Negotiating Diversity

Abstract

The intercultural divides in values, perceptions, and interpretations of concepts have been studied extensively by international business and intercultural communication scholars. Consequentially, much effort in university classrooms is spent on focusing on the differences between groups and on finding ways to “manage” cultural diversity. What is often missed is the common ground among cultural groups and the differences within what are presumed to be homogenous groups of students. To negotiate this complexity of diversity, we describe an initiative to fostercollaborativestudent-led analyses of a case study to open up meaningful discussions around diversity.

Keywords

diversity teaching case studies critical reflection collaboration

Introduction

This article explores how educators can facilitate a collaborative context to develop reflective dialogues around cultural diversity in the workplace. In our experience of teaching, we have found that case studies, delivered within an openly collaborative environment, are particularly effective in promoting discussion. Discussions around the case topic also help deepen critical reflection around issues that the students perceive as challenging or sensitive. The case discussion also helps students understand how communication processes and structures shape employee relationships, practices, and understandings about diversity in the workplace. To begin with, students feel comfortable discussing the actions of the principal characters of a case rather than airing their own perspectives on a particular issue. Moreover, reflecting on the actions of characters allows students to analyze their own taken-for-granted perspectives, as well as to consider alternative points of view brought up by fellow students.

The New Zealand case study on cultural diversity we include here has been particularly effective in helping students understand that “managing diversity, like other terms of difference, works in more contradictory and complex ways in practice” (Jones, 2004, p. 282). The case also starts to enable students “to think about themselves as a racial group [and] the power inherent in also being members of the dominant group” (Bell, 1989, as cited inJones & Creed, 2011, p. 86). Rather than a “one approach for all,” the case illustrates how particular historical and cultural contexts are crucial to understanding differences in the workplace. It also indicates that the dominant perspectives of including diversity in an organization are often dictated by profit motives that involve targeting particular markets for a business advantage without structural or procedural organizational changes. The case enables the discussion to move toward a deeper understanding of diversity as it is “crucial that a tolerance of ambiguity and ‘confusion’ . . . proliferates in the literature of difference in organisations, as we open it up increasingly to many voices” (Jones, Pringle, & Shepherd, 2000, p. 378). This article has four sections. In the first section, we briefly mention the challenges of the multicultural classroom and follow this up in the second section with a brief review of the literature on two typical management communication strategies around diversity in the workplace. The third section presents the case study, and we welcome you, the reader, to adapt and include it in your communication classes. The final section, before the conclusion, outlines a discussion on how we implement and support the case study in our classroom and the questions we ask our students in an organizational communication course.

Challenges of the Classroom

The university classroom, like the workplace, is becoming increasingly diverse as students crossing national and international boundaries enroll in courses alongside those who have never left their hometowns. The intercultural divides in values, perceptions, and interpretations of concepts are easy to spot and have been the topic of choice for international business and intercultural communication scholars (e.g.,Gudykunst, 2004;Hinner, 2007;Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005;Triandis, 1995). Consequentially, a lot of the effort in the classroom has been spent on focusing on the differences between cultural groups and on finding ways to “manage” diversity. Yet, as several critical scholars (e.g.,Banerjee & Linstead, 2004;Munshi & McKie, 2001;Fougére & Moulettes, 2011) have shown, “managing” diversity only ends up privileging dominant perspectives with other voices being either assimilated or submerged. What is often missed is the common ground, such as shared values among the range of cultural groups and the differences within what are presumed to be homogenous groups of students.

Our challenge in multicultural classrooms is not just to make students aware of a variety of ways of looking at issues but also to get them to collectively negotiate around the web of complexity that surround these issues. Achieving this is not easy and, asKirk and Durant (2010)pointed out, “Given that experiences differ and so values clash, the commitment to cooperative controversy may collide with the reality of deeply held prejudices” (p. 824). A further challenge is to be able to go beyond stereotypes of assumed cultural groups, especially because in the present-day multicultural world, cultural groups are not absolute entities with fixed characteristics. That several groups have people with hybrid identities and fluid points of view, some of which clash with the assumed values of homogenous groups, adds to the complexity of the situation.

One of the popular ways of getting students to analyze complex issues and situations and seek resolutions to perceived problems has been the case method of teaching pioneered by the Harvard Business School and adapted by several institutions worldwide (Barnes, Christensen, & Hansen, 1994). Yet cases are not meant to be merely functional. Case method teaching, according toGreenhalgh (2007), is both a science and an art: “a laboratory method of analysis and also a literary method of interpretation” (p. 182). AsGreenhalgh (2007, p. 182) stated, “We highlight the importance of facts, things, objectivity, analysis, and problem solving;” and “we engage students in value, words, subjectivity, interpretation, and problem posing.”

Its success notwithstanding, case-method teaching has its critics who say that cases do not train students to face the real world (e.g.,Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003). Several scholars have pointed out that “cases are often used to lead students through a well-practised analysis to a predetermined set of conclusions through the use of artful rhetorical devices” (Foster & Carboni, 2009, p. 677). In other words, teachers, consciously or otherwise and intentionally or otherwise, create pathways for students to reach what might be construed as “correct,” “perfect,” or “appropriate” answers or solutions (Foster & Carboni, 2007;Greiner, Bhambri, & Cummings, 2003). The consensus reached at the end is not necessarily collaborative, nor is there much room to factor in individual contexts that are so central in real-life situations.

Business Responses to Diversity in the Workplace

The case study we have developed and used has been effective in class for unpacking business responses, complexities, and inherent assumptions that surround issues of cultural diversity in the workplace. Definitions of workplace cultural diversity are varied but usually focus on individual or group differences. A general definition of workplace diversity is that it

refers to policies and practices that seek to include people who are considered, in some way, different from traditional members . . . [and] aims to create an inclusive culture that values and uses the talents of all would-be members.” (Herring, 2009, p. 209)

This definition has influenced two key responses in the workplace shaping how diversity should be viewed, managed, and integrated. A key tension within both of these approaches “is how to achieve an appropriate balance between diversity and unity” (Leach, 2011, p. 250). In this section, we want to briefly outline the two main perspectives that have influenced business thinking and perspectives toward diversity in the workplace. These two perspectives are diversity management and managing diversity (Ogbonna & Harris, 2006;Thomas & Ely, 1996).

In the United States and in the United Kingdom, for example, diversity management was a first response to devising initiatives around including issues of diversity and difference in the workplace (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000;Ogbonna & Harris, 2006). In this perspective people are viewed as individuals with differences who are encouraged regardless of “gender . . . race, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability and HIV status . . . personality, value systems, working style, religion, lifestyle, education level” to be integrated and empowered in the organization (Brewis & Linstead, 2009, p. 104). Diversity in this perspective seeks unity by treating all difference the same regardless of the social, cultural, and political impacts. Individuals in this perspective are expected to assimilate into the existing culture (Leach, 2011). Furthermore, diversity is viewed as a beneficial resource for the organization to gain commercial advantage (Herring, 2009). There are very few substantial changes to the organization’s procedures and practices (Ogbonna & Harris, 2006).

For organizations with these embedded assumptions, acceptance for including diversity in the workplace has been seen as a response to globalization, changes in the characteristics of the workforce, customers, and the potential of untapped markets. Arguably, for many Western countries, diversity has always been present (Brewis & Linstead, 2009). It has, however, only come to attention of organizations over the past two decades because of the changing demographic character of the workforce and potential profits from customers (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000). Banks in New Zealand, for example, quickly realized that there was a lucrative untapped customer base by promoting their offerings to Asian consumers (Oly Ndubisi, Koo-Lattimore, Yang, & Marie Capel, 2011). Many New Zealand banks have sought to employ Asian staff to attract and develop empathic banking relationships with Asian customers (Colgate & Lang, 2005).

Critics have argued that for many of these organizations the addition of diverse employees has not actually created any significant organizational change. Instead this perspective ignores problems and tensions in the workforce in favor of unity (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000). In the case of New Zealand banks, for example, we can see that only superficial image changes have been made to organizations. These banks have attempted to match employees in the organization to the cultural and ethnic attributes of the desired customer.

In contrast, the managing diversity perspective was in response to this lack of substantial integration and radical changes when using the diversity management approach. In managing diversity, the organization and employees make substantial attempts to adapt, learn, change, and communicate (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Research within this perspective examined the wider structural context and conditions that contribute to diversity and how this has historically shaped perceptions in the organization and relationships at work (Cooke, 2003).

Ogbonna and Harris’s (2006)study of a factory in Cardiff, South Wales, illustrated the structural issues that were not changed or communicated around workplace diversity, management responses, and the experiences of employees in the workplace. They found that—apart from a lack of socialization processes and language barriers—there were also other more subtle forms of discrimination that affected the workplace. In their study discrimination was not only horizontal or just from White workers—the researchers also found that other ethnic workers discriminated against their workmates based on religion or region. This sometimes resulted in violent clashes between different groups. In this study difference was not even acknowledged by the organization and the “distinctions between advantaged and disadvantaged are erased” to be replaced by a focus on blending in with the dominant systems and practices (Jones et al., 2000, p. 369). In the ultimate analysis, however, the whole notion of diversity “management” or “managing” diversity privileges one entity over another in as much as one way of thinking “manages” other ways of thinking. For many postcolonial scholars, for example, strategies of managerialism evident in some of the organizational discourses around diversity entrench colonialist strategies of control (e.g.,Banerjee & Linstead, 2004;Munshi, 2005;Munshi & Edwards, 2011;Prasad, 2003).

The context of the banking sector in New Zealand that we specifically refer to in our case is only one example of organizations and corporations operating in a globalized world. It is within this context that our case study is framed. The case was developed from the first author’s master’s project on diversity in the workplace of two major banks in Aotearoa,¹New Zealand. Ethical approval and permission was gained for the project. She conducted 14 semistructured interviews with permanent employees, some of whom defined themselves as culturally and ethnically diverse and some who saw themselves as New Zealanders, Kiwis, or Pakeha.²The interviews were designed to allow flexibility while still focusing on questions about each participant’s experiences, socialization, and training in the workplace. The interviews were tape recorded with the participants’ permission and transcribed verbatim. The data were then analyzed independently by the authors using thematic analysis (Patton, 2002). At least two of the authors read the transcripts and identified persistent themes. This literal coding was then combined and developed further through the analysis of emerging patterns and themes (Brewis, 2004;Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004). The research-based case, which is reproduced below, reflects an amalgamation of real organizations and organizational experiences although names, facts, and situations have been altered to protect the privacy of individuals and organizations.

Case Study:The Family Man: A Chinese Migrant Employee in New Zealand

“We Need Your Ideas”: Meeting for an Upcoming Social Gathering

“What a freezing morning.” Brendan tightened his scarf and quickened his pace. “I hope Xin Ru won’t forget to turn on the heating in the car. I should have reminded her before she left.” Xin Ru was Brendan’s wife. She had taken their two kids to school and planned to visit her mum afterwards. It was 8 o’clock on Monday morning and as usual, Brendan walked to work, but today he had left home half an hour earlier to make the branch meeting.

Brendan had been working as a teller for the BPM Bank in New Zealand for 3 years now. He had applied to this bank because it had a long history and good reputation in New Zealand’s banking industry. He valued this chance of being an employee at BPM because it was his first permanent job after immigrating to New Zealand. As a Chinese migrant, Brendan had found it hard to obtain employment with local New Zealand companies even though he had received his master’s degree and had plenty of work experience in China—as an assistant engineer, a lecturer in a university, a regional manager of a state-owned company—but it was worth nothing now.

He had spent the first 3 years in New Zealand studying toward a bachelor’s degree in accounting. He also searched for an English name and had decided on “Brendan” after picking it out from the book of names. So 2 years ago, after an intense search and interview process, Brendan welcomed the start of his new career at BPM bank.

“Morning, Brendan.” Sherry’s call greeted him as he entered the building and approached the staff meeting room.

“Good morning, Sherry.” Brendan sat next to her in the staff meeting room. The morning meeting was about to start in 5 minutes, but nearly half of the staff had not yet arrived at the room, nor was the manager there.

“How was your weekend, Sherry?” Brendan broke the silence.

“Good. Very good,” said Sherry, “My partner and I spent the whole weekend repainting the house. I didn’t really like the old paint. . . . We bought some new fencing. It just looks fantastic in our garden. . . . Oh, tell you something funny about our dog . . .”

Brendan smiled and nodded while he listened to her “wonderful” weekend. With little life experience of painting a house, erecting fences, or raising a dog, Brendan found it easier to act as a listener.

“So how was your weekend, Brendan?”

“Um, good.” The conversation ended abruptly as the branch manager, Max, entered the meeting room.

The meeting finally started 5 minutes late and after a review of the previous week’s sales achievements and a preview of the new sales targets, Max said, “I asked you to come earlier today as I want to pick your brains on the social event for next week. I know that you have all worked pretty hard this month. Let’s have some fun time!” he continued. “To save time, here are some options of the activities we can choose. Let’s quickly vote for it.” Max took a quick glance at the door: “Don’t keep the customers waiting.”

“Dining out in Dream Bar” stood out among the three event options and after a quick vote from the branch staff that was the option selected. “That’s great! So everybody’s happy with that, right?” Max asked. Everyone nodded, so did Brendan although he was not happy at all. In fact, he was not happy with any of the options. Brendan recalled the last social event when the whole branch went off to play golf. He had never played golf before and didn’t do very well at all. He felt like a fool and ended up watching his colleagues enjoying the game. In another social gathering, the branch went indoor climbing. Again, it was not an activity that Brendan had ever tried before, nor was it one he was actually interested in. “Kiwi-styled social function!” Brendan thought. Only once did the branch suggest an activity that Brendan felt able to join—Snooker. The branch went to play snooker to celebrate a branch team sales milestone. Beating the manager twice in the game, Brendan finally enjoyed a bank social event—and an activity he was comfortable with.

“Let’s discuss a time that suits everyone.” Max’s loud voice drew Brendan’s attention back to the meeting. “You don’t want to have it at the weekend, do you?” Most people in the room nodded. “What about Friday? We can go to the bar directly after work,” Max said. “Raise up your hand if you cannot make it. If everyone agrees, then the meeting is over.”

Staff began to look at each other. Several of them were about to leave the room.

“Sorry,” Brendan raised his hand slowly. “I have to help my wife with the housework on Friday evening, I’m afraid. . . .” The silence of the room was broken by laughter. Max smiled and told Brendan, “You see, Brendan. We cannot have the social event without you. But Friday evening seems to be suitable for everybody else. I think your wife will understand it. Hey, you can even bring your wife along if she likes the idea.” Max turned his face to others, “You can ALL bring along your families if you want. Right I think that’s it. Let’s get to work.”

Brendan let out a sigh, and followed others leaving the meeting room.

“I’m Not a Social Person”: Socializing atDream Bar

Seven o’clock on Friday evening the Dream Bar was filled with people having their dinner. It was not a big bar, but the space sparkled with trendy decorations, table candles, and music from a live band. The atmosphere of the bar was very warm and inviting, which easily let people relate to its name—the “Dream Bar.” “No wonder they decided to dine here. This place feels good,” Brendan thought, and looked around the bar.

The whole branch arrived after finishing final work tasks at the office. They ordered some bottles of white wine, garlic bread, and salad as appetizers. Brendan asked for a glass of water and took a piece of bread. He was glad he was not sitting next to “Baby Face.” This was a colleague with whom he had had several conflicts over the past 2 years now. “Baby Face” was a name Brendan had given to her because her moods changed rapidly. Like this morning when “Baby Face” came to work, she was very happy. A few hours later, she was impatient and grumpy when answering a customer’s phone call. She also blocked Brendan’s way to the front customer counters. So as not to interrupt her conversation, Brendan gently touched her shoulder. To his surprise, “Baby Face” was angry about this interruption, and she finally, and reluctantly, moved out of his way so he could reach the counters. Brendan could not understand her reaction, so he went to find the manager. The conflict was resolved by an apology from “Baby Face.” Despite this, Brendan was still not happy about seeing her and he wondered if there would ever be an end to their conflict.

Max, the branch manager, broke into the chatter. “I’m very pleased that all of you have participated in today’s social gathering. It shows that we’re a team, a strong team! I believe we will achieve a new milestone this month. To achieve it, we need to always support each other, and promote our products and services to customers as much as we can. Well, I don’t need to worry much about it actually, as I’m confident that each one of you is a good ‘soldier.’ I’m looking forward to celebrating the next milestone with you guys next month.” Max cleared his throat and then continued, “We shouldn’t talk about work today. Sorry. Let’s focus on food. Are you ready to order main courses?”

“Yep,” came the response and the employees took turns to order their main courses. It was then Brendan’s turn to pick his one. He stared at the menu—lamb shanks, roasted chicken, pork fillet, beef fillet. . . . Brendan selected the cheapest from the menu as he knew he would have to pay for the dish from his own pocket. He started to miss spring onion and oiled chicken, steamed blue cod, tofu soup, and rice cooked by his wife. Xin Ru prepared at least three dishes for dinner, but at Dream Bar, Brendan could only have one. “Kiwi-styled food,” Brendan thought. “I would never attend this kind of social gathering. Order my own meal; pay for my own drink. Why do I have to pay for this meal when I don’t like to drink and eat this food?” The only relief was that he did not bring Xin Ru to suffer at this social event.

The band was still playing some well-known music in the Dream Bar, but for Brendan it started to seem a bit loud. The light from the candles seemed to sway back and forth and Brendan felt like a headache was about to come on. He also found that these colleagues that he worked with started to act and seem unfamiliar to him. He could hardly pick up a word of their conversations. Quickly finishing his food, Brendan approached Max and said, “Excuse me, Max. I have to leave now.”

“What? We’re just getting started.”

“I feel a little bit drunk. I’d better go home, I think.”

“To help your wife with housework? Thanks for coming anyway and drive safely.”

Brendan quickly said goodbye to his other colleagues, paid his bill, and left Dream Bar without a second thought.

On the way back home, Brendan turned on his favorite music in the car and took a long breath. He turned up the car’s heating and started to relax. Then a sudden idea came to him: “Quit the job!” It was not the first time Brendan had had this thought. He shook his head immediately, “No, I can’t. It’s hard to find a job as stable as the one in the bank. I should stay here, for the family.”

Brendan stepped hard on the accelerator pedal. He could not wait to see his family.

Using the Case Study

The Family Mancase has been most recently used in some iterations of a core undergraduate management course in management communication at the authors’ university in New Zealand. Before using the case study, we agree to guidelines and help establish intraclass relationships early on before addressing the topic of cultural diversity in the workplace. This preliminary groundwork is important because we cannot expect all our students to know how to listen, nor can we expect that dialogue is a natural practice for them. Students from different cultures, for example, may need support for both linguistic and perceptual translations for each other’s terms, concepts, and values. Similarly, practice discussions in small group activities help develop their confidence in speaking openly in the classroom and in lectures (Holmes, 2005). In particular, students need to have opportunities to hold freewheeling discussions in class in order to gain an in-depth understanding of what various concepts mean and to prepare for the case study in question. Activities that promote listening, such as coaching exercises or role playing, develop a sense of situational analysis rather than rule-based strategies to help students prepare for case studies. For example,Cockburn-Wootten and Cockburn (2011)discussed several strategies for large classes that can break down barriers, question assumptions, and develop relationships in a classroom.

Once the preparatory work is done, we introduce the topic of diversity and go over the theoretical concepts of managing diversity and diversity management from a range of angles, inviting open responses from the students and getting them to debate among themselves and to read the case study. After this, we ask our students four key questions to begin the discussion in relation to the case study:

Can you identify at least two external issues or contexts that had an impact on the communication interactions reflected in the case?

Can you identify, with a reason, who or what you think is responsible for the situation in the case.

Can you explain and discuss, with at least two reasons, why you think the central protagonist in the case wanted to work for the particular organization?

Can you identify and discuss at least two key assumptions that were made in the case (by the organization as well as the employees, including the protagonist and his boss)?

The first two questions encourage students to consider what external factors have had an impact on the case. The identification of external factors starts to open up the discussion around the ethical issues of organizations using diversity as a human resource for profit, “exploitation . . . drawing on refusals of managing diversity in accounts from minority groups,” and competitive advantage (Jones, 2004, p. 282). For many of the students we find that these two questions challenge and develop their initial thinking around diversity. Rather than attributing blame to the individual for not assimilating into the organization, the students start to analyze the external context and the organization’s policies to investigate how these have structured employees’ responses and attitudes. The analysis of the case helps students more readily recognize and understand their own beliefs, values, and assumptions around diversity (Gold, Holman, & Thorpe, 2002).

The last two questions start to open up the students to reflect on the assumptions the characters in the case make that contribute to the tension experienced in the workplace. Many of the younger students, for example, often find it difficult to understand why the main protagonist is not keen on an after-work drinks event. For the younger students, after-work social drinks are seen as the norm, and they struggle to understand why an employee would not want to attend. Students are encouraged to delve deeper when they question why the protagonist likes the snooker event but not the one with drinks. This example poses a problem for the students expecting an easily categorized answer and illustrates the tensions of diversity and common ground. The protagonist, for example, expects cultural adherence to his Chinese values in instances regarding the food- and drink-oriented social event but has more individual expectations around the snooker activity. In addition, the Chinese employee’s cultural assumption that the organization should pay for the food and drinks opens up other commonalities. For example, some students then start to voice that they would expect the food and drink to be paid for by the organization, especially if it is a reward. Students with family obligations also raise the point that they would not always find it easy to attend this sort of event due to their family schedules.

Although the reaction from Brendan is initially challenging for some students as they start to discuss and verbalize his actions, it becomes open for discussion by other students, particularly those with different family and cultural experiences. This illustrates the plurality of individuals. It is in acknowledging this plurality thatMartin and Nakayama (2010)called on students of intercultural communication to think dialectically because such thinking “forces us to move beyond our familiar categories and opens us up to new possibilities for studying and understanding intercultural communication” (p. 73). The students are often surprised to see that the implicit and explicit communicative behavior of ethnic groups is not necessarily culture-specific and can be sparked by specific contexts. There is indeed a significant common ground among different groups of people. Additional questions for discussion can be added to the list above for a range of analyses. The case allows students to not only discuss and overcome their own taken-for-granted approaches to diversity, but also to go beyond the dichotomies of individualism and collectivism and position actions as a response to social processes and structures.

In a summer offering of the course in 2011, the second author specifically integrated the case into the course content and sought responses on it from students at the end of the semester. The evaluation survey contained an open-ended question about the use of the case in class. All data were collected via a student representative of the course along with the end-of-semester paper evaluations. The teaching team was not present during the evaluations and students’ comments were anonymously written on the qualitative survey. The student representative collected all the surveys and qualitative responses in an envelope, sealed it, and passed it on to the Teaching Development Unit (TDU) for collation.

The following are some representative quotes from different students (there were many similar comments from a number of students):

I think it [the case study] is interesting because it provides a platform for students to present theirownthinking and understanding to the case. (Domestic student)

I found this [case study discussion] very helpful as it showed me a different perspective and different ideas about the lecture material. (International student)

I can identify that different cultures have very different perceptions. I hadn’t really considered the power of explicit and implicit communication. I found the case and discussion [in class] really good because it is realistic especially in this diverse country. (Domestic student)

The company was not prepared to accept or consider people from other cultures or cultural background and the manager lacked training in this cultural knowledge. With the help of the lecture discussion I realized that Brendan’s identity capital played a major role in his performance, decision making, choice of activities and perceptions. Despite his similarities to the other non-Chinese workers he still felt isolated because of the manager’s inability to recognize and communicate cultural awareness. (Domestic student)

Brendan is very qualified and experienced yet still struggled to find a job. He persisted in attending the social events even if he didn’t want to but still struggled to be accepted. (International student)

The class discussion enhanced and allowed me to reflect on my first reading of the case study. (Domestic student)

After reading the case, I [now] understand that we are collectively responsible for communicating and being aware of diversity. (Domestic student)

The comments of the students clearly show that they valued hearing different perspectives on the topic and the opportunity to discuss concepts covered in class with fellow students. This collaborative strategy of teaching case studies allows us, as teachers, to “create conditions in which students learn to converse with one another . . . and create conditions in which students” become more ethically aware of others in the workplace (Bruffee, 1995, p. 73).

Concluding Thoughts

Overall, we conclude that learning to identify and see a situation from another’s perspective is a crucial competence for management students and that teaching this skill is a vital part of management education. As future managers in positions of influence, students will be involved in making decisions and taking actions that will affect others in the community. AsAnthony (1998)argued, business students as future managers will have “the establishment of authority . . . [this] entails the understanding and acquisition of responsibility, a requirement that becomes more urgent as the power of management increases” (p. 270). Case studies present the student with an opportunity to discuss diversity while not focusing directly on their assumptions. Yet in talking about the characters’ perspectives and organizational responses, students reveal insights into their own thinking on the situation. This approach derails the initial negativity toward diversity and instead frames it as a reflective process, seeking a richer understanding of the organizational context. For students involved in management and business degrees, the attributes developed from this approach promote ethical awareness and independent thinking that are essential for their ability to transverse a diverse business world (Holmes, Cockburn-Wootten, Motion, Zorn, & Roper, 2005). Diversity is not about any value system being better than the other, nor is it about assimilation or subversion. It is about the ability to acknowledge a variety of points of view.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The case contained in this article is based on an amalgamation of experiences narrated by participants interviewed in research conducted for the master’s thesis of one of the authors at the University of Waikato. The names and specific contexts of organizations and participants have been changed to protect their privacy. This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Waikato. Student comments are reproduced by permission.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Shujie Guois an assistant lecturer/teaching fellow in the Department of Management Communication at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. Taking a postcolonial feminist perspective, she researches health communication, intercultural communication, identity, and identification.

Cheryl Cockburn-Woottenis a senior lecturer in the Department of Management Communication at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. She is a feminist researcher interested in issues of identity, social justice, pedagogy, and community advocacy.

Debashish Munshiis a professor in the Department of Management Communication at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. His research focuses on diversity, sustainability, and communication and is anchored by postcolonial theory.

References

Anthony

(1998).Management education: Ethics versus morality. In Parker

(Ed.),Ethics and organizations(pp.269-281).London, England:Sage.

Banerjee

S. B.

Linstead

(2004).Masking subversion: Neocolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of indigenous management.Human Relations,57,221-247.

Barnes

L. B.

Christensen

C. R.

Hansen

A. J.

(1994).Teaching and the case method: Text, cases, and readings.Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Brewis

(2004).Sex and not the city? The aspirations of the thirty-something working woman.Urban Studies,41,1821-1838.

Brewis

Linstead

(2009).Gender and management. In Linstead

Fulop

Lilley

(Eds.),Management & organization: A critical text(pp.89-147).New York, NY:Palgrave Macmillan.

Bruffee

K. A.

(1995).Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge.Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cockburn-Wootten

Cockburn

(2011).Unsettling assumptions and boundaries: Strategies for developing a critical perspective about business and management communication.Business Communication Quarterly,74,45-59.

Colgate

Lang

(2005).Positive and negative consequences of a relationship manager strategy: New Zealand banks and their small business customers.Journal of Business Research,58,195-204.

Cooke

(2003).The denial of slavery in management studies.Journal of Management Studies,40,1895-1918.

10.

Foster

Carboni

(2009).Using student-centered cases in the classroom: An action inquiry approach to leadership development.Journal of Management Education,33,676-698.

11.

Fougére

Moulettes

(2011).Disclaimers, dichotomies and disappearances in international textbooks: A postcolonial deconstruction.Management Learning,43,5-24.

12.

Gold

Holman

Thorpe

(2002).The role of argument analysis and story telling in facilitating critical thinking.Management Learning,33,371-388.

13.

Greenhalgh

A. M.

(2007).Case method teaching as science and art: A metaphoric approach and curricular application.Journal of Management Education,31,181-194.

14.

Greiner

L. E.

Bhambri

Cummings

T. G.

(2003).Searching for a strategy to teach strategy.Academy of Management Learning and Education,2,402-420.

15.

Gudykunst

W. B.

(2004).Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

16.

Herring

(2009).Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity.American Sociological Review,74,208-224.

17.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

(2004).Analysis, interpretation, and the writing of qualitative data. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

(Eds.),Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice(pp.409-425).Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

18.

Hinner

M. B.

(Ed.). (2007).The influence of culture in the world of business.Frankfurt, Germany:Peter Lang.

19.

Hofstede

G. J.

(2005).Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

20.

Holmes

(2005).Ethnic Chinese students’ communication with cultural others in a New Zealand university.Communication Education,54,289-311.

21.

Holmes

Cockburn-Wootten

Motion

Zorn

T. E.

Roper

(2005).Critical reflective practice in teaching management communication.Business Communication Quarterly,68,247-256.

22.

Jones

(2004).Screwing diversity out of the workers? Reading diversity.Journal of Organizational Change Management,17,281-291.

23.

Jones

Creed

(2011).Your basket and my basket: Teaching and learning about Māori-Pākehā bicultural organizing.Journal of Management Education,35,84-101.

24.

Jones

Pringle

Shepherd

(2000).“Managing diversity” meets Aotearoa/New Zealand.Personnel Review,29,364-380.

25.

Kirk

D. J.

Durant

(2010).Crossing the line: Framing appropriate responses in the diversity classroom.Journal of Management Education,34,823-847.

26.

Leach

(2011).“I treat all students as equal”: Further and higher education teachers’ responses to diversity.Journal of Further and Higher Education,35,247-263.

27.

Lorbiecki

Jack

(2000).Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management.British Journal of Management,11,S17-S31.

28.

Martin

Nakayama

(2010).Intercultural communication in contexts(5th ed.).New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

29.

Munshi

(2005).Through the subject’s eye: Situating the “other” in discourses of diversity. In Cheney

Barnett

G. A.

(Eds.),International and multicultural organizational communication(pp.45-70).Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.

30.

Munshi

Edwards

(2011).Understanding “race” in/and public relations: Where do we start and where should we go? Journal of Public Relations Research,23,349-367.

31.

Munshi

McKie

(2001).Towards a new cartography of intercultural communication: Mapping bias, business, and diversity.Business Communication Quarterly,64(3),9-22.

32.

Ogbonna

Harris

L. C.

(2006).The dynamics of employee relationships in an ethnically diverse workforce.Human Relations,59,379-407.

33.

Oly Ndubisi

Koo-Lattimore

Yang

Marie Capel

. (2011).The antecedents of relationship quality in Malaysia and New Zealand.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,28,233-248.

34.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002).Qualitative research and evaluation methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

35.

Prasad

(Ed.). (2003).Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis.New York, NY:Palgrave MacMillan.

36.

Rynes

S. L.

Trank

C. Q.

Lawson

A. M.

Ilies

(2003).Behavioral coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis.Academy of Management Learning and Education,2,269-283.

37.

Thomas

D. A.

Ely

R. J.

(2001).Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. InHarvard Business Review on managing diversity(pp.33-66).Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

38.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995).Individualism & collectivism.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.