ELFH 715 Organizational Theory

TERM PAPER
Leadership for Diversity Management in Multinational Organizations

Spring 2008
Introduction
The objective of this paper is to emphasize the role of a leader in solving issues related to diversity management that challenge multinational organizations in the era of globalization. Shehata (2004) defines globalization as an increasing interconnectedness that involves “deepened and accelerated movement of information, capital, and people across the planet” (para. 6). The globalization process has been occurring for a number of centuries but its unprecedented growth in the twenty first century is altering the global economy and causing tremendous changes in the management and conduct of business and organizations. Globalization requires multinational organizations to eliminate borders and barriers of trade between nations resulting in a shift in traditional patterns of investment, production, distribution and trade. Due to elimination of geographical boundaries, multinational organizations face some unique cross-cultural people management challenges that can be addressed by effective diversity management initiatives. In this paper, I will present solutions to such unique issues from a hypothetical leader’s perspective. In the first section of the paper, I will explain the concept of diversity management through a thorough literature review, and propose an effective leadership style that can help to reinforce the affirmative action plans and foster diversity in multinational organizations. In the second section, I will assume the role of a human resource practitioner in a hypothetical multinational organization and explain my role as a transformational leader in solving a cross-cultural people management issue.

Diversity Management Although diversity management can be defined simply as a management philosophy that seeks to recognize and value heterogeneity in organizations, the key difficulty has been in defining diversity. The interpretation of the term diversity varies due to the multiplicity of vested interests by different stakeholder groups over the aims, processes, and proposed outcomes of diversity management as well as what constitutes legitimate, assumed and real forms of heterogeneity in organizational settings. The concept of diversity has been attributed multiple meanings by public and private sector practitioners, consultants, trade unionists, employers’ association representatives, the law and policy makers. Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000) propose that diversity reflects the demise of homogeneity in workgroups and the recognition of the value of inclusion. In accordance with the key concerns of the US anti-discrimination movement, consideration of diversity in organizational studies largely began with race and gender (Cooke, 1999). Some scholars (Grossman, 2000) advocate continuing with a definition that reflects the historical disadvantage; others, such as
Rijsman (1997) advocate a definition encompassing all difference; and still others, recognizing the complementary of the views (Härtel & Fujimoto, 2000), attempt to integrate aspects of both approaches. Scholars advocating defining diversity along historical lines of oppression argue that the goal of diversity research and practice is to address power imbalances (Grossman, 2000). Cooke (1999), for example, argues that understanding diversity requires understanding oppression and how it functions in society and organizations. Litvin (2000) has suggested that the key to equal opportunity in the workplace is the removal of social labels from language and the valuation of variation. Unlike the scholars who focus on historical oppression as the source of diversity, some scholars argue for combining the historical disadvantage and individual differences definitions of diversity. For example, Hickman and Creighton-Zollar (1998) present a comprehensive definition of diversity that emerged from a survey of 32 organizations. They emphasize that defining diversity comprehensively does not necessarily imply that all such differences have the same effect. One of the most significant works that embrace both social category and other forms of diversity is offered by Harrison, Price and Bell (1998). The authors make a distinction between deep and surface level diversity. The term surface level diversity refers to the forms of heterogeneity that can be detected by observing the physical qualities of a person. These include observable forms of difference by gender, race, and age. Deep level diversity relates to divisions between individuals by belief, values and norms, which are observable only through time intensive encounters and exchanges between people. The authors hypothesize that surface level diversity will become less important as deep level heterogeneities become more prevalent with the moderating influence of time. They identify that information rather than time is responsible for the acculturation process in which deep level diversities are shaped. As individuals gain information about others, the significance of shallow level differences diminishes, but then the deep lever diversities crystallize. However, the authors caution that this may not be the case when the surface level differences are also associated with differences in status. The deep and shallow diversity model makes it possible to view difference in organizational settings as a socially constructed phenomenon that can manifest in variable degrees of impact and visibility and broadens our understanding of diversity from its limited scope of classical categories such as gender and ethnicity. A multitude of psychological, social, legal, business, and political forces have contributed to an ongoing concern with diversity management. The traditional rationale underpinning the concept of diversity management was that affirmative action was not enough to fully transform organizational culture (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000). In this respect, Thomas (1990) argued that affirmative action represents a reactive and narrow approach to the concept of diversity and that a new model was required. Diversity management refers to a model of inclusion of all employees in both formal company programs and informal networks (Gilbert, Stead & Ivanecevich, 1999). It represents a voluntary organizational program that enhances the perception of employees and potential candidates, and where women and other disadvantaged minorities in the workforce are positioned according to merit (Gilbert et al., 1999). Accordingly, diversity management is often portrayed as the evolutionary successor to the affirmative action approach (Gilbert et al., 1999). Rationales for diversity management mirror those underpinning the various definitions of diversity reviewed above. Some authors evoke a competitive argument, stating that organizations need diversity management to maintain a competitive edge. Gilbert et al. (1999) argue that this is because so many new hires in the era of globalization will be women and racial minorities. This effect is further exacerbated by the group work demanded of the flatter structures common to contemporary organizations (Schneider & Northcraft, 1999). A variant on the competitive argument is the strategic approach, which proposes that organizations need to design a strategy based upon the way in which diversity affects its competitive edge (Soni, 2000). Another rationale for diversity management is based on ethical concepts such as the golden rule, the disclosure rule, the rights approach, and the valuing approach (Gilbert et al., 1999). The ethical argument appeals to legal and philosophical notions of fairness and justice. Unlike aspects of diversity management at the domestic level that is concerned with constructing a national policy and supporting the effective implementation of the policy in a specific country, global diversity management requires coordination of international and global operations with a view to foster organizational cultures and structures that are conducive to effective operation of diverse groups. Global diversity management can be defined as planning, coordination and implementation of a set of management strategies, policies, initiatives, and training and development activities that seek to accommodate diverse sets of social and individual backgrounds, interests, beliefs, values and ways of work in organizations with global and transnational workforces and operations. Some scholars attempt at explaining the differences between global diversity management and its domestic counterpart. Stumpf et al. (1994) argue that management of diversity in global firms is not about making effective use of individual differences but about creating an organizational culture which transcends these differences. Doktor, Tung and von Glinow (1991) explain why globalization requires new ways of thinking and new approaches to management:
As multicultural organizations become more global in their operations, difficulties arising out of the cultural diversity of the organization’s members and clients become more apparent to the managers of these diverse organizations. Management behaviors are based upon cultural assumptions. As organizations operate across multiple cultures, these assumptions vary. Managerial behaviors that are appropriate under certain cultural assumptions may become dysfunctional under other cultural assumptions” (p. 363).
In order to address these considerations, Doktor, Tung and von Glinow (1991) propose that management theorists should develop methods that capture the need for new conceptual frameworks, methods for research as well as new programs for training and educating the new cohort of global diversity managers. Additionally, the decision about centralization or decentralization of global diversity management policies is central to effective management of cross-cultural differences in multinational organizations. Multinational organizations choose to either centralize or decentralize their global diversity management policies according to the management strategies they follow. MNCs employing a multidomestic or localized management strategy centralize global diversity management through a common policy which is then translated and implemented in the branch network or localized with each domestic branch identifying its own diversity management approach and priorities. MNCs employing a transnational or a global management strategy seek to centralize their activities as their practices are supposed to transcend national variations. Hordes, Clancy and Baddaley (1995) argue that in terms of diversity and globalization, one of the key markers of a global organization is its treatment of diversity. They explain the main differences between multinational firms, which have operations across a wide range of countries that are managed through much localization, and global firms, which have centralized policies that transcend national differences:
The truly global enterprise operates very differently from both the international and the multinational enterprises. While it may have roots in one culture, it has created an organizational culture that values diversity. A few core values are its unifying force. Although it has headquarters, the global enterprise is often managed by a team of managers from diverse locations. Its business processes, policies, and technologies are often diverse with the exception of a few rigidly standardized policies, often centered around communication technologies and training of the workforce” (Hordes et al., 1995, p. 7-8).

Leadership for Diversity Management Diversity is, first and foremost, a cultural question and thus a question of norms, values, beliefs and expectations. Multinational organizations are required to build an inclusive culture that values different norms, values and beliefs of people from different backgrounds. Since managing diversity requires building an inclusive organization culture or changing an existing non-inclusive organization culture, I propose that transformational leadership can guide effective diversity management because transformational leaders can change cultures (Bass, 1985). In order to create an inclusive organizational culture in which people from different backgrounds respect and understand each other and successfully work together to reach common goals, it becomes crucial to foster relationships and stimulate discursive processes between the diverse cultures in a way that hitherto marginalized voices are not only tolerated but actively invited, supported and empowered to state their viewpoints, ideas and opinions. This requires the openness to get involved with people with different perspectives, and the willingness to actively listen to other viewpoints, in order to learn more about them and understand their basic assumptions to a point where one is able to commonly assess them, based on reciprocal understanding. Getting people from different cultural backgrounds to work co-operatively together and to comfortably share their knowledge, experiences and viewpoints presupposes a basis of trust. Reciprocal recognition is an important foundation on which mutual trust can be developed through ongoing relationship work (Calton & Kurland, 1996). A transformational leader can envisage such a culturally competent organization culture by inspiring his or her followers to engage in such reciprocal recognition. Transformational leadership can help to bring about major change in an organization and can inspire followers to handle greater responsibility, to have greater heights of awareness of the good of the group through encouraging reciprocal recognition (Bass, 1985). According to Bass, there are basically three attributes of transformational leadership: (1) charisma which is the ability to instill pride, faith and respect; (2) individualized consideration which is the ability to teach and mentor each follower and assign them challenging assignments; and (3) intellectual stimulation which is the ability to inspire followers to think in new ways and emphasize problem solving. Thus, transformational leaders can build trust through their charisma, can be empathetic with their followers’ diverse needs through individualized consideration and can use intellectual stimulation to encourage new ways of dealing with the increasing diversity of their followers. Through these three attributes they can attempt to change or modify an organization’s culture and make it more conducive for diversity. The rationale for choosing a transformational leadership style for managing diversity can be further explained by citing the organizational theorists who have suggested diversity to be a culture issue in organizations and by referring theorists who have noted the role of transformational leaders in building and changing organizational cultures. Cox (2001) acknowledges the existence of the link between organizational culture and diversity management in “Creating the Multicultural Organization: The Challenge of Managing Diversity”. According to Cox (2001), identification of bigoted and insensitive employees who are barriers to presence of diversity is a very superficial diagnosis of the problem; the more significant deep rooted problem is that most organizations have an organizational culture that is somewhere between toxic and deadly when it comes to handling diversity. Thus, merely hiring employees from minority groups is not sufficient because the culture in the organization might not be encouraging for the diverse workforce. This might lead to high turnover or poor job performance. Cox’s view about toxic culture being the significant deep rooted problem for diversity management is supported by Katz and Kahn (1966) in “Organizations and the System Concept”, where the authors view an organization from a system perspective and emphasize the interdependence between different parts and processes of an organization. According to systems perspective, it would be obvious that different parts of the organization would be interdependent and changing only the recruitment process might not be sufficient for welcoming a diverse workforce. If individuals in powerful positions in an organization are not flexible enough to allow people from different ethnicities to coexist, their reluctance will be exhibited in their behavior and will challenge the prospects of professional development of the diverse workforce. Thus, it is wiser to attempt to change the organizational culture which develops due to the values shared by the different interdependent parts of the organization instead of changing one single part. The culture in an organizational can be prepared to value diversity only when all parts embrace change and share the same values and beliefs regarding diversity. The significance of culture is also evident in Henry Mintzberg’s book, “Power in and around Organizations”. Mintzberg (1983) acknowledges the importance of organizational culture by noting ideology as a significant internal power base in organizations. According to Mintzberg, ideology is a set of beliefs shared by internal influencers in an organization. Thus, if acceptance of diversity is not one of such shared beliefs, the ideology of an organization will oppose diversity and the organizational culture will consequently become hostile to a diverse workforce. Since diversity is primarily a culture issue in organizations, it becomes necessary to change toxic cultures in organizations through effective leadership. Schein’s organizational cultural theory explained by his 1993 book, “Organizational Culture and Leadership” emphasizes the role of a transformational leader in building and changing organization cultures by making a distinction of leadership styles in different stages of the organization. In growing organizations the leader is a culture creator, whereas in the midlife stage, leaders are culture enhancers and supporters; in maturity, leaders are who renew the cultural paradigms and search for new values. Schein argues that new leaders coming in organizations have to learn to notice changes in the organization and find ways to address them before attempting to change the culture. The model proposed by Schein appears dynamic and bases most of its assertions in the theory of transformational leadership and in the charismatic leadership style. Like transformational leadership theories, Schein views leaders as perpetual learners who are required to be aware of diverse perceptions and insights, and should possess skills in analyzing and changing deep rooted assumptions in organizations. Additionally, success of a global organization is contingent upon achieving an effective codependence of diverse needs of employees and the organizational needs. The tenet of codependence of peoples’ and organization’s needs as proposed by human resource theorists in the 1960s assumes critical significance in the era of globalization. This requires leaders to be aware of the role of ethnicity and culture in shaping unique higher and lower level needs of individuals (Maslow, 1943) from different backgrounds and align those needs with the organizational interests. As individualized consideration is one of the attributes of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), transformational leaders can address diverse needs on an individual basis through coaching or mentoring and can help to build a culture that is sensitive enough to accommodate and allow diverse cultural interests and needs to coexist.

My role as a hypothetical new leader in Diversity Management In this section, I will assume the role of a transformational leader in the human resource department of a fictional multinational corporation (MNC), called XYZ Enterprise. I will provide a brief overview of XYZ’s organizational context and the affirmative policy framework it conforms to and I will conclude by providing an example of a hypothetical situation where I would apply my leadership skills to solve a cross-cultural people management issue at XYZ Enterprise.
Organizational Context. XYZ Enterprise is a diversified producer and marketer of consumer products and is headquartered in California, USA. It has two manufacturing units, one in San Jose, California and the other in Mumbai, India, a regional research and development centre each in India and United States, and corporate offices in both countries. Consumers in both countries can buy its products from retail stores and malls. XYZ Enterprise’s top management expresses strong support for affirmative action policies and values a diverse workforce as the ability to manage diversity and understand cultural differences is critical to its success. Its affirmative action policies (AAP) aim at reversing past practices of discrimination through a series of result-oriented efforts in recruitment, selection, training, performance management and career development of its employees. In spite of the general similarities in the affirmative action postures of India and United States, XYZ Enterprise needs to be aware of the significant cultural and historical differences between the two countries while developing an integrated AAP. The cultural orientations of the two countries offer interesting backdrops for examining differences in employee perceptions of affirmative actions. India’s mandatory affirmative action quotas operating within a collectivist and pluralistic orientation are a stark contrast to affirmative action goals and timetables in an individualistic oriented United States. Though the reservation and quota systems are legally applicable to only public sector organizations and educational institutions in India, the management of private multinational organizations such as XYZ Enterprise has to understand whether its Indian employees prefer affirmative action plans that provide preferential treatment over the ones that provide opportunity enhancement. Existing research has conceptualized three types of AAP structures—basic elimination of discrimination, opportunity enhancement, and preferential treatment (Kravitz & Klineberg, 2002). Basic elimination of discrimination plans involves special efforts by firms to remove all forms of race- and gender-based discrimination and lies at the core of AAP in both India and United States. Opportunity enhancement plans involve efforts to get qualified women and ethnic minorities to apply, or to hire ethnic minorities or women when their qualifications are equal to those of ethnic non-minorities and men. Unlike opportunity enhancement plans, preferential treatment structure involves the hiring of less qualified minorities and women over more qualified non-minorities and men. AAPs in United States lean towards opportunity enhancement plans with an objective of removing employment imbalances for specific racial, ethnic and gender groups (Guerrero, 2002). AAPs in India seek to remedy the effects of a 3000-year old rigid hierarchical caste system of power, privilege and socio-economic status by providing preferential treatment through quotas and reservations in employment. Though the legal enforcement of quota system is not relevant in the context of the private multinational organizations in India, XYZ’s management needs to be attentive towards the cultural and social differences that might build perceptions of Indian and American employees towards AAPs. India’s historical struggle with systems of legally sanctioned oppression could lead one to conclude that Indian workers would favor stringent approaches or quota based AAPs over opportunity enhancement action plans. However recent research studies have found that both American and Indian employees prefer opportunity enhancement AAPs to preferential treatment AAPs (Heilman et al., 1996). XYZ’s management has noted that both its Indian and American employees perceive beneficiaries of preferential treatment AAPs as incompetent and believe that preferential treatment AAPs evoke higher perceptions of compromise of individual merit and fairness than opportunity enhancement AAPs. Especially, in the era of globalization and liberalization, Indian employees dislike stringent numerical mandates of quota systems as such systems mainly target individuals with high socio-economic status who do not need aid but enjoy the rewards of AAPs (Jain et al., 2003). A thorough recent environment survey in India and United States has made XYZ’s management realize that irrespective of nationality, global employees prefer merit-based decisions to any type of preferential treatment as compromise of merit promotes inefficiency. Thus, taking the preferences of both the Indian and American employees into consideration, XYZ’s management has chosen the opportunity enhancement AAP structure for its diverse workforce.

Cross-Cultural Conflict at XYZ Enterprise.
For the purpose of the paper, I will give a hypothetical example of a cross cultural conflict in a project management team at XYZ Enterprise and explain my role in managing the conflict situation as a human resource practitioner at XYZ.
A cross cultural project management team at XYZ has recently been unable to meet deadlines and has not met the prescribed performance standards of the organization. The team is comprised of 5 members including 2 Americans and 3 Indians. The 2 Americans in the team are John, a senior manager and Jason, a senior engineer. The 3 Indians in the team are Ravi, a senior manager, Shankar, a senior engineer and Nikhil, a junior engineer. The team is based in the headquarter of XYZ Enterprise in USA. The 3 Indian team members are inpatriates who have been transferred from the Indian subsidiary of XYZ Enterprise to the headquarters in USA to encourage diversity and increase the American managers’ knowledge about India’s culture and market conditions. The team had signed a contract of completing two projects; however they have not been able to meet the deadlines for both projects. The team morale is low and the lack of compatibility between the American and Indian team members seems to be the apparent issue plaguing the team.

Symptoms of the Cross-Cultural Conflict.
As a human resource practitioner in the headquarter of XYZ Enterprise in USA, I have been assigned the work of addressing and remedying the lack of cross cultural compatibility in the project management team. Instead of considering the lack of cultural compatibility as the root cause of the issue hindering the team, I have studied the conditions and problems faced by the team members in detail to understand the similarities and dissimilarities between American and Indian cultures and the implications of the different cultural views for the functioning of the team. My in-depth study has informed me about the following: (1) The team was given ample autonomy to complete the first project, however they failed to meet the deadline; (2) During the second project, the team was provided with a structured outline of the methods they needed to apply; however the outline did not help them complete the project; (3) Jason, the American senior engineer and Nikhil, the Indian junior engineer did not participate in any comprehensive cross cultural training prior to being a part of this cross cultural project management team ; (4) Ravi, Shankar and Nikhil, the 3 Indian team members reported that lack of structure or clarity stressed them out in case of the first project; (5) John and Jason, the American team members reported that lack of control or autonomy stressed them out in case of the second project; (6) The Indian team members felt that their American counterparts were competing with them and there was lack of collaboration and joint work; and (7) The American team members felt that their Indian counterparts had formed an in-group and treated them as out-group members in the team.

Cultural differences responsible for Conflict.
The team’s failure with the first project where the team was allowed autonomy can be attributed to the Indian team members’ preference for clarity or structure. Ravi, Shankar and Nikhil have reported lack of structure as a stressor that affected their performance. Such a preference for structure can be explained by the cultural background of Indians. Indians, who are collectivistic and high in power distance expect a certain degree of control and direction from their superiors instead of autonomy. As Indians grow up in hierarchically structured, overlapping groups and collectives, Kakar (1978) points out that this might transcend to the work setting and Indians may find it easier to follow formalized rules and conform to them.
The team’s failure with the second project that had structured guidelines can be attributed to American team members’ preference for control or autonomy. John and Jason have reported lack of autonomy to be a stressor for them in case of the second project. A number of researchers have found that in the United States, lack of autonomy and the perception that one does not have enough control could be associated with outcomes such as job dissatisfaction and perception of job stress (Hendrix, Ovalle, & Troxler, 1985).
American team members’ inclination to compete with their team members can be explained by their individualistic cultural orientation. Triandis (2001) suggested that both individualism and collectivism may be horizontal (emphasizing equality) or vertical (emphasizing hierarchy). Research has shown that some individualistic cultures, such as Australia and Sweden, emphasize equality whereas other individualistic cultures, such as the United States, emphasize hierarchy. Thus, Americans have a vertical individualistic culture that stresses the importance of competition. While horizontal individualism implies “I am different”, vertical individualism implies “I am better.”
Indian team members’ inclination to form in-groups and out-groups can be explained by the collectivist cultural orientation. Collectivism in India is blended with strong hierarchical orientation resulting in what Singelis, Triandis and Bhawuk (1995) called vertical collectivism. In vertical collectivism (dutifulness) people submit to the authorities of the in-group and are willing to sacrifice themselves for their in-group (Triandis, 2001). The 3 Indian team members have formed an in-group because the junior Indian members, Shankar and Nikhil feel emotionally dependent on Ravi who is a senior manager in the team. Moreover, it has been found that in cross-cultural settings people often find themselves more attracted to those from their own culture (Triandis, Hall, & Ewen, 1965). As a result, team members tend to interact more frequently with colleagues from their own culture, which may lead to insufficient communication between the team subgroups. Finally, Jason and Nikhil, the engineers in the team fail to communicate appropriately because they have not participated in comprehensive cross cultural training. Nikhil finds Jason’s directness offensive while Jason finds Nikhil’s sense of courtesy to stand up when any hierarchically senior person enters the room strange. Such cultural differences manifest in conflicts because XYZ’s management has focused on the managerial cadre as the target group for cross cultural training and the engineers like Jason and Nikhil have not been included in such training programs. As members of work teams such as engineers and technical staff assume lower positions in organizational hierarchies, they frequently experience little attention from the top management and receive no cross-cultural training and guidance as to how optimize their in-group communication (Granrose & Oskamp, 1997).

My role as a Transformational Leader. The awareness of the cross cultural differences responsible for the failure of the project management team has convinced me that I should try to address the cultural issues of each individual team member to make the team culturally competent. To address cultural assumptions of each team member, I would engage the team members in a brainstorming session for each of the two projects they were supposed to complete and encourage them to think using Edward De Bono’s six thinking hat strategy. Edward de Bono’s thinking hats were developed in order to illustrate the various methods of thinking utilized by individuals within problem solving processes. Each of the hats represents a method of thinking commonly used by individuals within problem solving. It is hoped that through such representations more individuals will be able to recognize the various methods of thinking that they utilize and therefore better understand their own thinking processes. It is also hoped that individuals will be able to better understand the thinking processes of others and therefore even incorporate some of these processes within their own thinking. By using the six thinking hat strategy I intend to make the American team members respect the Indian team members’ preference for clarity and structure and Indian team members respect American team members’ preference for autonomy. Such mutual respect can help the team achieve a loose-tight principle of operation as noted by Peters and
Waterman (1982) in “In Search of Excellence: Simultaneous Loose-Tight Properties”. The loose-tight principle will allow the co-existence of structure and autonomy in the team. Using the white hat, the team members can focus on the data available and identify the gaps in their knowledge. Availability of data and identification of knowledge gap will help them prepare structured guidelines for how to progress on the projects. Such planning will provide clarity to project implementation and address the Indian team members’ desire for structure. Using the red hat, the team members can engage in intuitive thinking and can attempt to understand how others will react emotionally. This will enhance the level of understanding and mutual compatibility between the Americans and the Indians in the group. Wearing the black hat, the project team members can forecast the drawbacks of any decision and can prepare contingency plans. This exercise will coach the Indian team members in autonomous decision making and contingency planning. Using the yellow hat, the team members can think positively and list the possible benefits of a particular decision. Listing the negative and positive outcomes of any decision will help the team members compare the outcomes and choose any particular decision more effectively. With the green hat on, the team members can attempt to think creatively and come up with innovative solutions for problems in both projects. Such an opportunity of out of the box thinking will coach the Indian team members in exercising their autonomous decision making within the framework of structured goals of XYZ Enterprise. The blue hat will require someone to take control of the situation and guide the brainstorming in the group. This will satisfy the American team members’ preference for control. Thus, brainstorming sessions with the six thinking hat strategy will help to address the cultural barriers that are hindering effective communication between the American and Indian team members in the group. My decision of engaging the project team members in brainstorming sessions is driven by my belief in Human Resource Theory of employee motivation. I believe that the Indian team members’ desire for clarity and structure is driven by Maslow’s safety needs and the American team members’ desire for control and autonomy is driven by Maslow’s esteem needs. Cultural background plays an important role in developing such needs in each individual. Engaging the team members in constructive discussion process will address such different needs and will facilitate the fulfillment of those needs through cross cultural communication. Additionally, I believe that the team members do not inherently dislike working with each other and opportunities for constructive discussions will help them to break the cultural barriers that are preventing them from utilizing their full potential. Thus, like my respondent in the personal practical theory assignment, I believe in McGregor’s theory Y of human behavior. Her belief in McGregor’s theory Y and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs of Human Resource Theory guided her to propose the Leadership Foundations program for the quality control managers and my belief in Human Resource Theory will guide me to conduct focused group discussions amongst the project management team members. Second, I would like to do a needs assessment of cross cultural training amongst the senior and junior engineers of XYZ Enterprise across locations. Such cross cultural training will be on-the-job and will be provided by senior managers who are well versed in the cultural subtleties of the diverse workforce at XYZ Enterprise. Junior technical staffs who can be assigned to multinational projects will be given an opportunity of choosing a senior manager as their coach for cross cultural training. The senior managers will give individualized consideration and counsel the junior technical staff about effective cross cultural communication. I believe that both the Indian and American engineers located in the USA headquarter and Indian offices and factories need to understand the subtle cultural differences in the modes of communication between the Americans and the Indians. Such cross cultural training would help Jason to understand why Nikhil stands up whenever a senior person enters the room and similarly after being trained about American’s individualistic cultural orientation, Nikhil would not take offense to Jason’s propensity for direct communication. However, since the top management is complacent about implementation of cross cultural training amongst the engineers and the technical staff, I would conduct a thorough needs assessment with focused group interviews both in USA and India. I will personally supervise the needs assessment at XYZ Enterprise headquarters in United States and the HR practitioners in the subsidiary in India would report to me the findings of the needs assessment carried out in the Indian offices. The findings of the needs assessment will inform the top management about the requirement of cross cultural training amongst the technical staff of XYZ Enterprise and convince them that a cross cultural training for the technical staff is for the best interest of the organization. Follett (1926) reasoned that in the process of selling a new concept, one should allow the persons being sold to convince themselves that this is in their best interest. Moreover, the responses from my interviewee in my personal practical theory assignment have confirmed my belief in using concrete and valid proof from a needs assessment process for convincing the top management about a required intervention. Third, I would like to reassign reporting relationships in the project management team to break the culturally isolated subgroups that have formed. According to the newly formed reporting relationships, Jason, the American senior engineer will report to Ravi, the Indian senior manager and Shankar and Nikhil, the Indian junior manager and the Indian junior engineer respectively will report to John, the American senior manager. Additionally, the performance of the newly formed subgroups: (1) Jason and Ravi; and (2) John, Shankar and Nikhil will be dependent on each other because one group’s work will be the input for the other group. Thus, in this manner, the Americans will cease to compete with their group members when they will see how their own performance gets affected by the other group’s output and the Indian team members will not form culturally isolated in-groups because such isolation will affect their performance negatively. Systems perspective of a team will help to emphasize the interdependency of the subgroups in the project management team and will facilitate effective functioning of the team. Thus, intellectual stimulation in constructive brainstorming sessions, individualized consideration in cross-cultural training for technical staff, and systems perspective of groups will help me to transform the project management team members to individuals who are more aware of cultural differences that can hinder effective functioning of the team.

Implications of Findings This synthesis has helped me to gain comprehensive knowledge about the role of a leader in diversity management. Previously, I would not have perceived diversity as an organizational culture issue and would have considered implementation of equal opportunity policies in recruitment and other HRM functions to be sufficient for diversity management. The synthesis has helped to realize that perception of diversity is a much deep rooted assumption in organizations and effective diversity management requires transformational leadership that can transform organizational cultures.

References
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Calton, J. M., &Kurland, N. B.(1996). A theory of stakeholder enabling: Giving voice to an emerging postmodern praxis of organizational discourse. In D.M. Boje, R. P. Gephart & T. J. Thatchenkery (Eds.), Postmodern Management and Organization Theory. (pp.154- 177). Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Cooke, B. (1999). Writing the left out of management theory: The historiography of the management of change. Organization, 6(1), 81-105.
Cox Jr, T. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organization: The challenge of managing diversity. In Shafritz, J., Ott, J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp. 469-475). California: Thompson.
Doktor, R., Tung, R.L., & von Glingow, M.A. (1991). Incorporating international dimensions in management theory building. Academy of Management Review, 34, 517–554.
Follett, M., (1926). The Giving of Orders. In Shafritz, J., Ott, J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp. 152 -157). California: Thompson.
Granrose, C. S., & Oskamp, S. (Eds.), (1997). Cross-Cultural Work Groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A., & Ivanecevich, J. M. (1999). Diversity management: A new organisational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 61-77.
Grossman, R.J. (2000). Is Diversity Working? HR Magazine, 45, (3).
Guerrero, A. (2002). Affirmative action in perspective: Silence at boalt ball—the dismantling of affirmative action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.
Härtel, C. E.J,. & Fujiimoto, Y. (2000). Diversity is not a problem to be managed by organizations but openness to perceived dissimilarity is. Journal of Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 6, (1), 4–27.
Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W. F., & Gilbert, D. (1996). The other side of affirmative action: Reactions of non-beneficiaries to sexbased preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 346–357.
Hendrix, W. H., Ovalle, N. K., & Troxler, R. G. (1985). Behavioral and physiological consequences of stress and its antecedent factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 188- 201.
Hickman, G.R., & Creighton-Zollar, A. (1998). Diverse self-directed work teams: Developing strategic initiatives for 21st century organizations. Public Personnel Management, 27, 187-200.
Hordes, M.K., Clancy, J.A., & Baddaley, J. (1995). A primer for global start-ups. Academy of Management Executive, 9(2), 7-11.
Ivanecevich, J. M., & Jacqueline A.G. (2000). Diversity management time for a new approach. Public Personnel Management, 29, 75-82.
Jain, H. C., Sloane, P. J., & Horwitz, F. M. (2003). Employment equity and affirmative action. NY: ME Sharpe.
Kakar, S. (1978). Authority patterns and subordinate behavior patterns in Indian organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 298-307.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). Organizations and the systems concept. In Shafritz, J. Ott, J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp.480-490). California: Thompson.
Kravitz, D. A., Klineberg, S. L., Avery, D. R., Nguyen, A. K., Lund, C., & Fu, E. J. (2000). Attitudes toward affirmative action: Correlations with demographic variables and with beliefs about targets, actions, and economic effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1109-1136.
Litvin, D. (2000). Defamiliarizing Diversity. Amherst, MA: Isenberg School of Management.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. In Shafritz, J. Ott, J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp.167-178). California: Thompson.
McGregor, D.M. (1971). The human side of enterprise. In Shafritz, J., Ott, J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp.179-192). California: Thompson.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). The power game and the players. In Shafritz, J., Ott. J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp.334-341). California: Thompson.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman Jr., R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Simultaneous loose-tight properties. In Shafritz, J., Ott. J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp.436-440). California: Thompson.
Rijsman, J.B. (1997). Social diversity: A social psychological analysis and some implications for groups and organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(2), 139-152.
Schein, E. H. (1993). Defining organizational culture. In Shafritz, J. Ott, J., & Jang, Y (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Theory. (pp.360-367). California: Thompson.
Schneider, S. K., & Gregory B. N.(1999).Three social dilemmas of workplace diversity in organizations: A social identity perspective. Human Relation, 52, (11), 1445-1467.
Shehata, S. (2004). Coordinated action is needed. Dar Al Hayat. Retrieved 12/4/2006 from http://globalization.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/contributors/11%2D2004/Article%2D20041128%2D804a8d9f%2Dc0a8%2D10ed%2D0004%2Daa02d8104088/story.html.
Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P.S., & Gelfand, M.J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240-275.
Soni, V. (2000).A twenty-first century reception for diversity in the public sector: A case study. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 395-408.
Stumpf, S A., Watson, M. A., & Rustogi, H. (1994). Leadership in a global village: Creating practice field to develop learning organizations. Journal of Management Development, 13(8), 16-25.
Thomas, R. R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68 (2), 107-117.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907-924.
Triandis, H.C., Hall, E.R. & Ewen, R.B. (1965). Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations, 18, 33-55.