Cultural Dimensionof Workplace Diversity

The International Journal of

Social Sustainability in Economic, Social, and Cultural Context

VOLUME 8 ISSUE 3

ONSUSTAINABILITY.COM

_________________________________________________________________________

Cultural Dimension of Workplace Diversity in

Ibadan Nigeria Implications on People and Performance

ADEJARE OLUFEMI ADEWOLE

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL CONTEXT www.onsustainability.com

First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com

ISSN: 2325-1115

© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected].

The International Journal of Social Sustainability in Economic, Social, and Cultural Context is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion- referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

Cultural Dimension of Workplace Diversity in Ibadan Nigeria: Implications on People and

Performance Adejare Olufemi Adewole, Glorious Vision International College, Nigeria

Abstract: This study investigated the cultural dimension of workplace diversity in Ibadan, Nigeria in order to ascertain the implications of cultural dimension of workplace diversity on employees, and their performances in multicultural work organizations. Data for the study was generated through a multi-stage sampling technique, with a questionnaire administered to 250 participants randomly selected from selected work organizations in Ibadan, Nigeria. Out of 250 respondents, 238 turned in their completed questionnaires (male = 151, female = 87, mean = 2.89, standard deviation = 1.15). A 20-item questionnaire was developed by the researcher, and was tested on a 5 point Likert–type scale that ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The hypotheses generated for the study were tested at 0.05 alpha levels using a chi-square statistical method. The findings from the study revealed that a significant relationship exists between cultural diversity and employees’ job performances, and the overall organizational performance. The finding further showed that although majority of the employees often perceived themselves as different from others due to the differences in their cultural orientations, there is no significant relationship between the way employees perceive themselves and their job performance. Based on the findings from the study, it was recommended that employers and all stake holders in human resource management, in today’s multicultural business community, should not only be aware of the cultural diversity among employees, but must also ensure effective workforce diversity management principles that best fit into their work organizations so as to harness the rich benefits of cultural diversity for the good of the organizations they serve. Crosscultural education that could bring employees in contact with other cultures represented at the workplace should be introduced to promote cooperation, effective communication and harmonious work relationships among employees.

Keywords: Culture, Employee, Workplace, Multiculturalism, Performance

Introduction

t the turn of the 21st century, workplace diversity has become not only an essential management affair but has also generated serious scholarship concerns. Generally, the term “Workplace Diversity” refers to policies and practices that seek to include people within a workforce who are considered to be, in some ways, different from those in the prevailing constituency. Workplace diversity comprises race, gender, ethnicity,

disability, sexual orientation, age, educational levels and socio-economic status. It also includes religious beliefs, life stages, educational background, career responsibilities, sexual orientation, personality and marital status and so forth.

Studies on organizational demography and workplace compositions have revealed that there have been remarkable changes in the configuration of work organizations in the modern day business community (Pelled et, al., 1999; Vaughn, 2006; Walck, 1995). However, the most profound of these changes is the dramatic change in the demographic composition of workforce. For instance, it has been found that the present day workforce is increasingly becoming representative of a multicultural team (Adewole and Metiboba, 2009). Another single but important change in the structure of workforce in the recent time is the increasing number of women joining the world of work. According to a recent survey, report by NBS (2006), the number of dual-working families has doubled since 1985. Similarly, the diversity at the workplace include old and young working together, people of vast different educational background, work experience, parental status, geographical location, cultural orientation, socio-economic status, colour, work-values, and so forth. All these changes have enhanced diversity of the workplace and have been subjects of numerous academic discourses.

A

The International Journal of Social Sustainability in Economic, Social, and Cultural Context Volume 8, 2013,www.onsustainablity.com, ISSN:2325-1115 © Common Ground, Adejare Olufemi Adewole, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

It is instructive to note that much of the researches on workplace diversity have provided a framework for understanding how the demographic composition of organizations influences the relationships between and within employees and how such variations in relationships have variously affected employees’ performance and the achievement of the organizational objectives. Building upon social identity theory as well as social network theory, it was argued that cooperation within and between employees is a function of the demographic distinctiveness of workforce in relation to the immediate environment (Joshi and Jackson, 2003). Therefore, the thrust of this study is to examine the cultural dimension of workplace diversity and the effects of such variations in the cultural background of employees on their performances, relation with other employees and the effect on the work organization.

Statement of Problem

Despite the enormous research into the concept of workplace diversity, today’s managers still fail to harness effectively, the rich benefits of diversity of their workforce to the good of the organizations they serve. Sadly, the increasing diversity in the cultural composition of the Nigerian workplaces resulting from multicultural and multi-ethnic makeup of the Nigerian population, have on many instances robbed the Nigerian organizations of the colossal benefits in diversity.

Given the inherent differences among workers in a culturally diverse workforce, managers have to direct organizations through difficult times of change and have to deal with the complex issue of culture as a determinant of employees’ behaviour both within organization and in social life. Compounded with the fact that employers of labour in Nigeria have grossly overlooked the role of culture in shaping work-related values of employees and the effects of same on organizational performance, it could however be argued that understanding the richness of this diversity and being able to apply the knowledge to the economic and social benefits of the organizations they serve have become one of the most difficult challenges of managers in Nigeria

Objectives of the Study

Objectives of this study include the following; I. To examine how cultural differences among employees in Nigeria affect their job

performances II. To investigate how cultural differences among employees affect the organizational

performance III. To examine how employees’ self perception affect their job performancesIV. To draw inference from 1-3 above for policy makers in human resource

management in Nigeria.

Hypotheses of the Study

The following hypotheses shall be tested in this study; I. cultural diversity would not significantly affect employees’ job performances

II. self perception of employees would not significantly affect their job performancesIII. organizational performance would not be significantly affected by the cultural

diversity among employees

Workplace Diversity Defined

One of the fundamental features of the workforce in today’s business community is multiculturalism. Hofstede (1980) noted that in the present day multicultural workplace, the survival of mankind will depend, to a large extent, on the ability of people who think differently

58

ADEWOLE: CULTURAL DIMENSION OF WORKPLACE DIVERSITY IN IBADAN NIGERIA

to act together to achieve common goals. In empirical studies, workforce diversity is usually measured using the compositional approach which focuses on the distribution of demographic attributes such as age, ethnicity, gender, educational background, work values, attitude towards other team members, orientation towards work, religion, socio-economic status and so forth (Tsui and Gutek, 2000).

Generally, workplace diversity is defined as acknowledging, understanding, accepting, valuing, and celebrating differences among people within an organization, with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, socio-economic status, and so forth. In another view, Workplace diversity refers to the variety of differences between people in an organization. These differences encompass race, gender, ethnic group, age, personality, cognitive style, tenure, organizational function, educational background and more.

Sociologists viewed workplace diversity in terms of the variety of experiences and perspectives which arise from differences in race, culture, religion, mental or physical abilities, heritage, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and other characteristics within the work organization. Cox (1993) viewed workplace diversity as a people issue, which focused on the differences and similarities that people bring to an organization. Sociological view of diversity not only involves how people perceive themselves, but also how they perceive others (Tsiu and Gutek, 2000). Those perceptions according to these researchers profoundly affect their interactions with others at the workplace. Diversity issues are now considered important and are projected to become even more important in the future due to the increasing differences in the workforce of the developed and developing world alike (Joshi and Jackson, 2003).

Cultural Diversity and Organizational Performance

Culture is a very complex social construct. This complexity is evident from the approaches that various authors follow to describe the construct ‘culture’. Hodgetts et al (1997) argues that there are many ways of examining cultural differences. As broad and complex as the concept of culture, there are many definitions for culture as there are many theories on it. However, a general tread running through all these descriptions is that “culture refers to shared concept of life and that it guides the behaviour of individual and groups through strongly held beliefs and values which are transferable to generations after”. Culture serves to predict individual as well as group’s behaviour and their choice of some values over and above others in life domain and work related affairs.

Schein (1992) perceived culture as a phenomenon that is undetachable from the individual and that the process of forming, developing and changing a culture is much clearer when brought down to the level of the organization. The author is convinced that ‘if we want to understand the complex aspect of organizational life, we should move away from the superficial definitions and focus on how cultural differences among employees translate to differences in work motivations, work values and organizational behaviour of the general workforce.

Many studies have found significant relationships between cultural differences among employees, their individual performances and consequently the organizational efficiency (Adewole and Metiboba, 2009; Pelled et al., 1999; Vaughn, 2006). Researches on the changing demographics of the population in general and the workforce in particular have highlighted the benefits of cultural diversity on organizational performance to include improved problem-solving and decision-making, access to new consumer markets, enhanced product development, or the ability to compete in global markets (Pelled et al., 1999). On the contrary, increased group-level diversity does not necessarily lead to higher group performance. One cannot, on the basis of the current research in psychology, conclude with confidence that a diverse group is a better-performing group. While some research has identified benefits of demographic heterogeneity on workgroup outcomes such as creativity and innovation (Bantel and Jackson,1989), other research has shown that work groups whose members are diverse in terms of their race, gender, age, or tenure have a variety of problems, including communication

59


breakdowns, low cohesion, and turnover (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Two recent surveys of this research (Bowers, Pharmer and Salas, 2000; Webber and Donahue, 2001) have shown that group diversity is associated with a mix of results and that the overall relationship of homogeneity to performance based on the aggregate of these studies is very small. These findings have led many researchers to view diversity as a “double-edged sword” (Milliken and Martins, 1996).

Linking Cultural Diversity and Sustainability

Cultural sustainability is a relatively new interdisciplinary approach to sustainable development. This approach raised the significance of culture and its factors in local, regional and global sustainable development (Hawkes, 2005). Culture has been treated as a component of social sustainability until recently when it has been recognized by the report published by UNESCO, United Nations and European Union as a Fourth pillar, and a key dimension of sustainable development (Hawkes, 2005; Duxbury et al., 2007). In the report resulting from the UNESCO Decade of Cultural (1988-1997), culture was acknowledged to play both an instrumental role in promoting economic progress and have a constituent role as a desirable end in itself (Throsby, 2008). Review of academic research revealed that cultural sustainability is also associated with the role of art, creativity, cultural activities and primary production. Others include tourism, preservation and conservation of tangible and intangible cultural heritages, and so forth (Drexhage and Murphy, 2010).

Attempt was made in this section to locate culture in the broader context of the major shared objective of humanity for the 21st Century - sustainability, from the organizational perspective. It is instructive therefore to reaffirm that culture is an important aspect of organizational life, as it has to do with how employees behave, understand and appreciate each other at the workplace.

Viewed from the organizational level, this study examined the relationship between cultural diversity and sustainable development from two major perspectives. First, the key roles played by culture in determining work-related values of employees and their organizational behaviour. Second, by exploring how multiculturalism influences the ways in which employees perceive themselves in relation to others from cultural background different from theirs. Work-related values of employees, their choice of work activities, inter-personal relationship with other employees, etc fall significantly under the influence of their cultural orientation (Adewole, 2009). Culture also shapes employees' self perception and have resultant effects on both their individual and organizational performance.

In addition to the above, cultural sustainability has also been viewed more broadly as a cultural evolution towards more sustainable way of life and organizational behaviour which are based on ethical choices in the everyday activities, including choosing work activities, work-related values, and their self perception.

Therefore, to promote sustainable organizational performance, profitability, and organizational cultures, policy formulation and implementation at the organization must take cognizance of the cultural diversity among employees. Also, decision-making process at the work place should recognize and take into consideration the various cultures within which actions are taken place.

Managing Workplace Diversity

Workplace diversity has been argued to be advantageous in so many ways to the organizational cohesiveness, unity, productivity and efficiency. However, having a diverse workforce does not, in itself, translate into bottom line benefits for work organizations. Diversity must be consciously managed in order to reap a diversity dividend. Efforts must be made by organizations to effectively managing diversity to ensure that the unique skills, perspectives and knowledge of their workforces are channeled into producing a diversity dividend.

60


It is therefore instructive to argue that whether diversity of a workforce will benefit an organization or pose serious threats to it depend significantly on how well the diversity is managed. When an organization acknowledges differences among its workforce, it can manage its employees in such a way to create harmony in work practices and higher standards of cooperation. First, it is about understanding differences in these characteristics within an organization, and second it is about acknowledging these differences. And last, it is about developing work practices to create an inclusive environment.

Managing diversity is defined as planning and implementing organizational systems and practices to manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential disadvantages are minimized. For instance, Anna (2005) reviewed management practices of organizations that had managed their diversity well to improve efficiency and argued that diverse organization will out-think and out-perform a homogeneous organization every single time. Anna argued that it is a strategy for remaining competitive in the face of changing demographics and a narrowing talent pool, rapid globalization and unparalleled demand for constant and rapid change. In another view, managing diversity means aiming for a ‘heterogeneous workforce’ that is capable of achieving its potential in a non-discriminatory, fair and just work environment (Fine 1980). The whole purpose of managing diversity is to bring out the best of employees talent, abilities, skills and knowledge for the benefits of individual employees as well as the well-being of the corporations. When workforce diversity is well managed, no employee in the organization feels disadvantaged (Anna, 2005).

Theoretical Framework

The most widely used theoretical paradigm for explaining the negative outcomes of workplace diversity is social identity theory (Joshi and Jackson, 2003). The theory begins with the assumption that people will exhibit a favourable bias toward others who are viewed as members of their in-group, and they will view themselves as being in conflict with out-group members (Turner and Haslam, 2001). Within workplaces, the categorization of members into those belonging to an in-group and out-group creates a barrier to cooperative behaviour among employees and may even stimulate competitive behaviour among members of a workforce (Brewer, 1995; Wanguri, 1996; Sanchez-Mazas, Roux, and Mugny, 1994).

Tajfel (1982) introduced the term social identity to move from social and inter-group perceptions to how the self is a system of social categorization, which create and define individual’s place in society. After nearly three decades of research, there is now substantial evidence to demonstrate that simply categorizing someone as a member of the in-group or out-group determines subsequent interactions with that person. In-group members are assumed to have shared interests and goals, and cooperative behaviour because it is consistent with one’s self-interest (Ashforth and Mael, 1989).

Established on the tenet of social identity theory, this study predicts that social categorization processes are important determinants of cooperation and competition. Also, that group-based prejudices and discriminations are inevitable since stereotypes are often widely shared images of different social groups. The relevance of the social identity theory to this study therefore is based on its basic ideology that assigning people (employees) into groups (within the workplace) would result in in-group favoiritism and out-group prejudice and discrimination. These thus, significantly affect individual’s perception of themselves, their job performances and organizational performances. Social identity theory, then, assumes that individuals quickly stereotype and make judgments about those from other groups. In a diverse work organization, there are many more out-groups than in-groups, a pattern which is expected to cause heightened problems with trust, communication, and cooperation. As a result, work processes will be made much more difficult, thus causing the final product, idea, performance, or solution to be weaker.

Materials and Methods

61


Survey design of a descriptive type was adopted in this study to investigate the effects of cultural diversity on the employees and organizational performance. Data for the study was generated through a multi-stage sampling technique with the use of structured questionnaires administered to a sample of Two hundred and fifty (250) respondents randomly selected from 5 work organizations in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Out of a total of 250 questionnaires distributed to subjects on the issue under study, 238 turned in their completed questionnaires for analysis. This forms 95 per cent of the total and is considered statistically significant enough to continue with the study.

The questionnaire was divided basically into 2 sections. Section A of the questionnaire titled RESPONDENTS’ BIO-DATA elicited information on the socio-demographic information of the respondents such as age, sex, level of education, ethnic affiliation, marital status, religion, etc. Section B of the self-administered questionnaire was titled WORKPLACE DIVERSITY AND PERFORMANCE SCALE (WDPS). Respondents were asked questions that bother on the cultural dimension of workforce diversity, how it affects individual and group performances, organizational efficiency, and the attainment of the organizational goals. Questions asked were rated on Likert’s points of five (5) scale type ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Chi-square analysis was used to test the study hypotheses and the results were discussed under the various headings as appropriate.

Quality Control

Test and pre-test of the research instrument was done to ensure reliability and validity of the research tool. Validity tests and pre-tests of the research instrument were done at the Department of Sociology, University of Ilorin, Nigeria. A reliability co-efficient of 0.85 was obtained with the use of Pearson Product Moment Correlation Co-efficient.

62


Results and Findings

Table 1: Distribution of the Respondents according to their Socio-Economic Characteristics Variable/ Group Frequency Percentage (%) Sex Male Female Total Age 20 – 25 26 – 30 31 – 35 36- 40 41 and above Total Educational Status Primary Secondary NCE/ND HND/BSc Postgraduate Total Marital Status Single Married Divorced Total Ethnic Affiliation Hausa Yoruba Igbo Others Total Religion Affiliation Islam Christianity Others Total Years of Experience Less than 1 year 2 – 5 years 6 – 9 years 10 – 13 years Above 13 years Total

151 87 238

18 88 61 43 28 238

14 63 108 47 06 238

74 161 03 238

47 104 63 24 238

88 112 38 238

31 117 56 20 14 238

63.4 36.6 100

7.6 36.9 25.6 18.1 11.8 100

5.9 26.5 45.4 19.7 2.5 100

31.1 67.6 1.3 100

19.7 43.7 26.5 10.1 100

36.9 47.1 16.0 100

13.0 49.2 23.5 8.4 5.9 100

Source: Researcher’s survey, 2011

Table 1 above shows the socio-economic backgrounds of the respondents. Majority of the respondents were male while female constituted 36.6% of the participants. Also, a cursory look at the table shows that 25.6% of the respondents fall within the ages of 31 – 35 years while 7.6, 36.9 and 18.1% were within 20 - 25, 26 – 30 and 36 – 40 years respectively. The marital status shows that 67.6% of the respondents are married, 31.1% are singles while only 1.3% of the

63


respondents are divorced. In terms of the cultural affiliation of the respondents, 43.7% are Yoruba, 19.7% are Hausa, Igbo constituted 26.5% while 10.1% belong to other ethnic backgrounds. Further analysis of table 1 above reveals that 47.1% of the respondents are Christians, 36.9% are Muslims while 16.0% practices other religions. Considering the years of experience of the respondents, the table shows that 49.2% of the respondents have worked for 2 – 5 years with their employers, 23.5% have 6 – 9 years work experience, 13.0%, 8.4% and 5.9% have worked for less than 1 year, 10 – 13 years and above 13 years respectively.

Table 2: Participants’ responses to Question items Items Strongly

disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

agree Workplaces in Nigeria today is one of multicultural composition

21 (8.8)

31 (13.0)

23 (9.7)

87 (36.6)

76 (31.9)

Structure of work teams in diverse workplaces is a reflection of cultural heterogeneity

47 (19.7)

14 (5.9)

36 (15.1)

62 (26.1)

79 (33.2)

Multiculturalism at times hinders cooperation among employees

44 (18.5)

39 (16.4)

17 (7.1)

85 (35.7)

53 (22.3)

Ethno-cultural diversity within work organizations impedes effectivecommunication

48 (20.2)

40 (16.8)

28 (11.8)

70 (29.4)

52 (21.8)

Multiculturalism tends to result to excessive ethnic loyalty among employees

25 (10.5)

53 (22.3)

11 (4.6)

63 (26.5)

86 (36.1)

Ethnic prejudice and discriminations are inevitable in a culturally diverse workplace

22 (9.2)

47 (19.7)

23 (9.7)

54 (22.7)

92 (38.7)

Favouritism tends to result in a culturally diverse workplace

56 (23.5)

78 (32.8)

21 (8.8)

53 (22.3)

30 (12.6)

Biased assessment of employees’ performance often occur in multicultural work organizations

59 (24.8)

68 (28.6)

37 (15.5)

45 (18.9)

29 (12.2)

Employer-employee relationship in a diverse workplace is sometimes influenced by cultural factors

53 (22.3)

65 (26.9)

13 (5.5)

74 (31.1)

55 (23.1)

Work values of employees are often determined by their cultural background

32 (13.4)

64 (26.9)

13 (5.5)

74 (31.1)

55 (23.1)

My job performance is often affected by my cultural background

48 (20.2)

79 (33.2)

37 (15.5)

51 (21.4)

23 (9.7)

64


Employees’ contribution to team performance is usually influenced by the cultural composition of the team

38 (15.9)

44 (18.5)

20 (8.4)

59 (24.8)

79 (32.4)

I often perceive myself as different from other employees from other cultural background

51 (21.4)

32 (13.4)

24 (10.1)

68 (28.6)

63 (26.5)

The way I perceive myself affects my performance at work

58 (24.4)

63 (26.5)

42 (17.6)

41 (17.2)

34 (14.3)

Cultural diversity affects organizational performance

54 (22.7)

42 (17.6)

11 (4.6)

56 (23.6)

75 (31.5)

I often find myself in odd with other employees due to the perceived differences

66 (27.7)

59 (24.8)

25 (10.5)

55 (23.1)

33 (13.9)

I could have performed better but for the perceived differences

23 (9.7)

60 (25.2)

32 (13.4)

75 (31.5)

48 (20.2)

Performances could be improved if employees are assigned to work in a same-culture team

39 (16.4)

53 (22.3)

18 (7.6)

81 (34.0)

47 (19.7)

Heterogeneous team sometimes outdo homogeneous team

32 (13.4)

58 (24.4)

22 (9.2)

67 (28.2)

59 (24.8)

Cross-cultural literacy is one best way to ensure harmony in a diverse workplace

27 (11.4)

45 (18.9)

12 (5.0)

93 (39.1)

61 (25.6)

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2011

Table 2 above shows the summary of the participants’ responses to the question items. A cursory look at the table shows that 69% of the respondents agreed that workplaces in Nigeria today is a representation of cultural heterogeneity, 21% disagreed with the statement while 10% were indifference about it. The table also revealed that poor cooperation among employees, impediment to effective communication; excessive ethnic loyalty and ethnic prejudice and discriminations were agreed by 58%, 51%, 63% and 61% respectively as some of the negative consequences of cultural diversity at workplaces. Conversely, 53%, 56% and 49% respectively disagreed with the statements that biased assessment of employees’ performances, favouritism and unjust employer-employees relationship would result from cultural diversity at workplaces. Further analysis of the table shows that organizational performance, work values of employees and employees’ contribution to team performance are significantly influenced by cultural diversity as 54%, 55% and 57% of the respondents agreed to the statements respectively. 55% of the respondents often perceive themselves as different from others due to cultural differences while for 51% of the respondents, the way they perceived themselves does not affect their performances. The table revealed further that 53% of the respondents agreed to the statement that performances could be improved if employees are assigned to work within a same-culture team members and the same proportion agreed that heterogeneous teams sometimes out-perform homogenous teams.

65


Test of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Cultural diversity would not significantly affect employees’ job performance

Table 3: Chi-square test of the relationship between Cultural diversity and Employees’ Job Performance

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 27.223a 16 .371 Likelihood Ratio 18.681 16 .286 Linear-by-Linear Association .064 1 .800 N of Valid Cases 238

X2C = 27.223, X2

t = 26.296, df = 16, Sig. level = 0.05

Table 3 above shows that the chi-square calculated value X2C (27.223) is greater than the

chi-square table value X2t (26.296) at the 0.05 significant level. This analysis shows that the

result was significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Thus, it was confirmed that cultural diversity significantly affects job performance of employees.

Hypothesis 2: states that self perception of employees would not significantly influence their job performance

Table4: Chi-square test of the relationship between employees’ self perception and their job performance

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 26.038a 16 .053 Likelihood Ratio 26.895 16 .043 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.371 1 .066 N of Valid Cases 238

X2C = 26.038, X2

t = 26.296, df = 16, Sig. level = 0.05

Table 4 above shows the chi-square result of the relationship between employees’ self perception and their job performance where the calculated value X2

C (26.023) is less than the chi-square table value X2

t (26.296) at the 0.05 significant level. This analysis shows that the result was not significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis is

accepted i. e. the way employees perceive themselves would not significantly affect their job performance.

66


Hypothesis 3: states that organizational performance would not be significantly affected by the cultural diversity among employees

Table 4: chi-square test of the relationship between cultural diversity and Organizational Performance Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 34.603a 16 .554 Likelihood Ratio 14.779 16 .541 Linear-by-Linear Association .121 1 .728 N of Valid Cases 238

X2C = 34.603, X2

t = 26.296, df = 16, Sig. level = 0.05

Table 4 above shows that the chi-square calculated value X2C (34.603) is greater than the

chi-square table value X2t (26.296) at the 0.05 significant level. This analysis shows that the

result was significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Thus, it was confirmed that cultural diversity significantly affects organizational performance.

Discussion of Findings

This study has provided a thorough empirical investigation into the relationship between cultural diversity, employees’ job performance and the overall organizational performance. Three hypotheses were tested in the study. One major revelation from the findings of the study shows that there is a significant relationship between cultural diversity and job performance of the employees. Consistent with this finding, many studies have found significant relationships between cultural differences among employees, their individual performances and Organizational efficiency generally (Adewole and Metiboba, 2009; Pelled et, al., 1999; Vaughn, 2006). Although, the direction of the relationship was not directly stated in the study, majority of the participants were of the view that their performances could be better if assigned to work within a homogenous work team.

Perhaps, the most amazing revelation from this study is that self perception of employees was found to have no relationship with their job performance. Result obtained from hypothesis two of this study was not significant. This implies that for majority of our respondents in this study, the way they perceive themselves does not in any way affect their job performances. This finding is contradictive to the general belief in some organizational psychology discourse that employees’ self perception is linked to their job performances.

Another interesting finding from this study revealed that cultural diversity has significant relationship with the overall organizational performance. Hypothesis three of the study shows that significant relationship exists between cultural diversity and organizational performance. Establishing relationship between cultural diversity and organizational performance always reveal contradictions. For instance, one cannot, on the basis of the current research in psychology and management studies, conclude with confidence that a diverse group is a better-performing group (Bantel and Jackson,1989). While some research have identified benefits of demographic heterogeneity on workgroup outcomes such as creativity and innovation, other research have shown that work groups whose members are diverse in terms of their race, gender, age, or tenure have a variety of problems, including communication breakdowns, low cohesion, and turnover (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). With the findings from this study, one can convincingly conclude, consistent with Milliken and Martins (1996) that diversity is a “double-edged sword”.

67


Conclusion and Policy Options

This study concludes by contending that cultural diversity is a mixed result management phenomenon which, if well managed, tends to promote cultural competence, innovation, creativity, harmony in work practices, enhanced problem-solving efficiency, globally competitive workforce, higher standards of cooperation and so forth on one hand while if not properly managed, inevitably results in variety of problems, including communication breakdowns, low cohesion, racial discrimination, outgroup hostility, intergroup competition, organizational disintegration, conflict, etc. To reap the rich benefits in cultural diversity therefore, this paper recommends that all stake holders in human resource management must first and foremost be aware that cultural heterogeneity of the workforce has both positive and negative influences on the organizational efficiency and that to harness the benefit of diverse workplace, it must be properly managed. Further, the study suggests that employers of labour and policy makers in human resource management must be aware of and see culture as a major factor which do not only affect job performances of the employees but also determines and regulates individual and group behaviour both within organizations and in social life. It is thus, the responsibility of managers within organizations to use cultural heterogeneity as an influential resource in order to enhance individual and organizational performance.

68


REFERENCES

Adewole, O. A. and Metiboba, S. (2009). Job Benefits and Incentives as motivational Strategies for Employees’ satisfaction and enhanced productivity. International Journal of Labour and Organizational Psychology, Vol.3, No.1&2, 2009.

Anna Munn (2005). Diversity Management: A Perspective on Seven Success Factors for Managing Diversity. Egon Zehnder International, Carolyn Neck-Egon Zehnder International, Jane Allen - Principal - Egon Zehnder International.

Ashforth, B. E., and Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Bantel, K., and Jackson, S. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-124

Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., and Salas, E. (2000). when member homogeneity is needed in Work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31, 305–327.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). multiple identities and identity transition: Implications for Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 187-197. Carton, 1988;

Cox, T. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organization - Theory, Research and Practices. San Francisco: Berrett – Koehler Publishers.

Drexhage, J. & Murphy, D. (2010) Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. Background paper prepared for consideration by the High Level panel on Global Sustainability at its first meeting 19 September, 2010. United Nations, International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD).

Duxbury, N. & Gillette,E. (2007) Culture as a key Dimension of sustainability. Creative City network of Canada. Centre for expertise of culture and community.

Fine, Marlene G. (1980). Cultural Diversity in the Workplace: The State of the Field. Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 485-502.

Hawkes, J. (2005) Culture as a fourth Pillar of Sustainability. Common ground, Melbourne, 2005.

Hodgetts, R. M. and Luthan, F. (1997). International Management. Singapore: McGraw – Hill. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s Consequences, International Differences in Work-related

Values. London: Sage Publications. Jackson, S. E., May, K . E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in

decision- making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E.Salas (eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 204-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., and Neale, M. A. (1997). Why differences make a difference: a field study in diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.

Joshi Aparna and Susan E. Jackson (2003) Managing Workforce Diversity to enhance Cooperation in Organizations, International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review; 21, 402-433.

Nigeria Bureau of Statisitcs (2006). African Statistics Day Celebration in Nigeria: 21st November, 2006.

Sanchez-Mazas, M., Roux, P., & Mugny, G. (1994). When the outgroup becomes the ingroup and when the ingroup becomes the outgroup: xenophobia and social categorization in a resource allocation task. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 417-423.

Schein, E. H. (1992). “Organizational Culture and Leadership”. San Francisco: Josey Bass. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1982). The Social Identity Theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.

Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson.

69


Throsby, D. (2008) Linking Cultural and ecological Sustainability. The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 8(1): 15-20.

Tsui, A. S. and Gutek, B. (2000). Demographic Differences in Organizations. New York: Lexington Books.

Turner, J. C. & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In M. Turner (ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research (pp. 25-65). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vaughn, Billy (2006). High Impact Diversity Consulting. San Francisco, CA: Diversity Training University International Publications Division.http://www.dtui.com/consultbkadvall.html

Walck, C.L. (1995). Editor’s introduction: Diverse approaches to managing diversity. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 31, 119-123).

Wanguri, D.M. 1996. Diversity, perceptions of equity and communicative openness in the workplace. The Journal of Business Communication, 33:443-457.

Webber, S. S. and Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141-162.

Williams, K. Y., and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 20, 77–140.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Adejare Olufemi Adewole: Mr. Olufemi Adejare Adewole has BSc in sociology from the University of Ilorin, Nigeria. His research interest is in the sociology of work organizations and industrial relations, with special attention to the roles of culture in determining the work-related values of employees and their behavour in the workplace and in social life. He has authored and co-authored journal articles in peer-reviewed academic journals in Nigeria and overseas. His latest research work was published in Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology (BEJS) in July 2011. He is currently the teacher in charge of research at the Glorious Vision International College, Odota Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria.

70

The International Journal of Social Sustainability in Economic, Social, and Cultural Context is one of four thematically focused journals in the family of journals that support the Sustainability knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference, and online community. The journal focuses on socio-cultural and economic analyses of sustainability.

In addition to traditional scholarly papers, this journal invites presentations of sustainability practices—including documentation of case studies and exegeses analyzing the effects of these practices.

The International Journal of Social Sustainability in Economic, Social, and Cultural Context is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2325-1115

Cultural Dimensionof Workplace Diversity

Documents

Transcript of Cultural Dimensionof Workplace Diversity