Supervisor involvement in diversity management: opportunity or threat?

Work presented at the ACREW (Monash)/KCL Conference focusing on Socially responsive, socially responsible approaches to employment and work.

Diversity management is a prevalent theme in popular media, practitioner and scholarly literature. Due to demographic shifts, globalization and competition, the labor force has changed dramatically. As a response, a growing number of organizations have implemented diversity management initiatives. Diversity management has been defined as an organization’s effort to maximize productivity by promoting and understanding individual differences (Gilbert, Stead & Ivancevich 1999); thus, it is heavily based on individualization. At the same time, diversity management is set against a backdrop of Human Resource Management (HRM), which has traditionally emphasized standardization and consistency of practices. This paper addresses the individualization of diversity management against the standardization of HRM as it examines a specific trend associated with contemporary HRM, devolution of responsibility to line management, and how it may impact diversity management.

HRM research in recent years has concentrated on strategic issues (e.g., Delery & Doty 1996; Huselid 1995) and on a ‘global brand of HRM’ (Claus 2003, p. 742) that can be applied consistently throughout an organization and fairly to all employees (Renwick 2003). Strategic HRM refers to an approach that is proactive rather than reactive and strategic rather than administrative (Boxall 1994) and supports the integration and decentralization of Human Resource (HR) functions with the alignment of HR with organizational strategies (Brewster & Larsen 1992; Guest 1987; Sheehan 2005).

Strategic HRM is underpinned by an increase in the role of the supervisor, with the devolution of some HR functions to line management (Bond & Wise 2003; Renwick 2003; Sheehan 2005). The rationale behind devolution supposes that there is cost reduction, better HRM integration and mostly, that devolution allows those with supervising authority to make decisions and react more immediately to the employee and market needs, as they are closer to workers and the production, sale or provision of a product or service (Cunningham & Hyman 1999; Renwick 2003; Whittaker & Marchington 2003).

Supervisors are fundamental for HRM as they are the implementers and interpreters of policies (Guest 1990; Renwick 2003). For diversity management in particular, their prominent role is instrumental in integrating equality goals with organizational strategy (Liff & Cameron 1997). On the other hand, devolution can lead to a number of issues. For example, research has identified an increased potential for discrimination, and inconsistency and abuse over the enactment and application of diversity management policies (Bond & Wise 2003; Earnshaw, Marchington & Goodman 2000; Mor Barak, Cherin & Berkman 1998; Renwick 2003). Other concerns related to devolution of diversity management include supervisors’ lack of experience with and knowledge of equal opportunity legislation, low awareness of company provisions, and susceptibility to organizational pressures, as line managers’ ultimate responsibility lies in the production or delivery of goods (Bond & Wise 2003; Liff & Cameron 1997; Whittaker & Marchington 2003).

This paper hopes to contribute to the HRM field by examining the increasing role of supervisors and the advantages and disadvantages associated with devolving responsibility for diversity management. It does so by drawing on literature and research from the HRM and diversity domains, while bringing forth underlying philosophies of standardization versus individualization.