he is currently Director of the Management Research Unit and responsible forpost-graduate studies in organizational behaviour and human resource management. He receivedhis PhD from the University of Manchester. His current research interests include the role of theHR function, issues of equal opportunities and diversity, and ethical issues in managementeducation. He has published in the Journal of Management Education, Journal of Business Ethics,International Journal of Human Resource Management, Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, International Public Management Journal,Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,International Journal of Innovation Management, Career Development International, Women inManagement Review,EBSReview, IEEETransactions onEngineeringManagement. Several othercontributions were made to edited books and Portuguese journals. Carlos Cabral-Cardoso is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: ccabral@eeg.uminho.pt

WIMR22,4

288

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints