The textbook defines diversity as “the human characteristics that make people different from one another” (Gomez, 2010). It may also be defined as “valuing all the ways we are similar and different” (Reese 2009, p. 53).

1. First, should he or others attempt to respond to negative reactions to the composition of the new EC? What should they say? To whom? When? How?
It would be wise for Voser to get in front of the negativity voiced by some members of the organization before it festers into discontent and organizational tension. “Voser did not think it appropriate to measure his commitment to diversity and inclusion by looking only at the group of eight people at the very top of Shell” (Sucher 2020, p.1). It is important that Voser points out that the creation of the new Executive Committee (EC) does not represent the efforts of the organization to be both diverse and inclusive. He should reaffirm throughout the ranks that the mission will continue to be diversity and an atmosphere that encourages inclusion. It is pretty obvious from reading the case that the committee does not adequately reflect the culture that has been devised within the Royal Dutch Shell Company. I feel that it is important that this issue of negativity be dealt with and not overlooked. If left unattended it could lead to distrust, skepticism, and low morale amongst the employees. It should be handled properly and promptly before the situation becomes critical. As a new CEO, Voser needs to quickly clarify his position of diversity to gain trust and begin to build a good relationship with him employees.
These efforts might start by having a session with the top levels of management to clarify his intent concerning the formulation of the committee. It is particularly important that he does not lose the support at this level of the organization. He should brief them on his plan to further implement diversity and inclusion during the restructure. Voser should point out all of his efforts and actions that he has taken to ensure that diversity remains a pivotal part of the organization. “Realizing the importance of leveraging diversity to achieve a competitive advantage, companies have incorporated diversity training in their employee orientation and development programs in the United States” (McMahon 2010, p. 37). Shell has started a number of programs that help to foster diversity throughout the ranks. Shell has grown its educational programs offered to employees and also started having a number of sessions on Diversity and Inclusion Awareness Skills. He should advise this level of management about how the adoption of these programs has helped to increase profitability and performance. Voser is at a critical juncture here and needs to be sure to act decisively and promptly to avoid employee dissention. 2. What goals, if any, should they set for the effect of the restructuring on the composition of Shell’s managerial workforce?
There is no question that restructuring the organization will add value to Royal Dutch Shell. Restructuring will aid the company in a number of ways by giving them a diverse and efficient group of talented employees that share a common belief system and are working towards a common goal. “The most important factor to create and sustain successful programs is to have a diversity strategy in place that focuses on key areas with clear metrics” (Reese 2009, p. 55). The goals specific to the composition of the managerial workforce should be mainly to obtain and train a diverse and inclusive group of managers. Hopefully the people that are brought in will include women, as the top two women left the Executive Committee, minorities, and locals. This seemed to be a key emphasis in Voser’s strategy. Some other goals might be ensuring that the restructuring does not result in negative impacts on functional departments or areas, enhancing the quality of the end product or service that is being provided, and developing a team of competent and savvy workers who will buy into the inclusive atmosphere to maximize their potential. 3. How should they review the thousands of managers at the different levels of the organization and determine who should remain and who should be let go?
Downsizing is always tough. An organization never wants to lose valuable resources and human capital when possible, but sometimes this is necessary for budgetary or financial reasons. The big question is how will it be decided who must go? It only seems fair to make the decision based on performance. The employees that are performing the best should be retained while the employees that have the lower performance ratings should be let go. This is not always the practice in business. Sometimes tough decisions are made involving highly qualified, long-term senior employees that have the higher salary to be removed from the books. While this may seem unfair, any corporation’s key goal will be to maximize profits for shareholders and the larger salaries being removed will do this.
At the heart of the matter Shell should look at the core values of the employees and see what they bring to the table. As mentioned prior, no organization wants to lose assets and valuable, well-trained human capital. When it comes down to the stay or go decision specific questions have to be asked about the employee that is being evaluated. How will this employee’s departure effect his/her department? What is the employees track record for innovating, being a leader, boosting morale? It’s a tough process that must be given much thought and no matter how well and careful the organization is to make the best choice they are sure to offend someone. Any employee that will be removed should be treated with a great deal of respect and gratitude by Shell. After a downsizing period it is important to regain the trust of the remaining employees. 4. What were the pros and cons of using D&I aspirational targets to manage workforce composition during the restructuring?
It should be noted that “aspirational targets and diverse candidate lists did not guarantee a diverse workforce” (Sucher 2010, p. 9). There were several pros to utilizing aspirational targets to manage workforce composition during the restructuring. The first is having a highly diverse, talented, savvy, and trained staff of employees that will be able to lead initiatives of the Royal Dutch Shell Company on a global scale.
The same 2008 Rand report finds that a genuinely diverse workforce can be more innovative, flexible and productive. Moreover, the report adds, a diverse workforce can offer valuable perspectives on important issues, and can better appeal to a consumer base likely to include a growing number of minorities (Sweeny 2009, p. 21).
Secondly, as a result of the diversity and inclusion initiatives the company should perform better in the local marketplace. Having managerial level employees to lead campaigns within their own local culture or region will be huge in success of these campaigns. Lastly, the quality of the goods and services provided should be better as a result of a more focused and developed staff. There were also a few cons that can be noted as a result of the diversity and inclusion initiatives. The first of these was some of the struggles that the Royal Shell Company encountered within the local marketplace. Some countries had legal requirements for diversity that had to be taken into account and that did not always align perfectly with the Shell strategy. Secondly, there were local traditions and cultural beliefs that hurt the diversity plans. One example from the case was the additional work required in some cultures to acquire women to fill positions (Sucher 2010). In some cases they had to ensure safety for these women to their families before they would be allowed to work, at times they would also have to bring in other women to ease the transition of the new employee once hired. Lastly, depending on the country that Shell did business in, at times it proved hard to find skilled labor that would meet the diversity requirements. 5. Assuming roughly comparable capabilities, should candidates from targeted groups be preferred, even when they were reducing the number of managerial jobs in the organization?

Absolutely, and this is especially so for a company such as the Royal Dutch Shell which operates on a global level. Diversity for diversities sake is pointless, but if you can make a hire that will provide some cultural knowledge within a particular area where you will be doing business it serves as a tremendous asset, and possibly a competitive advantage. At the end of the day being a diverse and inclusive company is going to help you maximize the production of your workforce which will in turn lead to larger profit margins. If you wish to operate on a global level you will need to be diverse; simply because diversity allows organizations to reach the largest audience. The global market is in a constant state of flux, an organization with global leaders who are able to understand the culture and climate of a region and can adapt to changes in the environment with discipline and decisiveness will survive.

References

Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., & Cardy, R.L. (2010). Managing Human Resources

(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 978-0-13-609352-7.

McMahon, A. M. (2010). Does Workplace Diversity Matter? A Survey of Empirical

Studies On Diversity And Firm Performance, 2000-09. Journal of

Diversity Management (2nd Qtr), 5 (2) 37-48.

Reese, C. H. & Rowell, P. (2009). Diversity & Inclusion. Financial Executive. 52-55.

Sucher, S.J. & Corsi, E. (2010). Global Diversity and Inclusion at Royal Dutch

Shell. Harvard Business School. 9-610-056 1-13

Sweeney, P. (2009). Attributes of Diversity and Inclusion. Financial Executive. 18-21.