In Search of the ‘Real’

Abstract

This chapter presents a comparison of two ethnographic case studies in two different national contexts, with the purpose of separating the rhetorics from the realities in the field of diversity management. It counterweighs mainstream diversity management literature by discussing (1) the disadvantages of certain offshoots of diversity management discourses for ethnic minority police officers in the Netherlands and (2) the benefits of the absence of diversity management for software engineers working in a highly internationalized high-tech company in Finland, a company characterized by a strong tradition of ‘organizational democracy’. The two studies are based on long-term fieldwork in both organizational settings, including several years of participant observation.

Ethics and intercultural communication in diversity management

“…The above example is a fragment of a discussion in an ethnographic study between a researcher and an IT worker interviewee belonging to an ethnic minority in an F-secure company unit in Helsinki, Finland. According to the authors, no diversity measures are needed because of the democratic organizational culture, characterized by “community solidarity, control over tasks, involvement in decision-making processes, access to information, a sense of meaningful work, multiple skills, a concern for equality, task variety, tolerance, and respect” (Mutsaers and Trux, 2015, p. 330). This description indicates a healthy work community in which possible oppositions and emergent conflicts can be discussed in open dialogue, various voices are heard, and conflicts solved to leave room for both viewpoints (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, pp.…”

“…The benefits of open communication in multicultural organizations become more obvious from a case which illustrates what may happen when communication fails. The case is from the Dutch police forces in the same article as the first example, and highlights the complex challenges diversity management has to face in practice (Mutsaers and Trux, 2015, pp. 322-324).…”

“…In the official statements, diversity and authenticity are presented as closely connected. As a leadership quality, “authenticity” is characterized such that “managers are a reflection of themselves and are in contact with all dimensions of their self” (Mutsaers and Trux, 2015, p. 323). The study shows, however, how in practical decision-making “authenticity” underwent several shifts of meaning.…”

“…The study shows, however, how in practical decision-making “authenticity” underwent several shifts of meaning. In the situation where a Surinam-born applicant was rejected for a deputy team leader position, one of two decision makers, the district commander, explained that “authenticity” for him means “being assertive and daring to stand up against superiors” (Mutsaers and Trux, 2015, p. 323). This hardly cohered with the understanding of the rejected police officer, who told the researcher:I am not willing to change my whole personality […] And I said that to the committee.…”

“…If you’re looking for someone who bangs his fist on the table, that’s fine. But that’s not who I am(Mutsaers and Trux, 2015, p. 324).…”