The relevance of workforce diversity is difficult to overstate, as it can make for a better public image and perception, which brings investors, secures state subsidies or special taxation regimes for a role model company, and wins consumer support, all benefits translatable into profits in some ways. Furthermore, diversity leaves door open to specialists from different walks of life or social positions and various educational backgrounds with unique ideas that can steer a company towards the future. Not having diverse workforce or having constraints on the acceptance of such individuals can cost organizations all these benefits, with overlooked talents putting their unique experience and ideas to good use elsewhere. Therefore, Google Inc. needs to think long and hard before deciding on its corporate diversity policy.
Thomsen (2014) agreed that the white male demographic supremacy had been characteristic of Google Inc. for its entire history. As of presently, women are responsible for no more than 30% of the workforce while African Americans represent only 2% of the staff. Ahmed (2015) considered two theories rationalizing the lack of diversity in the Silicon Valley, such as the meritocracy and pipeline theories explaining the problem with regard to the reliance on the network of referrals and a white talent pool. According to Thomsen (2014), since 2013, the company has started working towards eradicating the unconscious bias, which is a psychological theory claiming people to accumulate undetected prejudices based on surrounding political and social forces. Cognitive bias advisors collectively known as Diverseo (2014) offered a range of techniques to eliminate the prejudices, such as exposing and counting biases with quantitative data and face-to-face interviews, offsetting biases at the individual and corporate levels, and avoiding the unconscious bias pitfalls.
Employers Network for Equality & Inclusion or ENEI (n.d.) offered services in terms of team and individual development, audit and inspection, and selection as the approaches to minimizing unconscious bias. If Google proves unwilling to have recourse to the audition and intervention of organizations like ENEI, it can do the auditing by itself. The major recommendation will be for the technology multinational to conduct the routine survey and correction of the hiring psychology and philosophy of its recruitment staff, so that valuable talents may not pass unnoticed. Thomas and Ely (1996) came up with interesting recommendations as to the adoption of diversity promoting paradigms, such as the discrimination-and-fairness and access-and-legitimacy paradigms. However, the paradigmatic shift is infeasible failing a range of preconditions like organizational culture conduciveness to openness, its potential to boost personal development, and the ability of making the workforce feel esteemed (Thomas and Ely 1996).
The project will evaluate the possibility of employing specific paradigms in Google Inc., based on the current state of functional and organizational processes, mechanisms, and philosophy. The applicability of techniques and models addressing poor diversity as well as the scrutiny of issue scope will be the subjects of the case study. Thus, the project will list recommendations the company may implement to cope with the deficit of diversity, which will help it enjoy the benefits the workforce heterogeneity has to offer.
References
Ahmed, S., 2015. Is Silicon Valley’s meritocracy ethos anti-diversity? Fusion, [online]. 18 March. Available at: <http://fusion.net/story/105627/is-silicon-valleys-meritocracy-ethos-anti-diversity/> [Accessed 8 March 2016].
Diverseo, 2014. Reducing unconscious bias: A highly effective toolbox. How to avoid the unconscious bias pitfalls. Diverseo. Available at: <http://weprinciples.org/files/attachments/Reducing_Unconscious_Bias-_a_highly_effective_toolbox.pdf> [Accessed 8 March 2016].
ENEI, n.d. Reducing the Impact of Unconscious Bias in the Workplace. [online]. Available at: <http://www.enei.org.uk/pages/unconscious-bias.html> [Accessed 8 March 2016].
Thomas, D.A., and Ely, R.J., 1996. Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review. Available at: <https://hbr.org/1996/09/making-differences-matter-a-new-paradigm-for-managing-diversity> [Accessed 8 March 2016].
Thomsen, M., 2014. Why Google’s employee diversity programs are doomed to fail. Forbes, [online]. 30 September 2014. Available at: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2014/09/30/why-googles-employee-diversity-programs-are-doomed-to-fail/#b911de7135c9> [Accessed 8 March 2016].
