Using the Diversity Impact Navigator to move from interventions towards diversity management strategies
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-12-2013-0117 |
| Pages | 239-254 |
| Published date | 12 January 2015 |
| Date | 12 January 2015 |
| Author | Manfred Wondrak,Astrid Segert |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management |
Using the Diversity Impact
Navigator to move from
interventions towards diversity
management strategies
Manfred Wondrak
factor-D Diversity Consulting GmbH, Vienna, Austria, and
Astrid Segert
Department for Sociology, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to study current problems of implementing Diversity
Management (DM) in businesses and presents a concept for measuring and estimating a value for
diversity interventions.
Design/methodology/approach –An intellectual capital approach is used to identify a matrix of
problems while implementing DM. To address the accounting problem for DM, advantages and
disadvantages of the Diversity Scorecard are discussed and issues that require further conceptual
development are identified.
Findings –Understanding DM as a part of intellectual capital helps solve accounting problems. The
tests of the concept of Diversity Impact Navigator show that measuring DM at this stage requires a
simple design, that using key indicators forces diversity interventions and that the process of valuation
increases the understanding of DM by all stakeholders and thus its economic legitimation.
Originality/value –A newly developed concept helps solve the problem of measurement and
valuation of DM. The paper presents the first test results.
Keywords Diversity, Intellectual capital reporting, Intellectual capital, Measurement,
Business case, Performative approach
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Until recently, research processes about diversity management (DM) and intellectual
capital (IC) have been embedded in relatively autonomous discourses. This paper
explores the connection between these two research fields, seeking ways to improve the
implementation of DM in companies. In doing so, it argues that DM is important for
gaining competitive advantage in knowledge societies; this hypothesis could be
especially applicable for DM in Austrian companies, which have largely followed an
episodic implementation; an analysis of the Austrian experiences reveals many
problems and limited acceptance in the engaged companies; starting from this point,
DM will be conceptualized as IC and thus it can profit by adopting IC measurement
concepts; discussing the implementation problems of Hubbard’s existing Diversity
measurement model; the paper proposes the Diversity Impact Navigator, a more
convenient model for measuring and evaluating DM in companies; next, positive test
results of the model’s implementation in three companies are described; and finally, the
conclusion shares lessons learned and proposes questions for further research.
Only eight years ago, DM and inclusion[1] were academic issues in Austria and
rarely discussed in businesses or with the Austrian public. Some pioneer researchers
had just begun to study the subject (Bendl, 1997; Pircher and Schwarz-Wölzl, 2005).
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2015
pp. 239-254
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-12-2013-0117
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
239
Diversity
Impact
Navigator
The situation has changed considerably, especially in the past five years. A Google
search with the exact term “Diversity Management in österreichischen Unternehmen”
(translation: diversity management in Austrian businesses) yields links to 3,500
web pages. Many discussions are organized on DM; consultancies on intercultural and
gender issues are booming. Several awards such as Meritus, Trigos or DiversCity play
a major role in the growing awareness of concepts of inclusive management activities
(Hanappi-Egger, 2012, p. 177). In 2010 the Austrian Diversity Charter was founded
and now consists of over 100 businesses (WKW, 2013; Wondrak, 2011). The number of
studies on various aspects of diversity and DM continues to grow (Häuslschmid, 2006;
Brunner, 2009; Bendl et al., 2010; Wroblewski, 2014).
Empirical studies conducted in Austria and other European countries reveal that
differing societal settings significantly influence the development of DM and its
application. In the USA, for example, anti-discrimination activities at te workplace
contributed substantially to developing an elaborated understanding of DM. Affinity
groups and affinitive actions are central in this understanding (Cox, 1991; Ely and
Thomas, 1996; Alison and Deckop, 2001; Dobbin et al., 2007). The implementation
activities of DM in European countries do not operate in the wake of a Civil Rights
Act. Rather, feminism, specific migration policies (guest-worker system) and the
enlargement of the European Union have played significant roles (Hofmann, 2008;
Segert, 2010).
Regardless of the different contexts of the theoretical DM discourse as well as in
businesses with DM activities, research suggests that DM leads to competitive
advantages for businesses (Cox, 1991; Krell, 2004). Advantages resulting from DM
include increased innovative ability, improved market access, employee loyalty and
business image.
Episodic implementation of DM in Austria
Academic literature indicates that DM appears equally necessary for economic and
social responsibility reasons. Nevertheless, empirical studies on the implementation of
DM reveal that many businesses have not yet gone beyond single interventions/
measures in the field of diversity (EK, 2005, 2008). A study on the status quo of DM in
Austrian Trade Index (ATX)[2] companies (Segert et al., 2012, p. 7ff) stressed tha t most
of the companies initiate diversity interventions, but usually lack a diversity strategy
to systematically link their individual initiatives in this field with their core processes
and business objectives. The study shows in detail that 87 percent of the respondents
began individual measures to enhance their staff diversity and promote inclusion
(Segert et al., 2012, p. 8). The emphasis is on recruitment (24 percent), talent
management (20 percent), continuing education (15 percent) and work-life balance
(15 percent). The most important diversity dimensions are sex (28 percent), ethnic
background (24 percent) and age (24 percent). However, only 37.5 percent of the ATX
companies have created a DM concept and a mere 18.8 percent say they will develo p a
concept in the near future.
According to Segert et al. (2012) the degree of institutionalization of DM can be
measured by the DM-institutionalization index, which includes the following
parameters: a DM concept, a department or responsible person for DM, a direct
reporting line to the executive board and a DM measurement tool. The higher the index,
the more elaborate the company’s institutionalization of DM is. The average for the
DM-institutionalization indexin the ATX companies is 1.5 with a possible maximum of 4.
240
JIC
16,1
To continue reading
Request your trial