I: Introduction
The research topic is: “Examine the impact of diversity management on organizational performance and innovation capabilities”.
This article examines the following research questions:
How diversity affects the organizational productivity?
In what ways, diverse workforce impacts innovation?
Modern businesses are focused on international supply chains. Globalization facilitates international mobility of individuals, reshaping employment relationships. Moreover, diversity provides an important case for equal employment opportunity in the workplace (Harvey and Allard 2015). Recent literature goes beyond the discussion of the legislative framework, outlining the "business case" for diversity, drawing it as the critical competitive asset to generic strategy (Knights and Omanovic 2015; Cassidy 2014).
II: Literature Review
II.I. Search Strategies
This research applies literature review of the knowledge contributions, written in 2000-2017. The timeframe is determined by the relevance of the studies to the body of knowledge and formation of the modern concept of diversity management. Most of the sources, used for this research were found through the online search on Google Academic and Books catalogs.
II.II. Understanding Diversity.
Kotey and Sharidan (2004) provide an insight into HRM strategies and discuss diversity as the competitive advantage. The authors argue that diversity management is concerned with addressing individual differences in organizations based on (1) gender, (2) internal and external orientation, and (3) learning styles. The study is the observative analysis of small and medium size firms in Australia, with the focus on diversity.
II.II. Diversity and Productivity.
Hoogendoorn et al (2013) conduct a field experiment with 550 individuals to examine the influence of gender diversity on teams’ productivity. The article suggests that gender diversified teams can offer an assorted composition of skills and experience and, thus, positively affect the collective productivity, concluding that teams with 50/50 male and female composition of members achieve better outcomes. The relationships and decision-making, however, depend upon other types of diversity, rather than only gender (Hoogendoorn et al 2013).
II.III. Diversity and Innovation.
Nathan and Lee (2013) argue that there is a positive relationship between cultural diversity and innovation. The authors conduct a field study of 7,600 firms in London to investigate the relationships between cultural diversity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The outcome of this research is a solid framework of performance measurements, to evaluate the effectiveness of diversity strategies as the major tool for innovation and entrepreneurship. The research is done by using a quantitative econometric method and correlation the sample analysis.
II.IV. Comparison
The goal of diversity management is to improve employee performance (Bardoel et al 2015). The literature review is focused on three knowledge contributions (1) Kotey and Sheridan (2004) (2) Hoogendoorn et al (2013), and (3) Nathan and Lee (2013). The first article is the inductive study, applying for literature review as the main research method. The other two employ mixed strategy, involving inductive and deductive approach. It is evident, though, that Nathan’s and Lee’s research builds the new framework through statistical data, while Hoogendoorn et al (2013) employ qualitative analysis of the data and on-field quantitative research. All the articles are written with high academic quality. The outcome of the first research, however, leaves more room for academic doubt due to its subjectivity.
III: Methodology
III.I. Inductive Research
The research will employ a mixed approach, using inductive and deductive approaches. The inductive approach is centered around observation and analysis of the existing knowledge contributions within the field, written during 2000-2016 (Bryman and Bell 2015). The objective of the inductive research is to understand the pattern of relationships between (1) diversity and organizational productivity and (2) diversity and innovation culture (Erbe 2014). Critically, as the research does not aim at testing ad disregarding a specific theory, the inductive approach is the right fit, as it adopts explorative study and generates meaning from the data sets collected during secondary and primary research methods applied in this article (De Vaus 2001). Importantly, the focus of application of inductive research approach is to collect qualitative data from previous knowledge contributions. That said the research will represent the subjective analysis of the data and the process-oriented method. The author will remain open for the development and examination of thought based on the conclusions, found in examined literature. The literature review, based on the inductive study, will be written in a narrative form with constant comparison across the literature and real-life case studies. Importantly, the author aims at analyzing the literature, which represents a good mix between business cases and theoretical studies on the topic. This approach will ensure that solid theoretical background is incorporated in the realities of the contemporary business practice and typical international organization.
III.II. Deductive Research
The purpose of integrating a deductive research approach to this study is to test the initial hypothesis, which argues that diversity, once seen as the advantage and competitive asset of a company, can bring significant improvements to the company. The hypothesis will derive from the propositions of the theories explored in the inductive study. More specifically, the deductive method will be employed in the form of qualitative study in the form of a questionnaire. This research approach aims at testing a specific primary hypothesis that:
“An accurate and effective implementation and management of diverse workforce can positively affect organizational productivity and capacity for innovation” (Grey 2014).
The secondary hypothesis, therefore, will be formulated as follows:
"Organizational diversity does not impact organizational productivity and capacity indirect ways".
With the above in mind, the dependent variables involved in this study to measure both hypotheses will include (Ernst 2003):
Organizational productivity;
Capacity for innovation;
Operational Costs;
Quality
Diversity will be the constant independent variable. Critically, the inclusion of the "operational cost" and "quality" as the dependent variables are important to provide significant evidence for the impact of diversity on productivity as the same is measured based on operational effectiveness and saving (De Vaus 2001).
III.III. Choice of Method and Research Philosophy
The examination of the previous literature and case studies will enable the authors generalizing the knowledge and applying it to the present research as the pre-existing condition. With that in mind, it is essential that this research is based on the mixed approach, including literature review and questionnaire as the major elements of inductive and deductive study respectively.
The research philosophy, supporting the study, is the interpretive approach. This choice is determined by the integration of human interest into the study and the assessment of reality and knowledge through social constructions and shared meanings. This approach is appropriate for the chosen body of knowledge and can contribute towards the development of the hypothesis based on the derivation of a meaning from a previously conducted study and current statistical data collection method.
IV. Data Collection
IV.I. Qualitative Research
The qualitative secondary research will focus on the analysis of the literature on HRM and diversity over the period of 1995-2015. The author will use only academic sources, including books and peer-reviewed articles. Additionally, the research will include some of the reliable internet sources, such as HBR articles and data collected from Forbes and Data Monitor authorized sources.
IV.II. Questionnaire
The primary research will be conducted through the closed-ended questionnaire, constructed to test the primary hypothesis through the relationships between the dependent variables. The questionnaire will include 12 questions, where the respondents will be able to choose between 4 answers. Importantly, the research will not involve any open-ended questions.
IV.III. Sample
The research is focused on identification of the focus among the organizations, which operate on an international level and are headquartered in the US. The hypothesis is grounded in the solid secondary research, which allows concluding that the findings from 10 or more international companies can represent the population (Gray 2014). Consequently, the sample will be comprised of 40 individuals from 15 international companies, occupying the “leading others” or “leading leaders” positions within these companies. It is expected that the total of 36 complete responses will be received, which represents standard error of 10% common for such research (Brace 2008).
IV.IV. Procedure
The questionnaire will be distributed to the participants by the respective HRM departments, based on the prior consent of the organizations and approval of the process. The respondents will have a choice to either identify themselves or answer anonymously, providing the critical information, such as their gender and age range. The data will be collected and analyzed and the final conclusions and findings will be shared with the HRM departments of the participating organizations.
IV.V. Advantages and Limitations
The research will benefit specialists in the business field, providing actual and relevant data on diversity and its link with performance. Moreover, the study will have academic value as it will suggest the frameworks and provide statistically supported evidence or the hypothesis. The questionnaire research method calls for specific attention to some of the ethical considerations. Confidentiality, respect, and safety of the information constitute major concern of the writer. The research is limited by the scope and scale of data collected during literature review and quantitative study (Miller et al 2012).
TOTAL WORD COUNT: 1497
Bibliography
Bardoel, A., Pettit, T.M., De Cieri, H., and McMillan, Lee, 2015. Employee resilience: an emerging challenge for HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 52(3), 279-297.
Bendick M., Egan Jr., Lou M. Lofhjelm S., 2001. Workforce Diversity Training: From Anti-discrimination Compliance to Organizational Development. Human Resource Planning. Vol.24, Issue 2: 10-25.
Brace, I., 2008. Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research. London: Kogan Page Publishing.
Bryman, A., and Bell, E. 2015. Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cassidy S., 2004. Learning Styles. An Overview of Theories, Models, and Measures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24(4): 419-444. Print.
De Vaus, D. A. 2001. Research Design in Social Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Erbe, N, 2014. Approaches to Managing Organizational Diversity and Innovation. New York: Business Science Reference Publishing.
Ernst, A., 2003. Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Seminar Paper. London: Green Verlag Publishing.
Fay, Doris, Shipton, Helen, West Michael, and Patterson, Malcolm. 2014. Teamwork and Organizational Innovation: The Moderating Role of the HRM Context. Creativity and Innovation, 24(2), 261-277.
Forbes 2013. Global Diversity and Inclusion. Fostering Innovation Through a Diverse Workforce. Forbes [Online]. Available at http://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation_Through_Diversity.pdf [Accessed 8 January 2017].
Gray, E. D., 2014. Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage Publications.
Gummings T.C., and Worley C.G. 2015. Organizational Development and Change. 10th Edition. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Harvey, C. and Allard J., M. 2015. Understanding and Managing Diversity: Readings, Cases, and Exercises. Boston: Pearson Publishing.
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. London: Sage Publications.
Homan, A., Buengeler, C. Eckhoff, R., Van Ginkel, and Voelpel, S.C. 2015. The Interplay of Diversity Training and Diversity Beliefs on Team Creativity in Nationality Diverse Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1456-1467.
Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., and Van Praag, M. 2013. The Impact of Gender Diversity on the Performance of Business Teams: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Management Science, March (4), 1-15.
Knights, D. and Omanovic, V, 2015. Rethinking Diversity in Organizations and Society. Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford University Press. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272114949_Rethinking_Diversity_in_Organizations_and_Society [Accessed 8 January 2017]
Kotey B. and Sheridan A., 2004. Changing HRM Practices with Firm Growth. Journal of Small and Enterprise Development. 11(4). 474-485
Miller Tina, Birch Maxine, Mauthner Melany. & Jessop Julie. 2012. Ethics in Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Nathan, M. and Lee, N. 2013. Cultural Diversity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Firm-level Evidence from London. Economic Geography, 89(4), 367-394.
Sadler Philip. 2003. Strategic Management. 2nd Edition. London: Kogan Page Limited
Syed, Jawad and Ozbilgin, Mustafa, 2015. Managing Diversity and Inclusion: An International Perspective. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Wilson, J P. 2006. Human Resource Development: Learning & Training for Individuals & Organizations. London: Kogan Page.
