3 of 15

No

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

of business to places where companies wouldn't be subjected to a quota or a court system prejudiced against the employer's right to choose his employees.

Once the barn door was opened by government decree and mandates, the flood of "diversity-generated excuses" rushed out. Now, employers not only had a valid reason for off-shoring many jobs, but they had a ready socially-acceptable excuse to in-source employees from third-world countries at lesser cost than native workers. Many of the same workers who benefitted from affirmative action now face job loss to another, foreign minority. Whether some of these foreign workers are more qualified is debatable on a case-by-case basis. That they are cheaper is a given: fraud and mis-representation in the work visa system assures they will likely be paid less than the average native worker. Continued loud promotion of the desire for a diverse workforce provides acceptable "cover" for those who wish to in-source cheap labor.

Another secret shame of the entire diversity fiasco is that these foreign minority workers often do not work well with the native workers. Poor language skills create an inability of these workers to participate fully in teamwork-oriented positions. Language disabilities also create a situation where the foreign worker cannot adequately explain or understand procedures and idiosyncrasies in complex systems. Because many of these foreign workers are in highly-technical fields, small failures to communicate can cost millions in reduced output. It is common for many foreign applicants to over-inflate their resumes and abilities to gain the job: their lack of English proficiency denies them the opportunity to learn on the job quickly once they get here and contributes to an uncomfortable workplace for them and lowered company productivity.

Further, cultural patterns of work are different in the home countries of many of these workers. Unacceptable ways of dealing with subordinates, verbal abuse and overt hostility toward native subordinates is common in many organizations; political correctness does not have the same power of control that it does with native workers. These concepts are heard to teach in the educational system of a foreign country, no matter how well educational principles are imparted, as a class-system of social interaction is deeply-ingrained into the entire culture. As a result, workers, both foreign and domestic, tend to form cliques of like-cultured workers, leading to a fractured workforce with many aspects of thinly-veiled hostility. Not all workforce tension can be blamed on native workers' resentments, although many employers try. Other cultural expectations may not fit well with the requirements of the business. An extreme example is the growing list of businesses who have been faced with demands from specific cultural groups for special treatment due to their race or religion. The recent case of Somali Muslim workers demanding extra breaks for prayer five times daily created an extremely fractured workforce and disrupted an around-the-clock corporate workschedule in a totally unacceptable and financially-damaging manner.

Hype and over-expectation is what has caused workforce diversity to be a losing proposition within many organizations. Human Resource personnel must work closely with management to make sure all involved understand the risks as well as the possible advantages of hiring for diversity. Diversity for the sake of political correctness is seldom a profitable proposition for any business.

Learn more about this author, Linda Sunkle-Pierucki.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Does workforce diversity live up to its promise??
We want to hear your view. Write now!