Moving towards the next level
Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
Anouk van de Laar
ANR: 438123
Supervisor: Dr. H.G. Siebers
Second reader: Dr. J. Schaafsma
Master thesis Communication and Information Sciences
Track Management of Cultural Diversity
Faculty of Humanities, Tilburg University
August 2012
Preface
After five years, one bachelor program, and two master specializations, my career at Tilburg University is
coming to an end now. The time has come to spread my wings and to start a new episode of my life!
This report is the final product of my thesis project, which I carried out as part of the master program
Communication- and Information Sciences, specialization Management of Cultural Diversity. As conducting a
research is a long a complicated journey, it goes without saying that it was not always easy. Nevertheless, the
task has been challenging and fun. I feel lucky that I had the opportunity to end my study career with such an
interesting and instructive project.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank several people who guided and supported me during this process.
First of all, I want to thank my supervisor dr. Hans Siebers and second reader dr. Juliette Schaafsma. Their
advice and professional knowledge have formed a strong basis for my thesis. Their critical remarks but also
their enthusiasm regarding the topic made me stay focused and motivated till the end of the process. Secondly,
I want to thank DeliXL for giving me the opportunity to study the topic of ethnic diversity within a large
organization and to practice and develop my consultancy skills in a real-life setting. More specific, I sincerely
want to thank the DeliXL workers for being so open in telling their experiences with ethnic diversity at work,
and for inspiring and motivating me to continue with this topic in my further career. Finally, I want to thank my
family, boyfriend and friends for always being there when I needed them during the past five years, their
patience, support and motivation, and their interest in the contents of my studies.
I wish you an inspiring reading.
Anouk van de Laar
Helmond, August 2012
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
I
Abstract
Scholars have put much effort in evaluating both justice and business case initiatives in ethnic diversity
management. Based on this research it could be concluded that many diversity interventions fail to deliver its
promise of greater workforce equality and better organizational performance. Throughout history, the
literature on ethnic diversity management has proposed several interventions of whom it was thought that
they would lead to greater effectiveness. As it could be argued that the justice case approach forms the basis
for the success of the business case approach, most of these interventions elaborate on the moral (justice case)
rationale of creating greater workspace equality. A structural comparison between target group and generic
approaches reveals that ethnic diversity management interventions often lead to feelings of frustration and the
maintenance of inequality issues. What all of the approaches discussed in the literature share, is the fact that
they are all managerial constructs, or, in other words: the result of top-down management processes. In doing
so, management interventions tend to ignore contradictions in perspectives between managers and executive
staff. To date, research largely underexplored the interests, experiences and preferences of a diverse
workforce itself and the preferences of different stakeholders for management approaches. Aim of this
qualitative study was to give more insight into these differences in order to make the development of a bottom
up approach in ethnic diversity management possible and to further develop the justice case. The results
suggest that it is perfectly possible to define a bottom up ethnic diversity management policy that fits the
divergent needs of different organizational stakeholder groups. Although management and ethnic majority
stakeholders were found to be more business oriented and ethnic minority stakeholders more social or
personally oriented in their experiences and preferences, the stakeholder groups were found to find each other
in an inclusionist generic management approach that focuses on creating unity and cohesion among workers (a
feeling of belongingness) and giving workers a feeling that individual needs are recognized (enhancing feelings
of equality).
Keywords
Ethnic diversity, ethnic diversity management, justice case, business case, affirmative action, equal
opportunity, target group approach, multiculturalist, colorblind, inequality, inclusion, attitudes, interests.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
II
Table of contents
Preface
Abstract
Table of contents
I
II
III
1.
Introduction
1.1 Rationale of this study
1.2 Problem statement
1.3 Aim and relevance of the research
1.4 Research question
1.5 Structure of the report
p. 1
p. 1
p. 2
p. 2
p. 3
p. 4
2.
Theoretic background
2.1 Ethnic diversity in The Netherlands
2.1.1 Facts and numbers
2.1.2 Public and political discourses regarding ethnic minorities and integration
2.1.3 Issues regarding ethnic diversity at work
2.2 Ethnic diversity management
2.2.1
Ethnic diversity management defined
2.2.2
Ethnic diversity management in The Netherlands
2.3 Ethnic diversity as a ‘justice’ versus a ‘business’ case
2.3.1
The justice and the business case defined
2.3.2
Critiques towards the justice case
p. 5
p. 5
p. 5
p. 6
p. 7
p. 8
p. 8
p. 9
p. 10
p. 10
p. 11
2.3.2.1
2.3.2.2
2.3.2.3
Effectiveness
Negative attitudes among non-target group members
Negative attitudes among target group members
p. 11
p. 11
p. 12
2.3.3
Critiques towards the business case
2.3.4
Conclusions so far
2.4 The next level: generic approaches to ethnic diversity management
2.4.1
Company wide approach
2.4.2
Inclusion of individuals
2.5 Interests of a diverse workforce
2.6 Concluding remarks
p. 12
p. 13
p. 14
p. 14
p. 15
p. 17
p. 17
3.
Methodological framework
3.1 Research design
3.2 Sample strategy
3.3 Data collection
3.3.1
Data instruments
3.3.2
The interview sessions
3.4 Data analysis
3.5 Research quality indicators
p. 19
p. 19
p. 19
p. 21
p. 21
p. 21
p. 23
p. 23
4.
Context
4.1 DeliXL: First for Foodservice
4.2 Ethnic diversity within DeliXL
4.3 DeliXL Schiedam versus DeliXL Helmond
p. 25
p. 25
p. 25
p. 25
5.
Results
5.1 Interests in ethnic diversity (management)
5.2 Experiences with ethnic diversity at work
5.2.1
Experiences within the field of communication
5.2.2
Experiences within the field of social norms
p. 27
p. 27
p. 31
p. 31
p. 32
5.2.2.1
5.2.2.2
5.2.2.3
5.2.2.4
Cultural temperament and dealing with critique
Group segregation
Use of native languages
Cultural norms and values and (lack of) mutual respect
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
p. 32
p. 33
p. 34
p. 35
III
5.2.2.5
5.2.2.6
Jokes about cultural backgrounds
Prejudices, discrimination and preferential treatments
5.2.3
Experiences within the field of work norms
5.3 Interrelations between the interests and issues experienced
5.4 Individual management preferences
5.4.1
Proposed interventions
5.4.1.1
5.4.1.2
5.4.1.3
5.4.1.4
5.4.1.5
5.4.1.6
5.4.1.7
6.
Training programs
Recruitment and selection
Performance appraisal
Identity support
Activities outside working hours
Investigating and processing complainants
Responding to ethnic minority client groups
p. 36
p. 37
p. 39
p. 40
p. 41
p. 41
p. 42
p. 43
p. 44
p. 44
p. 45
p. 46
p. 46
5.4.2
Preferences for target group versus generic management approaches
5.5 Possibilities for an all-inclusive policy
p. 47
p. 49
Conclusions and discussion
6.1 Ethnic diversity within DeliXL
6.1.1
Résumé
6.1.2
Answer to the central research question
6.1.3
Additional conclusions regarding stakeholder perspectives
6.2 Theoretical implications of the findings
6.3 Practical implications and recommendations for management purposes
6.4 Limitations of the research
p. 52
p. 52
p. 52
p. 55
p. 55
p. 57
p. 59
p. 61
References
p. 63
Appendix A: Information leaflet (in Dutch)
Appendix B: Interview guide round 1 (in Dutch)
Appendix C: Interview guide round 2 (in Dutch)
Appendix D: Coding scheme (in Dutch)
p. 66
p. 67
p. 70
p. 77
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
IV
1. Introduction
After the Second World War, The Netherlands experienced large immigration waves from various parts of the
world. Within a relatively short period of time, The Netherlands has turned into a multi-ethnic society.
Nowadays, almost 21 percent of the Dutch population has an immigrant background (i.e. people who are born
outside of the country or of whom at least one of the parents is born abroad) (CBS, 2012a; CBS, 2012b). As a
result of the influx of migrant workers, organizations face increased ethnic diversity in their workforces
(Bleijenbergh, Peters, & Poutsma, 2010). However, what has become clear during the last few years is that
ethnic minorities hold a relatively unfavorable socio-economic position in the labour market compared to the
native Dutch. This received much attention in public and political debate. Central in these discussions are the
two to three times higher unemployment rates among ethnic minority members and their overrepresentation
in low level jobs (Huijnk, 2012; Schaafsma, 2006). As this problem is not only inherent to Dutch multicultural
society, this issue has not remained unnoticed for scholars and policy makers all over the world. One of the
central questions these people ask is how organizations could and should deal with the increased
diversification of labour and how ethnic minorities’ position in the labour market could be improved.
1.1
Rationale of this study
Over the last decade, a wide range of ethnic diversity management approaches has been introduced,
both by governments and, to a lesser extent, employers (Schaafsma, 2006). However, it is important to
understand that these approaches have been varied extensively over the years. This is, among others, the
result of the different ways the concept of ethnic diversity was interpreted in several periods of time. In this
respect, scholars usually distinguish between the ‘justice case’ and the ‘business case’ for diversity in order to
categorize the different approaches proposed in the literature (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000).
The justice case has its roots in the United States, where, with the pass of the Civil Rights Acts, discrimination
has become officially forbidden in 1964. From that moment onwards much of the effort has been invested in
securing equality in the workspace, mainly through affirmative action and equal opportunity programs
intended to support white women, African-Americans, Latinos and Asians in the merely ‘white male’ labour
market (Maxwell, 2003). The central idea behind the justice case approach is that people have unequal access
to job-related resources. The justice case aims therefore for social justice by combatting these forms of
inequality (Bobocel, Son Hing, Davey, Stanley, & Zanna, 1998). Nevertheless, the drive for equality at work got
a real boost only very recently (Maxwell, 2003). In 1987 the Hudson Institute published the influential report
‘Workforce 2000’. This report made American companies aware of large demographic changes: by the year
2000, the labour market would no longer be dominated by white males, the majority of workers would rather
be African-Americans, Latinos, women and people belonging to other minority groups. American companies
started to recognize that in order to ensure corporate survival they had to rely more on people from these
minority groups (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000). Additionally, from the 1990’s onwards, organizations became more
and more conscious of the fact that if insufficient attention is paid to ethnic diversity management, the
organization’s performance or image will be at risk. This argument was largely based on the fear that
monocultural organizations could no longer meet the demands of an increasingly global and culturally diverse
market. Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) argue that from this moment on ethnic diversity management was turned
into a ‘business case’. While the business case also focuses on the benefits of ensuring fairness, economic
arguments prevail within this approach (Noon, 2007).
Discussions about ethnic diversity management turned more critical during the last decade. Scholars have put
much effort in evaluating both justice and business case initiatives in diversity management. The majority of
studies have shown that many diversity interventions – although built upon well-intended arguments –
appeared not to be as beneficial as stated, as they usually failed to deliver its promise of greater workforce
equality and better organizational performance (Bleijenbergh, Peters, & Poutsma, 2010; Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000;
Noon, 2007; Thomas, 1990). Throughout history, the literature on ethnic diversity management has proposed
several interventions of whom it was thought that they would lead to greater effectiveness. As it could be
argued that the justice approach forms the basis for the success of the business approach (i.e. workspace
inequalities do not form a good basis for organizational success), most of these interventions elaborate on the
moral justice case rationale of creating greater workspace equality, or as Holvino and Kamp (2009) state:
“finding new ways of ensuring social justice in organizations” (p. 400/401). As the target group approach,
where the justice case is traditionally linked to, has proved not to work out effectively in practice, new
interventions tried to find out whether the justice case was served by a generic approach. Examples of generic
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
1
approaches are a company wide approach, such as multiculturalism and colorblindness, and approaches that
focus on the inclusion of individuals. Nevertheless, also generic approaches are generally found to be
inadequate in reducing workplace inequality (cf. Apfelbaum, Norton, & Sommers, in press; Lorbiecki & Jack,
2000; Plaut, Thomas and Goren, 2009). It could be seen as a task for future research to further develop the
justice case into diversity management practices that benefit individuals and herewith also organizations as a
whole (i.e. the justice case as a prerequisite for a successful business case).
1.2
Problem statement
What research has shown so far is that many ethnic diversity management interventions leave in fact a
feeling of frustration. Already in 1990, Thomas has argued that organizations “need to create workplaces that
tap the full potential of every employee” (p. 107). However, this demands a critical turn in ethnic diversity
management practices. The literature so far did not manage to structurally compare several types of
approaches in ethnic diversity management. This makes it difficult to address the question why ethnic diversity
management usually tends to end up in feelings of frustration and the maintenance of inequality issues, which
in turn makes it more difficult to (further) develop an effective ethnic diversity management intervention. A
structural comparison between target group and generic approaches reveals certain interesting patterns. First
of all, what these approaches share is the fact that they are all managerial constructs. Managers tend to work
from policy to practice (i.e. top down), not the other way around (i.e. bottom up). In doing so, managers in fact
impose their policy categories or concepts on their workforce. This management strategy tends to ignore
contradictions in perspectives between managers and employees. Moreover, a manager might define social
justice in a different way than its workforce; justice tends to be a rather normative concept. It could therefore
be concluded that the current logic in diversity management practices is upside down.
In line with the former, it could be argued that ethnic diversity management more or less demands an
approach that focuses on the workforce itself rather than an approach based on management strategies and
policy concepts. To date, research largely underexplored whether the latter is the case and which interests and
preferences a diverse workforce has regarding ethnic diversity management. Also Zanoni et al. (2010) stress
the importance to gain more insight into how ethnic diversity is made sense of and experienced by a diverse
workforce itself. Moreover, as existing research tends to overlook the fact that different organizational
stakeholders may have different perspectives, it is important that future research also takes this issue into
consideration. It could be supposed that the success of a management intervention depends on what
individuals prefer themselves, not on how they are seen by their management. This is among others suggested
in Zanoni and Janssens (2005), who argue that the success of an intervention is contingent upon the extent to
which employees can identify with it. Individuals form their own beliefs about the value of ethnic diversity
management and the organization’s stance regarding ethnic diversity management. In doing so, individuals
thus play a crucial role in the process of moving towards organizational change. This is also well illustrated by
Stevens, Plaut and Sanchez-Burks (2008), who argue that “the value of diversity [management] … [cannot] be
mandated from upper management” (p. 128). These authors therefore plea for a bottom up approach in ethnic
diversity management.
1.3
Aim and relevance of the research
The aim of the current research is to give more insight into ethnic diversity management practices from a
bottom up perspective in order to further develop the justice case, more specific: from the interests and
experiences of a diverse workforce to the preferences of different organizational stakeholders for management
approaches. As discussed in section 1.2, research largely underexplored these issues. Also new is the approach
regarding the theoretic framework on which this research is built: the structural comparison between target
group and generic approaches in ethnic diversity management. Finally, as relatively little research is available
about ethnic diversity management practices in Europe in general and The Netherlands in specific, researching
experiences within a Dutch organization is particularly interesting.
Apart from the scientific relevance, the societal relevance of this research deserves mentioning here. According
to ‘t Hart, Boeije and Hox (2005), the societal relevance of a research could be defined as the extent to which
the research is relevant or useful for other people than the people involved in the research, or, in other words,
the extent to which the research could help to solve societal issues. The current research is in particular of
societal relevance for top management, diversity managers, employees and policy makers dealing with ethnic
diversity. First of all, this research could help to clarify whether organizational practices play a role in ethnic
minorities’ disadvantaged socio-economic position compared to Dutch natives. While their position has been
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
2
improved during the last few decades, the most recent Annual Report on Integration (Huijnk, 2012) still
presents some alarming facts. It is therefore important to pay more attention to the ‘fit’ of ethnic diversity
management practices with the preferences of the workforce, as organizations can play a key role in the
advancement of ethnic minorities’ socio-economic position. Second, several societal and economic
developments have made that organizations become more dependent on a well functioning diversity policy. As
a result of the aging population and the increased diversification of the labour force, organizations can simply
not afford to miss out. Both developments more or less demand from organizations to pay more attention to
ethnic diversity (Bleijenbergh, Peters, & Poutsma, 2010; Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000). After all, ethnic minority
workers play an important role in guaranteeing the future existence of the organization. Moreover, in these
times of economic crisis, it becomes more and more important for organizations to perform well. By giving
more insight into the experiences and preferences of a diverse workforce regarding ethnic diversity
(management), organizations will be able to implement a so-called ‘fine tuned’ and therefore more effective
diversity management strategy. By recognizing the interests, issues and preferences of a diverse workforce,
ethnic diversity management practices may have a positive effect on employees’ well-being. According to the
business case approach regarding ethnic diversity, this will lead to better organizational performance
(Bleijenbergh, Peters, & Poutsma, 2010; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004).
Finally, it should be mentioned that the current research is performed within the Dutch organization of DeliXL,
a supplier for the foodservice market. DeliXL provided an interesting context to perform this research. DeliXL
operates throughout the whole country and mainly serves the hotel and catering industry and the care sector.
The organization employs more than 2000 people and offers relatively many low and medium level jobs, in
particular in their warehouse and transport departments. In April 2012, approximately 12 percent of their
workforce had an ethnic minority background. However, until date DeliXL has not taken initiatives within the
field of ethnic diversity management, apart from the past legal obligations that were prescribed by the Act for
the Promotion of Equal Labour Opportunities for Migrants (Wet Bevordering Evenredige Arbeidsdeelname
Allochtonen) and the Act on the Promotion of Labour Market Participation of Minorities (Wet Samen). The
higher management of DeliXL did not see any reasons to interfere within this field, but actually did not
research whether the workforce itself sees a need for ethnic diversity management interventions. Taking these
facts into account, this research also has an important relevance for the organization and its employees, as,
depending on the results, DeliXL will decide if and if yes how it will design an ethnic diversity policy.
1.4
Research question
Based on the previous, the following research question is formulated:
How is ethnic diversity experienced by the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity in DeliXL, and what are
the diversity management consequences in terms of target group and generic policies according to the
various stakeholders involved?
Note that by various stakeholders is meant: location managers, chiefs warehouse, team managers, ethnic
majority team coordinators, ethnic minority team coordinators, ethnic majority warehouse workers, and ethnic
minority warehouse workers.
In order to answer this research question, the following sub-questions need to be answered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1
Do the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity have an interest in ethnic diversity management and if
yes, what are they?
What are the issues the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity experience regarding ethnic diversity
within the fields of communication, social norms, and work norms?
How are the issues of the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity related to their interests?
Which management interventions do the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity propose themselves in
order to let their interests become recognized and their issues become solved?
How do the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity evaluate a target group approach to diversity and a
generic approach to diversity in the light of the management interventions they propose?
1
In the context of this research, ‘interests’ (in Dutch: ‘belangen’) should be interpreted as the regard for benefit or
advantage. In other words, this research aims to study what participants want and/or expect to win from ethnic diversity
(management) in the workspace
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
3
6.
How are the interests, issues, and proposed management interventions of the various stakeholders of
ethnic diversity interrelated?
a) Do the various stakeholders involved think that their preferences and expectations could be joined
in an inclusive policy?
b) What similarities and contradictions are referred to?
c)
What possibilities and impossibilities are referred to?
d) In the eyes of the various stakeholders involved, what kind of approach would be most suitable as
a platform for a joint diversity policy: a target group approach or a generic approach?
e) How does this relate to existing diversity management approaches in the literature?
1.5
Structure of the report
This report is divided into six chapters. The next chapter presents the theoretic framework that is needed
to gain more insight into the Dutch context and the topics that are of particular relevance to this study. Chapter
3 focuses on the methodology of this study. It discusses the research design, sample strategy, data collection,
data analysis and the research quality indicators. Subsequently, more detailed information about DeliXL is
presented in Chapter 4. Next, the results of this research are presented in Chapter 5. Finally, in Chapter 6 the
general conclusions are presented and discussed in relation the to the theoretic framework. Moreover, this
chapter discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the results, the limitations of this study, and
suggests directions for future research.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
4
2. Theoretic background
This chapter presents the background information and scientific concepts that are relevant for this research.
Holding the central research question in mind, this theoretic background helps to understand what has guided
this research. First of all, in section 2.1, an introduction about ethnic diversity in The Netherlands is given. In
section 2.2, the concept of ethnic diversity management is defined, followed by a historic overview of ethnic
diversity management in The Netherlands. Section 2.3 elaborates on the justice and the business case for
diversity and discusses the critiques towards both approaches. Subsequently, the pros and cons of two
alternative and more recent approaches in ethnic diversity management are discussed in section 2.4. Section
2.5 focuses on the interests of a diverse workforce regarding ethnic diversity and ethnic diversity management.
The final part of this chapter brings all the lines of thought together and draws the link to the current research.
2.1 Ethnic diversity in The Netherlands
In order go gain a more in-depth understanding of the context in which this study took place, section 2.1.1
presents a short overview of the Dutch history of migration, recent data on the compilation of today’s Dutch
population, and the socio-economic position of ethnic minorities in The Netherlands. Section 2.1.2 gives an
overview of public and political discourses regarding immigrants and integration. In what follows, issues
regarding ethnic diversity at work are discussed (section 2.1.3.).
2.1.1 Facts and numbers
While The Netherlands has always been a country of migration, the migration rates got a real boost after
the Second World War (Schaafsma, 2006; Schnabel, 2008; Van der Vliet, Ooijevaar, & Boerdam, 2010). The first
group of migrants arrived between 1945 and the early 1970’s, and consisted of people from the former Dutch
2
3
colonies Indonesia, Surinam and the Dutch Antilles . During the time of economic recovery after the Second
World War, a labour shortage arose. This resulted in a second migration wave: so-called ‘guest workers’ were
recruited from Mediterranean countries like Spain, Greece, Turkey and Morocco. While the Dutch government
expected these guest workers to return to their countries of origin when they were no longer needed in The
Netherlands, a majority of them decided to settle in The Netherlands permanently. From the 1990’s onwards,
The Netherlands started to experience a third migration flow stemming from an influx of refugees and asylum
seekers. This group is too diverse to consider them as a homogenous group. Among others, it includes people
from the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Somalia (CBS, 2012a).
Nowadays, almost 3.5 million people living in The Netherlands have an ethnic minority background, which is
20.8 percent of the Dutch population (CBS, 2012a). In this respect, it is important to mention the Dutch Central
Bureau for Statistics’ (CBS) definition of ‘allochtoon’ or ‘ethnic minority person’, as there exists a lot of
obscurity about what constitutes an ethnic minority. According to the CBS (2012b), an ‘allochtoon’ or ethnic
minority person is defined as: any person, residing in The Netherlands, who is born abroad or of whom at least
one parent is born abroad. The CBS further distinguishes between Western and Non-Western ethnic minorities,
constituting respectively 1.5 million or 9.2 percent and 1.9 million or 11.7 percent of the Dutch population
(CBS, 2012a). Western ethnic minorities include people descending from Europe (Turkey excluded), North
America, and Oceania, or Indonesia or Japan. Non-Western ethnic minorities, on the other hand, are people
descending from Africa, Latin America, and Asia (Indonesia and Japan excluded) or Turkey. The distinction
between Western and Non-Western ethnic minorities is largely based on arguments that relate to the socialeconomical and social-cultural positions of the people involved. It are in particular the non-Western ethnic
minority groups who are topic of public and political debate, as it is thought that these groups deviate more
from the Dutch population (culturally seen) than Western ethnic minority groups. More specific, the groups
that historically seen gained the most attention are the Turks (388.967), the Moroccans (355.883), the
Surinamese (344.734), and the Antilleans (141.345); the four largest ethnic minority groups that reside in The
Netherlands.
The distinction between Western and Non-Western ethnic minorities is highly relevant for this study, as
especially Non-Western ethnic minorities are found to have a disadvantaged position in the Dutch labour
2
Note that this group is very diverse. It includes descendants from former slave and contract workers (Creoles), Hindustanis
originating from India, and Indonesians (Schaafsma, 2006).
3
The Dutch Antilles is a group of six islands located in the Caribbean Sea: Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Saint Martin, Saint
Eustache, and Saba.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
5
market compared to ethnic majority and Western ethnic minority groups. Although their position improved,
the most recent Annual Report on Integration (Huijnk, 2012) has shown that non-Western ethnic minorities,
irrespective of educational level, on average hold two to three times higher unemployment rates than ethnic
majority members. Also the long-term unemployment rate is relatively high among these groups, especially
among older non-Western ethnic minorities. Furthermore, it is found that non-Western ethnic minorities are
more often employed at elementary or low level jobs than the native Dutch. Additionally, their position is often
less secure, as non-Western ethnic minorities more often have an untenured position or flexible employment
contract, and also their dismissal rates are two times higher than for the native Dutch. Grosso modo, the
disadvantaged position can be explained by factors at the level of the ethnic groups themselves (e.g. education
and language competence, relatively one-sided work experience, and relatively small social networks), the
labour market (e.g. economic situation of the country and structure of the labour market), and so-called
institutional factors (e.g. mechanisms of in- and exclusion: consciously or unconsciously and direct or indirect
discrimination by employers) (Huijnk, 2012; Schaafsma, 2008). Also Siebers (2009a) argues that non-Western
minorities have lower access to jobs, authority, wages and career advancements. Moreover, it has been found
that the same group experiences that they often have to work twice as hard as their majority colleagues to
become recognized as a good colleague (Siebers, 2009b). As ethnic majority workers generally set the standard
of what is ‘normal’ or ‘noticeable’ in an organization, deviating from these norms in terms of appearance or
behavior may trigger the risk of discrimination or categorization processes.
2.1.2 Public and political discourses regarding ethnic minorities and integration
Immigrants’ position in the Dutch labour market but also ethnic minorities’ experiences at work should
be seen within the broader context of Dutch public and political discourses regarding ethnic minorities and
integration. After all, the things that happen in the outside world (e.g. personal experiences as well as events
brought under the attention by the media) are unavoidably brought to organizations and the other way
around. As a result, dominant discourses can have a serious impact on organizational practices and the
experiences people have at work. Siebers (2009b) has for example shown that events occurring in media and
politics fuel categorization events among colleagues. This, in turn, can have a strong negative impact on
employee relations. It therefore makes sense to understand the broader context of dominant discourses.
Until the late 1990’s, the Dutch government supported a multiculturalist approach towards ethnic minorities
and integration (Entzinger, 2006). The emphasis was on ethnic minorities’ cultural identities by supporting
cultural and linguistic maintenance. However, an important turning point took place after the start of the new
millennium. In 2000, one of the leading Dutch newspapers published a provocative and influential article
written by the Dutch publicist and member of the Labour Party Paul Scheffer. In his article ‘The multicultural
drama’, Scheffer (2000) argued that the Dutch multicultural society has failed. The Dutch government was
accused of having been too tolerant towards immigrants in the past, which had led to the emergence of a socalled ethnic underclass. In retrospect, Entzinger (2006) considers this article as the beginning of the dramatic
turnaround. From that moment onwards, the presence of immigrants in The Netherlands became more and
more linked to issues such as criminality, fraud, ghettoization, and social decay (Siebers, 2009b). Several
(inter)national incidents, such as the attacks on the New York twin towers (2001), the assassination of Dutch
film-maker Theo van Gogh by a radicalized Muslim (2004), and the terrorist attacks in Madrid (2004) and
London (2005), even toughened Dutch public and political discourse and fuelled the idea that existing policies
did not work because of a lack of control. This eventually led to a strongly revised governmental policy towards
immigrants and integration, which is much more assimilationist in nature. As a matter of fact, ethnic minorities
are now expected to adapt more closely to Dutch norms and values than ever before (Entzinger, 2006;
Schnabel, 2008; Vasta, 2007).
Nowadays, people seem no longer scared to take explicit positions and to openly express their attitudes
towards ethnic minorities and their presumed level of integration. This new discourse of so-called ‘New
Realism’ has become more and more dominant and increasingly places emphasis on the downsides of the
multicultural society (Van Nieuwkerk, 2004). However, Schnabel (2008) argues that Dutch majority members’
attitudes towards ethnic minorities are largely based on media imagery and not so much on actual contact
between the two groups. Ethnic minorities are generally seen as ‘people of concern’ (Entzinger, 2006). In this
respect, minority cultures are usually seen as the main obstacles for integration (Van Nieuwkerk, 2004). The
point is that many Dutch majority members believe that the average ethnic minority invests too little effort in
their integration process. While this belief focuses on ethnic minorities in general, especially Muslims are
thought to undermine liberal values such as individualism, secularism, and freedom (Entzinger, 2006;
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
6
Fleishman, 2004). Additionally, Verkuyten (2004) has shown that some groups of Dutch majority members tend
to see the multicultural society as a threat to the country’s stability, unity and strength, as well as to the Dutch
culture and identity. The same author reports about feelings of insecurity, unsafety and anxiety among Dutch
majority members. Geert Wilders, a popular Dutch right-wing politician, responds to these and other
widespread ideas in the program of his political party the ‘Party for Freedom’ (Van de Laar, 2011). The Party for
Freedom grew fast since its foundation in 2005; in the 2010 elections, it even became the third largest party in
the Dutch parliament. The Scientific Council for Government Policy concludes that the general tendency in
governmental policy as well as in opinions among Dutch majority members is that ethnic minorities should
choose in favour of The Netherlands. This in fact means that other loyalties should be surrendered. Integration
has more or less become a zero-sum game (WRR, 2007). In Fleishman (2004) it is argued that it is exactly this
tendency that makes it so difficult for ethnic minorities to accommodate and/or to become accepted by the
Dutch. It could be argued that in these times of fear and increased interest in national identity, ethnic
minorities are generally seen as the ‘outsiders’ of Dutch society.
2.1.3 Issues regarding ethnic diversity at work
As also organizations become increasingly ethnically diverse, people more and more have to interact
with ethnic out-group members; contacts they may perhaps avoid in their private lives. The workplace may
provide a nice context where people may get to know each other and, as a result, develop more positive
interrelations. However, fuelled by negative public and political discourses, Schaafsma (2008) argues that this
rather ‘forced’ contact may also result in ethnic tensions and issues. This, in turn, may do no good to the
already disadvantaged position of non-Western ethnic minorities in the Dutch labour market.
Dutch scientific literature on ethnic diversity in the workspace gives an indication about the kind of interethnic
issues people experience at work. Research by Schaafsma (2008) among ethnic majority and ethnic minority
workers has shown three broad groups of most occurring issues: 1) communication issues because of language
barriers or cultural differences in social norms (such as verbal and non-verbal behaviour, jokes and selfdisclosure), 2) tensions because of ethnic minority workers speaking in their native language, prejudices, ethnic
clique formation, ethnic jokes and discriminatory remarks, and 3) preferential treatment of ethnic minority or
majority workers by managers. The same author points at issues related to cultural habits interfering with the
work process (e.g. praying during working hours) and cultural differences in work norms (e.g. work pace, work
method and work mentality). However, these two kinds of issues were found to occur less often and as a result
are thought to play a smaller role in interethnic contact at work. Consistent with Schaafsma’s (2008) findings,
also Siebers (2009b) reports about communication issues (i.e. language deficiencies, ways of communicating),
differences in work norms between ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers (e.g. attitudes, career
conceptions), and differences related to cultural habits (e.g. religious practices, clothing). It should be noted in
this respect that it generally are not the differences between ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers as
such that lead to interethnic issues, but rather the importance that is laid on these differences. Schaafsma
(2008) suggest that differences may become an issue as soon as they affect people’s sense of achievement (i.e.
work goals are threatened), sense of belonging (i.e. unity of the work group), and/or sense of equality (i.e.
unequal norms and treatment). From Siebers’ (2009b) research it could be concluded that it are especially the
ethnic minority workers who are the ‘victims’ of interethnic workplace issues. Interethnic differences seem to
function as ‘markers’ of difference and/or deficiency in certain contexts, which may undermine the acceptance
by majority colleagues. However, this does not mean that ethnic majority workers do not experience
uncertainties or negative consequences of interethnic issues at work. For example, when ethnic minority
workers speak in their native language, Dutch majority workers may feel that their colleagues exclude them or
gossip about them. Moreover, Dutch majority workers may feel reluctant to interact with ethnic minority
workers, as they may fear that they violate their cultural norms or become accused of discrimination
(Schaafsma, 2008; De Vries, 1995).
Taken all of the former into account, it could be concluded that organizations have an interest in positive
interethnic relations, both among workers as well as among workers and the management. After all,
interethnic tensions could be expected to do no good to organizational practices and organizational
performance. In this respect, many organizations decide to manage ethnic diversity. This is discussed more in
detail in the next sections.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
7
2.2 Ethnic diversity management
Ethnic diversity management could be brought under the heading of Human Resource Management.
Human Resource Management compromises all kinds of mechanisms and structures that organizations
implement for managing their workforce, or stated differently: for selecting, training and developing
employees (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Human Resource Management could be seen as a combination of
different kinds of practices, all meant for enlarging the effectiveness of the organization and herewith also
organizational performance. As societies become more ethnically diverse, organizations become more
ethnically diverse as well. Different people, in turn, bring different resources and perspectives to the
workplace, and each of these people have their own distinctive needs, preferences, expectations and lifestyles.
Organizations are thus faced with the challenge to design human resource systems that account for these
differences. This is where ethnic diversity management comes in.
2.2.1 Ethnic diversity management defined
Much of the literature on ethnic diversity management fails to include a proper definition of ethnic
diversity management. If defined at all, definitions vary extensively. Kaler (as cited in Maxwell, 2003, p. 183)
therefore concludes that ethnic diversity management “lacks any definitive formulation”. For example,
Ivancevich and Gilbert (as cited in Maxwell, 2003, p. 183) define ethnic diversity management as: “The
systematic and planned commitment by organizations to recruit, retain, reward and promote a heterogeneous
mix of employees”. According to Chavez and Weisinger (2008), ethnic diversity management could be defined
as “a means to better use talent and to increase creativity within organizations, a method to attract and retain
diverse employees … and as an avenue for developing effective interactions with people from different
cultures” (p. 331/332). Bartz et al. (as cited in Maxwell, 2003, p. 183) propose the following definition:
“Understanding that there are differences among employees and that these differences, if properly managed,
are an asset to work being done more efficiently and effectively”. While the first definition tends to focus on
moral aspects (i.e. assuring a diverse and equal workforce), the second and the third definition stress economic
arguments (i.e. gaining profit or organizational success). This idea corresponds with the distinction the
4
literature usually makes between a justice case for diversity and a business case for diversity . By stating that
ethnic differences, if managed properly, may result in an asset for the organization, the third definition
implicitly makes clear that justice case arguments are needed for an effective business case for diversity.
However, strikingly, none of these definitions mention terms like ‘culture’ or ‘ethnicity’, which may imply that
the definitions cover other kinds of diversity management, such as gender diversity. Therefore, for the purpose
of this research the more comprehensive definition of Shadid (2007) will be adopted. This author stresses
justice as well as business case arguments and specifically focuses on ethnic diversity. According to Shadid
(2007), ethnic diversity management is the total range of measures that the management of an organization
systemically and structurally implements, on the one hand to identify the obstacles ethnic minority groups
experience within the organization and to minimize its impacts, on the other hand to approach cultural
diversity adequately. This way, ethnic diversity management could be considered as a win-win instrument for
all stakeholders (Cain, 2007).
It should be added that ethnic diversity management should be embedded within the organizational structure
in order to be effective and efficient. This means that ethnic diversity management and all its associated
responsibilities, processes and communications demand for a so-called ‘external fit’ or ‘alignment‘ with the
HRM practices, organizational strategy, and with the different organizational stakeholders and the consuming
market (Cummings & Worley, 2009; Janssens & Steyaert, 2001). Moreover, in order to reach the aims of ethnic
diversity management (i.e. workforce equality and organizational success), solid diversity management
practices are needed. Diversity management practices could be defined as “any formalized organizational
system, process, or practice developed and implemented for the purpose of effective diversity management
(Yang & Konrad, 2011, p. 7). Pitts (2006) developed a comprehensive model in order to specify the components
diversity management practices should contain. The first component concerns recruitment and outreach. If an
organization wants to manage cultural diversity, the organization should take into account all possible groups
of employees in their recruitment, selection and development procedures. Secondly, diversity management
practices should contain a component that focuses on cultural awareness building. More specific, organizations
should value cultural differences and the diverse perspectives of their personnel. Finally, Pitts (2006) argues
that diversity management practices should involve pragmatic management policies that seek to enhance
employee job satisfaction and retention. In particular, these kinds of policies provide a work environment in
4
Note that this distinction is further explained in section 2.3.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
8
which employees’ needs are valued and supported, which in turn helps employees to become integrated in or
feel part of the organization.
Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly (2006) distinguish between three types of diversity management practices
organizations can adopt in order to recognize and implement the components mentioned: 1) practices focusing
on establishing responsibility for diversity, 2) practices focusing on reducing stereotypes and bias, and 3)
practices that address social isolation among so-called disadvantaged groups. Within the scope of the first type
of practices, organizations can implement affirmative action plans, appoint specific staff members that are
responsible for diversity within the organization, and compose diversity committees that are charged with
overseeing diversity initiatives, brainstorming to identify improvements or solutions, and the monitoring of the
process. Regarding the second type of diversity management practices, organizations could implement
diversity trainings and regular performance evaluations to make people aware of their own biases. Finally,
regarding the third type of diversity management practices, organizations could try to combat social isolation
by implementing networking and mentoring programs, which generally focus on sharing information and
career advice. What all of these interventions have in common is that they somehow focus on the hiring or
recruitment of disadvantaged groups, the advancement of disadvantaged groups, and the training and
education of workers in general. Nevertheless, the actual effects of diversity management practices are not
very clear; researchers tend to contradict each other in this respect. Chavez and Weisinger (2008) argue that in
many cases organizational diversity practices fail or bring about less than the desired results. Some of the
problems they report about include backlash, lack of needs assessment, inadequate evaluation, and a lack of
contextual relevance. Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly (2006) reach a similar conclusion. More specific, these authors
state that practices that target bias through feedback or training and practices that address social isolation
through networking and mentoring are the least effective; they show virtually no effects. In their opinion, the
best practices are those that cause people from different parts of the organization to take responsibility for
cultural diversity. These kinds of practices are not only found to increase the amount of diversity within higher
management positions, but also tend to work out as a catalyst for effective change in other diversity
management practices. Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly (2006) therefore opt for a combination of the three types of
diversity management practices (i.e. establishing responsibility for diversity, reducing stereotypes and bias, and
addressing social isolation among disadvantaged groups) in order to become successful in managing cultural
diversity.
2.2.2 Ethnic diversity management in The Netherlands
Ethnic diversity management is a topic that raised the awareness of the Dutch government
approximately forty years ago. Throughout the years, the Dutch government has taken several initiatives to
increase the labour market participation of ethnic minorities and to prevent labour market discrimination
(Schaafsma, 2006). A summary of the main activities is given below.
By the end of the 1970’s, the Dutch government realized that most of the ethnic minorities residing in The
Netherlands were not going to leave. This eventually resulted in the Ethnic Minorities Policy
(Minderhedennota) in 1983. This policy mainly focused on the well-being of ethnic minorities in the cultural
domain: the maintenance of their heritage cultures. The necessary improvement of their educational levels and
positions in the labour market was largely omitted (Bergmans, 2004; Entzinger, 2006; Penninx, 2006). An
important turning point took place in 1989 when the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) published
a report in which it was concluded that the immigrant unemployment rates rose to an alarming level. This
eventually led to the Minorities Agreement (Minderhedenakkoord) in 1990. The agreement aimed at equal
labour participation for ethnic minorities and Dutch majority members, and a decrease in unemployment rates
among ethnic minorities from 30 to 7 percent. However, as organizations were not forced to pursue an active
ethnic minority policy, these aims have not been met (Bergmans, 2004).
In order to strengthen the Minorities Agreement, the Act for the Promotion of Equal Labour Opportunities for
Migrants (Wet Bevordering Evenredige Arbeidsdeelname Allochtonen, WBEAA) came into effect in 1994
(Bergmans, 2004; Penninx, 2006; Schaafsma, 2006). This law was inspired by the Canadian Employment Equity
Act and required companies to release a yearly report in which they described the ethnic composition of their
workforce and the attempts they had made to strive for a more ethnically balanced workforce. While obliged
by the law, many organizations did not obey their obligations in practice. In 1998, the WBEAA was replaced by
the Act on the Promotion of Labour Market Participation of Minorities (Wet Stimulering Arbeidsdeelname
Minderheden; Wet SAMEN) (Bergmans, 2004; Schaafsma, 2006). The contents and goals of both laws were
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
9
basically the same, however, in order to stimulate organizations to obey the law, the reporting procedures
were simplified. Additionally, special advisors on ethnic minority issues (Bedrijfsadviseurs Minderheden) were
appointed to job centers in order to support employees in hiring ethnic minorities. Despite of these changes,
still a lot of resistance existed among employees. Eventually, the law became abolished in 2004. In the same
year, the Dutch government established the National Centre for Diversity Management (Landelijk Centrum voor
Diversiteitsmanagement). Its aim was to make employers more aware about the benefits and necessity of a
diverse workforce and to help organizations develop the necessary insights, skills and instruments to manage
ethnic diversity at work (Stichting Opportunity in Bedrijf, n.d.). After a period of six years, the Centre has been
closed. Ethnic diversity management is now mainly seen as a task of organizations themselves. Nevertheless,
the Dutch government does subsidize institutions that among others provide information and advice to other
organizations about the recruitment, selection and development of ethnic minority workers (Bergmans, 2004).
It could be concluded that ethnic diversity management in The Netherlands, following the trend in the United
States, came into the picture because it was seen as a necessity. Although The Netherlands is less ethnically
diverse than the United States and the latter has a totally different history in terms of racism and
discrimination, also The Netherlands experienced a growth in immigration rates, and as a result, the social,
cultural and economic problems that are inherent to a multi-ethnic society. Nevertheless, ethnic diversity
management in The Netherlands never had such a coercive character as it has in the United States. As a result,
ethnic diversity management is still less widely accepted and in a relatively developing phase compared to the
United States (Derveld, 1995; Hornikx & Joskin, 2002). As discussed in section 2.1.1, the labour market position
of ethnic minorities lags still behind when compared to the native Dutch. It is therefore important to raise the
awareness – both within organizations and the Dutch government – to pay attention to the socio-economic
position of ethnic minorities and to implement measures to improve this position. However, Cain (2007) argues
that active diversity management does not so much follow socio-economic developments in The Netherlands;
it appears rather to be a case of political correctness. In other words, the future of ethnic diversity
management in The Netherlands is largely dependent on the socio-political context: public and political
discourses influence organizational discourses and herewith also the organization’s willingness to involve in
ethnic diversity management.
2.3
Ethnic diversity as a ‘justice’ versus a ‘business’ case
The discussion on ethnic diversity management already made clear that diversity management generally
serves two purposes: 1) ensuring equality in the workspace, and 2) organizational performance. In this respect,
scholars usually distinguish between the ‘justice’ case for diversity and the ‘business’ case for diversity. This is
explained more in detail in section 2.3.1. Moreover, scholars have put much effort in evaluating both justice
and business case initiatives in diversity management. This is discussed in section 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.
2.3.1 The justice and the business case defined
The central idea behind the justice case approach is that people have unequal access to job-related
resources, for example jobs, pay rise, promotions, development opportunities, and fair assessment procedures.
Important to note, in this respect, is that this inequality is thought to be the result of assessing people on the
basis of inappropriate criteria, like class, ethnic background, religious affiliation, gender or age. Within the
justice case, diversity management aims for social justice by combatting these forms of inequality. More
specific, it aims to redress existing views, mitigate the effects of past discrimination practices, and to improve
the labour market position of disadvantaged groups. Traditionally, scholars distinguish between two types of
employment justice (Bobocel et al., 1998). The concept of distributive justice is concerned with “people’s
perceptions of fairness of the distribution of resources” (p. 655), or stated differently: the outcomes. The same
authors define procedural justice, on the other hand, as “the fairness of the procedures by which a distributive
allocation norm is implemented” (p. 655). This approach thus supposes fairness or consistency in the process:
no one is particularly favored, so everyone gets a fair chance.
The business case approach focuses on the benefits of ensuring fairness (Noon, 2007). From a moral point of
view, the business case is thought, among others, to promote interaction between ethnic groups, help foster
culture change in the organization, foster attitude adjustment and herewith counter prejudice and
discrimination, and create organizational harmony (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000). Nevertheless, Lorbiecki and Jack
(2000) argue that economic arguments dominate within the business case approach. Bleijenbergh, Peters and
Poutsma (2010) argue in this respect that diversity is believed to foster the attainment of the organization’s
strategic goals. They explain: “diversity is believed to engender competitive advantage by establishing a better
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
10
corporate image, improving group and organizational performance and attracting and retaining human capital”
(p. 414). Diverse workforces are more likely to produce more creative and innovative ideas and solutions to
problems. The need to reconcile conflicting viewpoints makes heterogeneous workgroups less likely to engage
in groupthink (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Moreover, in Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) it is
emphasized that organizations simply cannot afford to miss out: organizations should anticipate to a labor
market that becomes increasingly culturally diverse. The same holds true for customer markets: diversity is
thought to assist the understanding of a greater number of customer needs.
2.3.2 Critiques towards the justice case
Research on the justice case approach generally focuses on the broad spectrum of affirmative action
initiatives, which could be defined as: “a body of policies and procedures designed to eliminate employment
discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, and to redress the effects of past discrimination (Kravitz
et al., as cited in Bobocel et al., 1998, p. 653). As affirmative action is a broad concept, it is not surprising that
critiques towards the justice case are different for different types of programs.
In brief, affirmative action programs vary in the extent to which target group members receive a different
treatment in comparison with non-target group members. In this respect, Bobocel et al. (1998) differentiate
between three types of programs, varying in their strength or degree of prescriptiveness. At the one end of the
spectrum, Bobocel et al. (1998) posit initiatives that objectively do not involve preferential treatment. Among
others, this involves that it is forbidden to give negative weight to someone’s minority status. These
opportunity enhancement or equal opportunity programs have the aim to remove systematic barriers for all
employees – target group members and non-target group members – although they might be of greater
benefit for minority people because of their specific needs. In the middle of the spectrum are differential
treatment programs, also called ‘tiebreak’ programs. These types of programs give small positive weight to
someone’s minority status in case a target group member and a non-target group member are equally
qualified. Finally, at the end of the spectrum are the strong preferential treatment programs. Within these
programs, group membership is used as a criterion in allocating desired outcomes. In other words: substantial
positive weight is given to someone’s minority status. Hence, preferential treatment programs violate the
traditional principle of meritocracy (i.e. the principle that responsibilities are given to people based on their
abilities or talents), as target group members are preferred above non-target group members even if they are
less qualified. It needs no further explanation that critiques toward the justice case differ according to the
strength or degree of prescriptiveness of affirmative action programs. In this respect, critiques towards the
justice case approach could generally be classified under three headings: 1) effectiveness, 2) negative attitudes
among non-target group members, and 3) negative attitudes among target group members.
2.3.2.1
Effectiveness
While affirmative action initiatives are initially meant to enhance equality at work, the evidence is rather
ambiguous. Thomas and Ely (1996) argue that the staff gets diversified, but the work in fact gets not. Heilman,
Block and Stathatos (1997) found for example that just the information that an applicant was an affirmative
action candidate leads to less positive evaluations about that person. These results build upon the idea that an
affirmative action label may arise stigmatization. Pierce (2003) has shown that majority workers evaluated
blacks who were hired under an affirmative action policy were thought to be incompetent and were therefore
treated differently. When majority members were confronted with these types of racism, they pretended that
we live in a ‘classless’ society and that we are all equal under the law. The author therefore points at ‘racing for
innocence’: majority members still hold whiteness attitudes towards minority employees, but act if or pretend
like racism does not exist in the workplace. Also Thomas (1990) argues that workplace inequalities and
prejudices remain to exist, as affirmative action initiatives often fail to deal with the root causes of
discrimination. Moreover, once the ‘numbers’ (i.e. the amount of minorities within a company) have been
corrected, organizations generally fail to influence the upward mobility of these people. Thomas (1990) argues
that affirmative action programs in fact create a circle of frustration, intervention, dormancy, crisis, and – again
– recruitment that companies repeat over and over again, “without achieving more than the barest particle of
what they were after” (p. 109).
2.3.2.2
Negative attitudes among non-target group members
Research has shown quite clearly that in particular non-target group members tend to object to affirmative
action initiatives (cf. Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Levi & Fried,
2008). For example, Schaafsma (2006) found that Dutch majority workers are not always happy with the way
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
11
minority workers are treated. Minority workers referred to special policies directed at the hiring, promotion or
education of minority members or examples of minorities who were given permission to take extra days or
hours off. Some employees evaluated these policies as unfair or as threatening to majority members (e.g. ‘They
are taking our jobs’). DiTomaso, Parks-Yancy and Post (2011) provide for an explanation. They argue that
majority people strongly adhere to beliefs they term the ‘dominant ideology’ and therefore object to
affirmative action initiatives. Dominant ideology states that the opportunity for economic advancement is
widespread, or stated differently: everyone can make it if you just try hard enough. Failure could therefore be
attributed to a lack of motivation, effort, or appropriate values. In the eyes of people who adhere to such an
ideology, employment inequality is therefore equitable and fair. Nevertheless, several authors present a more
nuanced image. Strong preferential treatment programs are usually perceived far more negatively than
tiebreak and equal opportunity programs (cf. Bobocel et al., 1998; Harrison et al., 2006; Levi & Fried; Kravitz &
Klineberg, 2000). Generally it could be stated that the less majority members experience that the affirmative
action program involved leads to personal benefit, the more people seem to oppose to the program (Aberson,
2003). Bobocel et al. (1998) found in this respect that people who strongly believe in distributive justice (i.e.
merit) are generally more opposed to strong forms of preferential treatment. Strong belief in procedural justice
(i.e. consistency in the process) was in turn found to predict opposition to tiebreak programs. Herewith, these
authors have shown that beliefs in fairness play a major role in non-target group members’ attitudes towards
affirmative action initiatives. Not surprisingly, opposition to equal opportunity programs turned out to be
merely based on prejudice; after all: these types of programs do not have a strong target group approach and
therefore do not violate justice principles.
2.3.2.3
Negative attitudes among target group members
Also minority members have reasons to criticize affirmative action initiatives. Generally, minority group
members want to be hired because of their competences and not because of their membership in a particular
group. Research among historically disadvantaged South Africans has for example shown that workers do not
want that everything they have achieved and worked for is related to a status of being a black affirmative
action employee; they rather want their competences and efforts to be valued and recognized (Op ‘t Hoog,
Siebers, & Linde, 2010). These workers experienced that they have to work twice as hard as other workers to
prove their own ability and qualities. Additionally, the same research has shown that workers place more value
on merit-based justice principles than their self-interest in affirmative action policies. Workers emphasized
their discontent about employment and promotions of unqualified and/or unsuitable people. Placing people in
positions only because of the need to reach target numbers will not only have negative effects on the person
involved, but also on the company and the policy of affirmative action itself (i.e. verification of non-target
group members’ ideas that target group members are unqualified). Another bunch of research focuses on the
relationship between affirmative action status and performance. In Heilman, Simon and Repper (1987) it is for
example shown that people who are aware of their affirmative action status tend to question their own
abilities, resulting in reduced feelings of security and confidence. In this respect, Brown, Charnsangavej,
Keough, Newman and Rentfow (2000) found a negative relationship between preferential selection and
performance. The authors argue that decreases in performance could be explained by a phenomenon called
‘stereotype threat’. Stereotype threat is “the awareness that one’s behavior might be viewed through the lens
of stereotypes” (Schaafsma, 2011). This creates a so-called ‘threat in the air’ and may result in feelings of
uncertainty and stress, and as a result underperformance.
2.3.3 Critiques towards the business case
Noon (2007) argues that the problem of the business case could be explained by the idea that the
concept of ‘business case’ contradicts itself. More specific: the universal principle of equality (the right of fair
and equal treatment in the workspace) is supported by a dependent, economic argument (workspace equality
is good for business). However, Noon (2007) stresses that the economic rationale is not universal since it
depends largely on the circumstances of the organization, such as the competitive strategy being pursued, the
labor market position, the current composition of the workforce, and prejudices among managers. Moreover,
business case arguments are likely to change over time: “in some circumstances the market economy will work
to the favour of a particular group but in other circumstances it will work against that group” (p. 780). Fair
treatment of all individuals can thus not be guaranteed. Noon (2007) concludes that, in some contexts,
business case arguments form a so-called ‘economic-based rationale’ for discrimination and therefore prove to
be dangerous for social justice. He therefore concludes: “the business case alone is not the basis for building
policy on equality” (p. 780).
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
12
Bleijenbergh, Peters and Poutsma (2010) reach a same sort of conclusion by stating that it is rather risky for
organizations to solely emphasize business case arguments. Research has for example not clearly proven
positive effects of increased team diversity for the performance of organizations. Also these authors state that
advantages are largely dependent on contextual factors. To illustrate: the development of subgroups within a
given workforce based on similarity and otherness may hinder the effectiveness of cooperation and
communication. Bleijenbergh, Peters and Poutsma (2010) also point at several practical issues. Business case
arguments are for example often implemented through talent management programs, a system based on the
meritocracy principle. Research has shown that, despite the fact that often use is made of open self-selection
procedures, especially women and minority people do not tend to enroll themselves in these programs.
Moreover, individuals who are not selected by their employer may identify themselves as not talented, which
in turn may negatively affect their motivation and self-esteem. Heres and Benschop (as cited in Bleijenbergh,
Peeters, & Poutsma, 2010) conclude that business case arguments make diversity management selective,
partial and contingent as diversity is often still portrayed as a characteristic of the minorities. They explain: “the
translation of diversity management [i.e. implementing business case arguments] has neither challenged nor
replaced the traditional … discourse of meritocracy and equality … It is rather used as an approach to increase
the acceptance for pre-existing target group policies, by stressing the equality discourse” (p. 416).
Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) argue that within the business case approach it is generally the organization that is
stated as the beneficiary, in particular those managing diversity, and therefore equality issues are undermined.
The management sees diversity as an object to be managed. This creates distance between ‘those who
manage’ and ‘those who are diverse’. The properties of diversity are, in turn, solely located amongst ‘the
managed’. It is also this group that bears the stigmatization of difference. The business case of diversity merely
tends to focus on the total workforce rather than on the specific target groups (i.e. women, minorities). The
authors argue that this diminishes the need to reduce discrimination and prejudice; it makes discriminated
groups rather invisible within the organization. How will organizations counter discrimination towards several
groups if these groups do not qualify for special attention, is the question Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) ask
themselves in this respect. Another problem with the business case is that it still tends to signify differences
from an essentialist perspective by trying to find the ‘roots’ or ‘authentic’ content of one’s identity. This means
that individual differences are not recognized, even if organizations are in fact aimed to do so. Moreover,
Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) argue that discourses on diversity management tend to overlook existing hierarchies
or structures in society (i.e. the ‘nature’ that some groups are socially superior over others, for example men
over women, whites over blacks). To their opinion, diversity management must directly engage instead of
concealing the continuation of systematic inequalities.
2.3.4 Conclusions so far
What became clear from the literature review so far is that it is generally not in the minorities’ interest to
switch from the justice case to the business case for diversity. Managers that adopt business case arguments
generally recognize the value of differences, eventually resulting in a diverse workforce, but do not really
implement these differences in the work process. In other words, differences are not used as useful values, as
something people can learn from. Moreover, cultural diversity is merely seen as a property of the minorities –
“as something that exists ‘in’ the bodies or culture of others” (Ahmed, 2007, p. 235). While some studies
indeed have shown that management practices diminish organizational inequalities (e.g. Kalev, Dobbin & Kelly,
2006), others indicate that ‘old’ inequality issues like discrimination and harassment are reproduced (cf.
Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010). Nevertheless, research has shown that
also the justice case does not succeed in guaranteeing workplace equality. Moreover, for several reasons, both
target group members and non-target group members tend to oppose to justice case initiatives, which
indicates that people in general are not fully satisfied with the way justice case arguments are brought into
practice.
How can cultural diversity be managed in such a way that it benefits all, and is this even possible? These are
important questions for the future. While both the justice and the business case approach are definitely built
upon well-intended arguments, they have proved not to be the most effective ways of managing cultural
diversity in practice. An interesting question in this respect would be whether the two approaches could be
‘combined’ in such a way that it benefits both individuals and the organization as a whole. Maxwell (2003)
argues that combining business case and moral aspects of ethnic diversity management can provide a catalyst
for organizational change. As the justice case approach forms the basis for the success of the business case
approach (i.e. workforce inequalities do not form a good basis for organizational success), the most logical
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
13
choice would be to further develop the justice case approach. Holvino and Kamp (2009) argue that future
ethnic diversity management should go back to the basics, namely: “finding new ways of ensuring social justice
in organizations” (p. 400/401). Interesting questions in this respect would be whether the justice case is served
by an approach focusing on individuals or a company wide approach, or stated differently: would it be served
by de-linking it from the target group approach where it is traditionally linked to? This seems to a key point in
further developing the justice case. To date these issues remained relatively underexposed in scientific
research. Zanoni et al. (2010) state in this respect that studies that actively search for new, emancipating forms
of ethnic diversity management are still lacking. They argue that future research should become more
performative, explicitly dealing with stimulating social change.
2.4
The next level: generic approaches to ethnic diversity management
As discussed in the former section, target group diversity policies appeared not to be very beneficial as
both non-target group members as target group members tend to oppose to these kinds of diversity programs
for various reasons. It also appeared to these kinds of policies are generally not able to reduce inequality
issues. However, two issues remained relatively under-discussed: so-called ‘company wide’ approaches in
ethnic diversity management and ethnic diversity management that focuses on the inclusion of individuals.
Both approaches could be brought under the heading of ‘generic approaches’ in ethnic diversity management.
The sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 give an overview of the scientific knowledge available about both kinds of
approaches. Both approaches will be linked to equality issues, i.e. the justice case rationale.
2.4.1 Company wide approach
In the literature on ethnic diversity management that focuses on the workforce as a whole, generally a
distinction is made between a multiculturalist or valuing differences approach and a so-called colorblind
approach to diversity. The multiculturalist approach, a pluralistic ideology, recognizes and celebrates cultural
differences by valuing and embracing them, and hence emphasizes the benefits of a diverse workforce (Plaut,
Thomas, & Goren, 2009). Stevens, Plaut and Sanchez-Burks (2008) argue that organizations that follow a
multiculturalist approach are particularly interesting for ethnic minorities as their background are recognized
as being different and their group identities are acknowledged and retained. Conversely, the colorblind
approach is intertwined with the American cultural ideas of individualism, equality, meritocracy, assimilation,
and the ‘melting pot’. It focuses on similarities between people, often by realigning a superordinate goal or an
overarching identity. Racial differences are de-emphasized or ignored, aiming at decreasing racial injustice
(Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008). Apfelbaum, Pauker, Sommers and Ambady (2010) explain: “If
perceiving racial difference is a necessary pre-condition to prejudice … then downplaying the relevance of such
distinctions should limit the potential for bias” (p. 1587). Because of this reason, the colorblind approach
stresses individual accomplishments and qualifications over any other factor, such as diversity, and herewith
underlines its preference for unity and cohesion (Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008). Throughout the years,
in particular colorblindness gained more and more prominence within organizations as a central ideology to
promote inclusiveness and tolerance. However, several researchers have shown that this may not be the best
practice.
Apfelbaum, Norton and Sommers (in press) argue: “colorblindness is far from a panacea, sometimes
representing more of an obstacle than an asset to facilitating constructive race-relations and equitable racerelated policies”. Thomas and Ely (1996) for example conclude that “it is unlikely that leaders who manage
diversity under this paradigm will explore how people’s differences generate a potential diversity of effective
ways of working, leading, viewing the market, managing people, and learning” (p. 3). Within the colorblind
approach, workers need to make sure that important differences do not count. However, Thomas and Ely
(1996) argue that this actually undermines the organization’s capacity to learn about and improve its own
strategies, processes, and practices. Moreover, this may hinder employees to strongly and personally identify
with their work. Plaut, Thomas and Goren (2009) found in this respect that minority workers experience more
bias in settings where a colorblind mindset prevails than in settings where a multiculturalist approach is
endorsed. As a result, they feel less engaged to their work in workplaces where racial differences are
downplayed than in workplaces where racial differences are valued. In Stevens, Plaut and Sanchez-Burks (2008)
it is argued that ethnic minorities particularly distrust colorblind ideals in cases where organizations do not
appear very ethnically diverse. Moreover, the same authors argue that within organizations where ethnic
differences are devalued, frustration, dissatisfaction, and conflict are more likely to occur. Apfelbaum et al.
(2010) provide for another interesting conclusion. These authors demonstrated that colorblindness reduces
people’s perceptions of racial differences, making it more difficult to recognize practices of discrimination. In
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
14
doing so, colorblindness in facts permits explicit forms of racial discrimination to stay undetected and
unaddressed, creating the false impression of decreased racial bias. In doing so, “colorblindness may not
reduce inequity as much as it adjusts the lens through which inequity is perceived and publicly evaluated” (p.
1591). Peery (2011) concludes that true colorblindness does not exist in practice, and even if it did it would not
be desirable as it distracts from achieving true equality. Stevens, Plaut and Sanchez-Burks (2008) add that
colorblindness in particular appeals to non-minorities, and, in doing so, “may alienate minority employees and
allow[s] a culture of racism to develop” (p. 120). Alternatively, Peery (2011) argues that it goes too far to say
that colorblindness is a completely ineffective approach in managing diversity. There are in fact examples
where it can be beneficial. For example, in situations where the potential of intergroup conflict is high, taking a
colorblind approach may lead to decreased expressions of explicit bias, which in turn might serve to smooth
down the interaction. Also in situations where race is completely irrelevant, taking a colorblind approach could
have positive effects as individuals taking a colorblind approach are in these situations found to be perceived as
less biased. Nevertheless, Peery (2011) also admits that race or ethnicity is a very salient factor. As a result,
race is in fact many situations relevant. Peery concludes: “Ignoring the relevance of race at those times, then, is
clearly detrimental” (p. 486), as social realities of inequality are more or less denied and social identities that
are important for ethnic minorities’ well-being are not acknowledged.
The examples above indicate that a multiculturalist approach to cultural diversity may be more effective than a
colorblind approach. However, Apfelbaum, Norton and Sommers (in press) argue that this approach has its
limitations too. According to Stevens, Plaut and Sanchez-Burks (2008), multiculturalist approaches often fade,
fall short of their goals, or fail completely because especially non-minorities tend to resist them. Their critique
centers on the idea that multiculturalism overlooks and excludes non-minorities and threatens unity. “Instead
of referring as it should to all cultures, [it] has come to refer only to non-Western, nonwhite cultures”,
Schlesinger (as cited in Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008, p. 121) argues. Multiculturalism may therefore
evoke feelings of threat and anger towards ethnic minorities. The approach could be viewed as some kind of
zero-sum game: majority members may feel that minorities receive attention within the organization at their
expense, as they may feel that the organization only implemented a multiculturalist approach because of the
presence of ethnic minority workers or that the organization only values the cultural heritage of ethnic
minority workers. Hence, majority members may fuel the belief that minorities have earned their spot because
of their race, not because of their qualifications (Apfelbaum, Norton, & Sommers, in press). They may engage in
management strategies such as devaluing out-groups and reducing their motivation to identify and affiliate
with the organization (Verkuyten, as cited in Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008). Other authors (Cox;
Linnehan & Konrad; Thomas & Plaut; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink; all as cited in Stevens, Plaut, &
Sanchez-Burks, 2008) report about a significant backlash generated by a multiculturalist approach. This
backlash may include the activation of stereotypes, categorization, biased language, discrimination, silence
regarding inequities, avoidance of difference, and discrediting of ideas and individuals. If not properly
managed, a multiculturalist approach to ethnic diversity may trigger group-based processes among nonminorities. In doing so, ‘old’ racial inequality issues are in fact not reduced, but exacerbated.
2.4.2 Inclusion of individuals
Already in 1990, Thomas has argued that one of the weaknesses of traditional affirmative action
programs is its central focus on the principle of assimilation and herewith the lack of focus on individuality. At
many workplaces, a good deal of conformity is demanded in order to achieve corporate success. Employees are
expected to abandon most of their ethnic distinctions in the workforce (i.e. adapting to White organizational
culture) so that all employees could be treated equally. However, in real life, many ethnic minorities retain
their individuality and express it energetically. According to Thomas (1990), people are no longer willing to
abandon their individuality for eight hours a day. They rather want to be valued because of the culturally
related individual skills they bring to work. Companies are thus faced with a workforce that exist, and also will
continue to exist, of so-called ‘unassimilated diversity’. This demands for a different management approach.
Thomas (1990) concludes: “Managing diversity does not mean controlling or containing diversity, it means
enabling every member of your workforce to perform to his or her potential” (p. 113).
Throughout the years, it became more and more clear that after the justice case for diversity also the business
case tended to be an unsuccessful approach. As a result, some scholars started to suggest the need for a more
individual approach in diversity management. For example in Bleijenbergh, Peters and Poutsma (2010) it is
argued that “[(line-) managers] need to actively encourage and support individuals to develop and grow” (p.
421). Litvin (as cited in Holvino & Kamp, 2009) argues that organizations should move away from the
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
15
profitability/productivity rationale the business case prescribes. Organizations should rather envision
alternative organizational purposes such as individual learning, contributing, and human and social
development. According to Maxwell (2003), contemporary ethnic diversity management should offer “the
prospect of individuals retaining their diversity characteristics in work, not subordinating them to conform to
group characteristics or the [implicit] white male standard [prevalent in many organizations]” (p. 185). Maxwell
(2003) argues that ethnic diversity management means celebrating individual differences from which the
organization can benefit. In practice this means that ethnic diversity management should not so much
emphasize all employees together like colorblind and multiculturalist approaches do, because individual needs
may become simply overlooked. According to the individualist approach, organizations should attempt to get
to know their employees so that they can anticipate on their needs. In this respect, Mant (as cited in Maxwell,
2003) proposes three types of expectations and needs individuals have at work: 1) the need for equity and
justice, 2) the desire for security and relative certainty, and 3) the need for fulfillment, satisfaction and
progression. While the first of these three types explicitly focuses on equity in general, the other two types are
implicitly founded on the concept of individual self-identity. As existing diversity policies in particular tend to
ignore the needs and expectations regarding individual self-identity, Maxwell (2003) argues that these policies
are in fact no more than ‘empty shells’.
Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe-Ehrhart and Singh (2010) offer an interesting perspective in this
respect. These authors argue that future ethnic diversity management approaches should use the concept of
‘inclusion’ as a starting point; a concept they define as “the degree to which an employee perceives that he or
she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs
for belongingness and uniqueness” (p. 1265). It is thus proposed that individual workers want to feel accepted
or be seen as an insider of the group on the one hand (i.e. sense of belonging), accompanied by a wish to be
valued because of their individual contributions (i.e. sense of uniqueness). It is in particular this second theme
these authors want to emphasize. Evidence from for example stigma literature has shown that people who can
not be (e.g. as a result of a need to conceal their individual identity) or are not individually valued have more
chance to experience psychological strain, emotional stress, and stress-related illness (Ragins, as cited in Shore
et al., 2010). The authors argue that uniqueness will provide an opportunity for enhanced group performance
in case the individual is an accepted member of the group and his or her individual contributions are valued. Ely
and Thomas (2001) point at the ‘integration-and-learning’ perspective in this respect. This approach recognizes
both the need of belongingness (differences are integrated in the work process as it is seen as a resource for
learning and adaptive change) and uniqueness (individual differences are acknowledged and recognized as
useful values). By means of a qualitative study within several organizations, Ely and Thomas (2001) show that
this perspective communicates to all employees that they are valued and respected and therefore encourages
them to openly discuss different points of view and to express themselves as members of their racial identity
groups. This, in turn, creates opportunities for cross-cultural learning, allowing individuals within the group to
enhance their skills, eventually resulting in enhanced group performance. Shore et al. (2010) also present an
overview of a small body of literature on outcomes resulting from an approach focusing on individual
uniqueness. Evidence suggests for example that this approach minimizes status differences. Moreover,
research also indicates that Shore et al.’s (2010) concept of inclusion may be related to job satisfaction and
turnover intentions, the development of feelings of obligation and trust (which in turn encourages
organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, and work performance), enhanced
psychological well-being and reduced stress experiences, enhanced creativity, greater equality, and enhanced
opportunities in the workplace for diverse people.
Nevertheless, also this approach has a disadvantage. A main problem with the ‘inclusionist’ view is that you
may easily loose sight of basic inequality or justice issues. When focusing on the individual, it is for example
rather difficult to evaluate whether people from a minority background get the same opportunities as people
from a majority background. After all, as mentioned in section 2.3.3 on the business case for diversity (cf.
Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000), how are organizations able to counter discrimination towards several groups if these
groups do not qualify for special attention? Moreover, Hayes, Bartle and Mayor (2002) mention the complexity
of this approach: because of large amount of different needs that should be taken into account, it may become
difficult to understand, recognize and manage all these needs. According to the authors, “the shear complexity
of cognitive biases makes the task of managing perceptions a challenge” (p. 463). Moreover, they add:
“differences in values across individuals can make the establishment of ‘fair’ policies and procedures
impossible” (p. 463). Implicitly, this citation also supports the idea that within the individualist approach people
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
16
(and thus also the success of this approach) are largely dependent on the behavior of one’s coworkers and
supervisor; they are the ones who should recognize your needs.
2.5
Interests of a diverse workforce
What the previous has made clear is that both the justice case and the business case tend to work out
ineffectively or to result in backlash in practice. The same conclusion could be drawn regarding target group
5
and generic approaches in ethnic diversity management . What many ethnic diversity interventions do is in fact
leaving a feeling of frustration. Equality goals appear difficult to reach in practice and many organizations
encounter resistance towards their interventions, both among ethnic minority and ethnic majority workers.
Quite rightly, Apfelbaum, Norton and Sommers (in press) ask themselves whether there is an approach in
ethnic diversity management that accommodates to the divergent concerns of both minority and majority
group members.
Structurally comparing justice to business case approaches and target group to generic approaches in ethnic
diversity management reveals an interesting pattern in this respect. What research so far tends to have
overlooked is that all of the approaches discussed more or less prescribe or predefine an ideal situation that
should be reached through ethnic diversity management practices. However, whether these ideals could be
reached in practice depends largely on whether employees could recognize themselves in the practices
deployed, or, as Zanoni and Janssens (2005) argue: “their success is … contingent upon employees’ active
identification with them” (p. 6). These authors exactly touch the point that is important here. The ethnic
diversity management interventions discussed in this chapter all tend to focus on powerful actors’ – managers
or professionals – accounts of ethnic diversity (management). In other words, ethnic diversity management
interventions are rather managerial constructs or policy concepts imposed on the workforce. This top down
approach in defining and implementing policy largely overlooks the accounts of the subjects who are defined
by these policies and who represent the primary target of ethnic diversity management. In other words, the
agency of an important stakeholder group tends to be neglected, while they are in fact the ones that have to
work with the policy in practice and ‘decide’ whether the policy will be a success. Cain (2007) argues in this
respect that if an ethnic diversity policy does not fit with the status quo, it only functions as window dressing or
a ‘hot item’ on paper; a message organizations can send to the outside world to present themselves positively.
Existing research tends to ignore that different organizational stakeholders may have different views regarding
ethnic diversity and ethnic diversity management. One of the few researchers who has taken this issue into
consideration is Zanoni (2011). This author has for example shown that workforce inequalities are reproduced
by the discourses of management staff (i.e. line managers, but also other management actors) who want to
hold control of their labour by constituting workers belonging to certain groups as ‘unable’, and thus less
desirable and valuable. On the contrary, employees were found to ‘misuse’ diversity to resist such control.
What this example shows is that different stakeholders may have different – sometimes even conflicting –
interests regarding ethnic diversity and ethnic diversity management. Based on the previous, it could be
suggested that a bottom up approach in defining ethnic diversity management practices may be more suitable
as it takes the perspectives of different organizational stakeholders into account.
2.6
Concluding remarks
This literature review has shown that different organizational stakeholders have different interests in
and experiences with ethnic diversity at work. This conclusion holds true for both ethnic minority and ethnic
majority employees, as well as for employees high and low in the organizational hierarchy (i.e. management
versus executive staff). It has been discussed that organizational stakeholders usually find different aspects of
ethnic diversity management important (e.g. equality, organizational success) and consequently evaluate
6
ethnic diversity management approaches in different ways . As a result, it could be expected that different
organizational stakeholders have different preferences for ethnic diversity management regarding the contents
of a policy (‘what should be managed?’) as well as regarding the approach to be taken (target group versus
generic). Additionally, it has been argued that many ethnic diversity management interventions tend to be
5
Notwithstanding that there will be organizations that have positive experiences with justice/business case and target
group/generic approaches. Note that the conclusion drawn is a general conclusion based on the literature on ethnic
diversity management.
6
See the sections 2.3 and 2.4 on critiques towards the justice versus the business case for diversity and target group versus
generic approaches.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
17
unsuccessful as a result of their top down development and implementation. It is therefore suggested that a
bottom up approach would be more suitable, as it takes account of the interests, experiences and preferences
of a diverse workforce itself.
Aim of the current research is to give more insight into these interests, experiences and preferences, and
herewith, to find out whether a bottom up approach is indeed the preferred strategy. Such an exploration can
advance our understanding of the success factors of ethnic diversity management. By asking different
organizational stakeholders what their interests in and experiences with ethnic diversity are and what kind of
management preferences they have – both content and approach wise –, the development of a bottom up
approach in ethnic diversity management is made possible in an inductive way. In this respect, the overarching
question is, first of all, whether the preferences of different organizational stakeholders could be combined in
such a way that an inclusive policy is formed in which all organizational stakeholders could recognize
themselves, and secondly, whether this policy should take the form of a target group or a generic approach. In
order to gain an in-depth understanding of these issues, the choice has been made to study them in the
context of one particular organization. This micro-context, in turn, may give an indication of larger patterns
(the macro-context), that means: possibilities for a bottom up, all-inclusive ethnic diversity policy in
organizations in general.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
18
3. Methodological framework
This chapter presents a description of the methods used. Section 3.1 starts with the research design. In section
3.2, the sample strategy is discussed. Subsequently, the data collection is described in section 3.3, followed by
the data analysis in section 3.4. Finally, section 3.5 pays attention to the research quality indicators.
3.1
Research design
To date, not only relatively little is known about the interests in and experiences with ethnic diversity
management from the perspective of a diverse workforce itself, but also about how different stakeholders
differ in this respect. The central research question aims therefore for a deeper, more in-depth understanding
of these issues. As qualitative research “allow[s] for understanding and meanings to be explored in depth”
(Arksey & Knight, 1999, p. 32), this research strategy fits best. Moreover, in order to gain more insight into
which diversity policy is desired by a diverse workforce, an interpretivist mind-set is needed. The interpretive
strategy, which is inherent to qualitative research, could be seen as an attempt to understand what causes
people to act or think in a certain way and to interpret this behavior from an emic perspective (‘t Hart, Boeije,
& Hox, 2005). In this regard, a qualitative research design allows for finding out about the individual, specific
and particular. In contrast, not only in-depth perspectives but also nuances of the participants’ voices are
difficult to capture when doing quantitative research (Arksey & Knight, 1999).
Within the broad spectrum of qualitative research strategies, a case study design will be chosen for two
reasons. First of all, the case study allows for studying phenomena in a real-life setting, which is needed to
answer the research question. Secondly, a case study design helps to study the real-life setting in a holistic way,
(Yin, 2009). This way, variations between research entities could be rather easily detected (‘t Hart, Boeije, &
Hox, 2005), which in turn may help to detect causal links that are too complex to show in survey or
experimental research (Yin, 2009). Characteristic of the case study is that is works from the observed or
explored to theory (‘t Hart, Boeije, & Hox, 2005). In doing so, this research will be mainly inductive in nature.
The research question asks for the identification of different stakeholders involved, the issues they experience
and how they experience them, eventually resulting in concrete recommendations for the development of an
intervention or policy (i.e. theory) that takes account of these issues. This strategy, aiming at creating new
insights, is congruent with the explorative nature of qualitative research.
3.2
Sample strategy
Within this research, two types of sample strategies were central. First of all, regarding the ‘between
sample strategy’: two sites of DeliXL have been subject of study: Helmond and Schiedam. These sites differ
according to the percentage of minority workers; one site containing a rather low percentage of minority
workers (Helmond), compared to a site containing a relatively high percentage of minority workers (Schiedam).
Several researchers have indicated that demographic characteristics have an influence on people’s attitudes
and behaviors: the more homogeneous the workgroup, the more employees feel satisfied with the their work
and work environment (DiTomaso, Parks-Yancy, & Post, 2011; Riordan & Shore, 1997). However, these studies
only focused on attitudes of majority employees. It is therefore interesting to include demographic
characteristics of the research site as a control variable in order to see whether this affects affect views in
general (i.e. thus not only of minority employees). Secondly, regarding the ‘within sample strategy’, within each
of the organizational settings, several internal stakeholders were identified as it was not self-evident that they
held comparable views. The selected stakeholder group included people from various layers of the
organizational hierarch, all of them having an interest in the organization’s diversity management: warehouse
employees (both ethnic majority and minority), team coordinators (both ethnic majority and minority), team
managers, chiefs warehouse, and location managers. In this respect, the sampling strategy applied in this
research is purposive sampling. The aim was to strive for a balanced sample, which makes comparisons
between specific situations of participants (i.e. site and function/interests) possible. In doing so, different
points of views have been made explicit. It should be mentioned that the initial plan was to involve the human
resource department and the CEO or board of directors too. However, as the human resource department and
the CEO are both located in the DeliXL head office and, as a consequence, do not have any experience with
ethnic diversity within the two research sites, it was not relevant to include them in the stakeholder group.
Furthermore, participants were selected and balanced based on ethnicity (majority versus minority) and
function level (according to the functions of the different stakeholders identified earlier). Tenure was included
as a control variable: it was important that participants were working within the organization for at least six
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
19
months, as it was crucial that the participants had formed a sufficient idea about how diversity is practiced and
experienced within the organization. As women are underrepresented within the warehouse and transport
departments of DeliXL, gender was not included as a control variable; all the participants needed appeared to
be male, except from one warehouse worker within DeliXL Helmond. It was preferred that the sample group
was similar in both research sites so that the data would be as comparable as possible. If all the pre-defined
initial categories were taken into consideration, ideally speaking at least 15 interviews were needed: 1 member
of the board of directors, 1 human resource manager per site, 2 team managers per site (preferably 1 majority
and 1 minority), and 4 employees per site (preferably 2 majority and 2 minority). However, as discussed before,
alternative choices had to be made regarding the sample group due to the composition of the workforce.
For the selection of participants the so-called ‘snowball’ sampling procedure was used as much as possible. The
human resource department of the head office announced the research by contacting the location managers of
both research sites. After they gave their permission to conduct the research within their sites, both location
7
managers were contacted by e-mail to make an appointment. The e-mail included an information leaflet in
which more detailed information about the interview was given. With both location managers an appointment
of 1,5 hour was planned to discuss several practical issues regarding the research (i.e. availability of an office,
selection and contacting of participants) and to conduct an interview. Via the location managers, contact was
made with the chiefs warehouse and team managers. The chiefs warehouse and team managers, in turn,
selected several team coordinators and warehouse workers for the interviews. It was not possible to draw a
totally random sample of team coordinators and warehouse workers by the researcher herself, as both the
availability of employees (i.e. working days and day/night shifts) and pressure of business because of national
festivities (i.e. Easter, Queensday, Liberation day, Ascension day and Whitsun) had to be taken into account.
Moreover, warehouse workers could not be reached by telephone or e-mail, which made it difficult for the
researcher to make the appointments herself. It should be noted that because of this reason, it is not totally
clear to what extent only the most motivated or best employees were willing or invited to take part in the
research and how many of the invited employees refused to join. Nevertheless, as the management staff made
clear that they really wanted to gain more insight into the issues experienced in the workspace, the impression
was raised that they were not biased in appointing interview participants. This could be illustrated by the fact
that in both research sites the management staff even chose employees with whom they had several heated
discussions about the way they did their work. In other words, the sample group included also employees that
were explicitly selected exactly because they have a strong opinion and thus something to tell. Finally, it should
be noted that regarding the management staff of both research sites (location managers, chiefs warehouse and
team managers) it was not possible to balance the sample on ethnicity, as there were no ethnic minorities
working in these function levels. Table 3.1 presents an overview of the sample group.
Table 3.1
Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Sample group
Function
Location manager
Chief warehouse
Team manager
Team coordinator
Team coordinator
Team coordinator
Worker warehouse
Worker warehouse
Location manager
Chief warehouse
Team manager
Team coordinator
Worker warehouse**
Worker warehouse
Worker warehouse
Worker warehouse
Location
Schiedam
Schiedam
Schiedam
Schiedam
Schiedam
Schiedam
Schiedam
Schiedam
Helmond
Helmond
Helmond
Helmond
Helmond
Helmond
Helmond
Helmond
Tenure*
20
5
4
12
5
9
4
6
15
11
8
7
7
7
8
5
Cultural background
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Antillean
Moroccan
Dutch
Antillean
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Moroccan
Dutch
Dutch
Turkish
Moroccan
* In years. Note that not all the participants knew their exact tenure. The numbers present are estimates. ** The only female participant in
the study. She is almost a team coordinator.
7
Note that the information leaflet is presented in Appendix A.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
20
3.3
Data collection
3.3.1 Data instruments
Before and during the periods of data collection, the field was explored by means of observations within
both research settings. These observations were meant to get an idea of the diversity ‘climate’ (i.e. the degree
of cultural diversity within the research setting, the atmosphere, type of interactions between employees,
etcetera). Data was collected by means of individual semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Semi-structured
interviews are loosely structured around an interview guide, allowing the interviewer to follow up ideas, probe
responses and ask for clarification (Arksey & Knight, 1999). This possibility to expand on the participant’s
answers was particularly important as it allows for the gathering of in-depth knowledge. In doing so, semistructured interviews helped to gain a deeper understanding about the participants’ stance regarding ethnic
diversity management and the influence of context, which was the aim of this research.
Two rounds of interviews were needed in order to answer all the sub-questions. The first round of interviews
focused on sub-questions 1 till 5; the stakeholders’ interests, issues, and management preferences. During the
second round of interviews, the same participants were interviewed once again, but now the focus was
particularly on sub-question 6; how the different interests, issues, and management preferences are
interrelated. This second round was needed, as it could not be known in advance what the general trends were
in thoughts. The ‘break’ between the two interview rounds allowed the researcher to analyze and summarize
the results so far. This made the data collection more specific, which in turn enhanced the quality of the data.
Note that this strategy of data collection is congruent with the inductive approach: building or discovering
theory from data. More specific, this strategy of data collection entails characteristics of ‘grounded theory’, an
approach that is concerned with a continuous cycle of “analyzing data, forming tentative theories, testing them
against the data, revising the theories, retesting them, and so on” (Arksey & Knight, 1999, p. 162).
The choice for individual, semi-structured face-to-face interviews was well considered. For example, for the
second round of interviews, one could also have chosen for a focus group per research setting. This should
have allowed participants to negotiate meaning, which in turn allowed the researcher to detect relationships
between the different stakeholders’ views. However, one of the disadvantages of a focus group is that
participants may influence each other’s opinions. Moreover, people may feel embarrassed to express their real
opinions because of the highly sensitive character of the topic and/or the presence of management staff. This
may result in social desirable answers. Therefore, individual interviews provided a safer setting to express
personal experiences, opinions and views. Nevertheless, it was still important that the researcher gained trust
in order to let people talk openly, especially when it concerned previous negative experiences with ethnic
diversity or diversity management.
While data triangulation is considered, is should be noted that the use of several qualitative, inductive research
methods was difficult within the timeframe available to conduct this research. For example, it would have been
interesting to let participants fill in a diary (e.g. about the issues experienced relating to cultural diversity)
during the weeks before their interview was scheduled. These diaries could have guided the interviews.
Nevertheless, as this research made use of a snowball sampling method, this would have resulted in a lengthy
process of data collection (NB. participants should have filled in a diary for one or two weeks before the actual
interview can take place). The same argument holds true for, for example, observing the participants before
the interview. As this research also had to make use of a second round of data collection, it was important to
finish the first round of data collection and subsequent analyses within a rather limited timeframe.
3.3.2 The interview sessions
A total amount of 32 semi-structured face-to-face interviews was held: 16 within DeliXL Schiedam and 16
within DeliXL Helmond. All interviews were held in a separate office, which means that no other people were
present. The language used was Dutch. All participants gave their permission to record the interview with a
8
voice recorder. During the interviews, the researcher made use of an interview script that provided the
guidelines that should be met and the essential questions that should be asked. The interview script further
contained a range of possible probes that, depending on the answers given by the respondents, could be asked
for further clarification.
8
The scripts of the interviews could be found in Appendix B (interview round 1) and Appendix C (interview round 2).
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
21
th
th
The first round of interviews took place between the 15 of March and the 12 of April. Interviews took
between 41 and 73 minutes, with an average duration of 60 minutes. Before the first round of interviews
started, the interview guide was discussed with two people outside DeliXL (of whom one had a similar
educational level as the workers in the DeliXL warehouses) in order to detect vague or ambiguous
formulations. This resulted in a slightly adjusted interview guide, mainly regarding the phrasing of questions.
The first ‘real’ interview took place with the location manager of one of the DeliXL sites. As the interview went
well, no further adjustments were made. As an introduction to the interviews, the researcher introduced
herself en explained shortly what the purpose of the research was, where the interview was about and some
practical issues such as anonymity of the participant and the duration of the interview. In order to make the
participant feel at ease, the interviews started with some general questions about the participant (e.g. age,
education, cultural background) and the kind of work the participant performs within DeliXL (e.g. history within
DeliXL, current function). This was followed by a set of general questions about cultural diversity at the
workspace. More specific, these questions focused on the composition of the team where the participant was
working in, the cultural backgrounds of the management staff, and the importance laid on cultural diversity
within DeliXL. After these two sets of general and relatively insensitive questions, the interview became more
specific. Subsequently, the participants’ interests in ethnic diversity at work (e.g. to what extent are
participants able to express their cultural identity at work and do they think this is important?), the issues
experienced (e.g. what kind of issues do participants experience within the fields of communication, social
norms and work norms) and desirable interventions (e.g. what kind of measures would participants like to take
to deal with the issues they experience?) were discussed. At the end of the interview, participants were
thanked and invited for a second round of interviews.
st
th
The second round of interviews was held between the 1 and 25 of May. With an average duration of 45
minutes (shortest 31 minutes, longest 85 minutes), the interviews generally took less time than the interviews
within the first round. Again, the interview was tested with two people outside DeliXL, however, this did not
resulted in an adjusted interview guide. The interviews started with a general introduction in which a repetition
of some practical issues (i.e. duration of the interview and anonymity of the participants) was given. Moreover,
the purpose of the second round of interviews was explained. The researcher explained that she would give a
short summary of the results from the first interview round (i.e. perspectives of management and executive
staff and differences between the two research sites) and asked the participants to take a helicopter view in
order to evaluate the presented results. The researcher presented the results in six blocks: 1) organizational
interests in ethnic diversity, 2) employees’ interests in ethnic diversity, 3) experiences within the domain of
communication, 4) experiences within the domain of social norms, 5) experiences within the domain of work
9
norms, and 6) the proposed interventions . After each block of results, participants were asked whether they
could agree with the presented perspectives and to explain their first impressions (e.g. “do you see any
similarities/contradictions between the presented perspectives and your own perspective?”, “can you
understand contradicting perspectives?”, “do you miss anything?”). Subsequently, participants were asked if
and why they think that the perspectives of management and executive staff differ and whether they think that
these two perspectives are compatible with one another. After discussing the six blocks of results, the
researcher asked the participants whether they see any possibilities to form an inclusive policy in which the
perspectives of all the different stakeholders are represented. Participants were also asked to give an advice to
DeliXL on the basis of the presented interests, issues and interventions. This was followed by a short summary,
given by the researcher, about the stakeholder preferences within the fields of target group and generic policy
approaches. Afterwards, participants were asked themselves whether their policy advice should take the form
of a target group or generic approach and why. At the end of the interviews, participants were sincerely
thanked for participating in the study and told that the results would be made available by the beginning of
September.
Regarding both interview rounds, participants generally understood the questions well, although
supplementary explanations were in some instances needed. The researcher had the impression that the
majority of participants felt secure and at ease. Most participants talked enthusiastically and did not had to be
stimulated to explain their points of view. A majority of the participants gave numerous examples of situations
they had faced, also about more sensitive issues. Moreover, all participants discussed as well positive and
9
While presenting the sixth block of results, the researcher gave the participant a small piece of paper on which the
interventions were summarized in a few key words. This ‘reminder’ was needed to help the participants answer the
questions about the possibilities of an inclusive policy that would be asked later in the interview.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
22
negative experiences, which may indicate that they did not want to present a brighter image than the actual
situation. Especially ethnic minority participants told the researcher that they liked the topic of the research
and the fact that they were invited to participate.
3.4
Data analysis
All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Afterwards, interviews were coded according to the
three different types of coding Corbin and Strauss (1990) differentiated between: selective, open, and axial
coding. This coding process is built upon both concepts and labels formulated before the start of data
collection and topics that emerged during the interviews. It starts broad (i.e. selective coding, based on the
topics distinguished in the interview guide) and ends up in rather specific concepts (i.e. open coding, the phase
where the selective codes are categorized into new, more specific codes). Additionally, the coding process
demands for a constant comparison of data in order to explore relations between concepts (i.e. axial coding).
In doing so, the coding process eventually aims at interpreting the data through a meaningful theoretical lens.
As the data collection is spread over two rounds, the data analysis entailed two steps too. After the first round
10
of data collection, the data was coded according to the coding process described above . For each of the
selective codes a different file of interview quotes was made. Within these files, codes were re-organized on
the basis of more specific codes and a distinction was made between the various stakeholders. This provided
an overview of 7 perspectives per code: the perspective of ethnic majority warehouse workers, ethnic minority
warehouse workers, ethnic majority team coordinators, ethnic minority team coordinators, team managers,
chiefs warehouse, and location managers. In the end, a ‘profile’ for each group of stakeholders was made,
including their interests, issues, and proposed interventions. The next step was to make comparisons both
within and between the various profiles in order to explore similarities and contradictions in perspectives. In
doing so, also more hidden objectives and perspectives could be explored. The main goal of the first round of
data analysis was to explore the general patterns of interests, experiences and proposed interventions. Based
on these data, a second round of interviews was held in which the stakeholders were asked whether the
different profiles were compatible or incompatible with one another, or more specific: whether the different
profiles could be combined in such a way that an inclusive policy could be formulated. The second round of
data analysis was based on the same principles as the data analysis in the first round, however the focus was
now on compatibilities and incompatibilities.
3.5
Research quality indicators
Within this research, three criteria of trustworthiness were used to examine the quality of the research:
dependability (reliability), credibility (internal validity), and transferability (external validity). Dependability was
enhanced in several ways. First of all, all decisions regarding the methodology and analysis of this research are
well described and all interviews were – if possible – audio recorded to enhance transparency and
repeatability. Second, this research demanded for a careful selection of participants. For example, people
might have assigned sites and/or participants that confirm his or her own interests. This might have led to a
research that presents a brighter image than the actual situation. This research therefore made use of a
snowball sampling approach (i.e. participant recruiting or recommending several future participants) as much
as possible. Finally, it was important to avoid social desirable answers. This was reached through the use of
several techniques. Participants were guaranteed anonymity. Participants were told that their names would
not appear in the research report. In line with this, it was mentioned that the collected data would only be
used for scientific purposes. Moreover, the researcher emphasized her neutrality by making clear that she was
not sent by the management. Additionally, it was also important to structure the interview in a delicate way.
The interview started with relatively insensitive topics in order to establish and stimulate feelings of
confidentiality and trust. Suggestive questions were avoided, the researcher prevented expressing her opinion
(which was partly stimulated by the use of an interview guide), and an emphatic attitude was adopted.
Furthermore, by making clear that also the participants could win something from the study, participants were
motivated to collaborate in an effective and honest way. Executive staff was made clear that by means of their
participation in this study there is a chance that their interests and issues will become recognized, which may
eventually result in a policy that is based on their own preferences. For the management staff it was made
clear that this study will give them effective and sufficient input to optimize or upgrade their HR strategy.
10
Note that the coding scheme could be found in Appendix D.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
23
Conducting a pilot interview before starting with the actual data collection enhanced the credibility of this
research. A pilot interview allowed the researcher to test whether the interview was clear for the participants,
making the occurrence of misunderstandings less likely. Secondly, consistency was enhanced by using an
interview guide. An interview guide structures the interview, which in turn helps to let interviews become
comparable and coherent. It helps, for example, the interviewer to ask the same questions to all the
participants and avoids that some participants will be given more or different information than other
participants. Moreover, it helps the interviewer to stay to the point. Finally, in the literature an abundance of
definitions is used to define concepts such as diversity management, minority/majority employee, etcetera. In
order to enhance construct validity, it was important that these concepts were used in a consequent manner,
both within the research report and during the interviews. Before and during the interviews, the researcher
explained what she meant by certain terms in order to reduce misunderstandings.
A case-study design makes transferability or generalization of results more difficult. However, results could be
transferred to some extent to organizations with comparable demographic characteristics. As this research
made use of an inductive approach, it is less likely that research results are for example influenced by
theoretical constructs. Moreover, the positions of several stakeholders were taken into consideration and data
was collected within two different sites. In doing so, context dependency is reduced. Finally, the results of this
research could be used as an indicator for future research on ethnic diversity management, as it will help
researchers to formulate expectations about their research field.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
24
4. Context
This chapter presents a short introduction about the context in which the research is performed. The Dutch
organization of DeliXL is introduced in section 4.1. Section 4.2 discusses ethnic diversity within DeliXL, in
particular the amount of ethnic diversity within the organization and the kinds of actions DeliXL has taken in
the past. Section 4.3 provides more details about the two research sites.
4.1
DeliXL: First for Foodservice
DeliXL is a supplier for the foodservice market in The Netherlands. It is part of the international
organization The Bidvest Group: a service, business and distribution company that has more than 100.000
employees worldwide. In The Netherlands, DeliXL employs more than 2000 people. It offers relatively many
low and medium level jobs, especially in their warehouse and transport departments. Apart from the head
office that is situated in Ede, DeliXL has 15 regional sites that are spread all over the country. Most of these
sites are specialized in a certain type of client market and/or food product. DeliXL in general is specialized in
serving the institutional market (hospital and care institutions), the market that focuses on restaurant services
(catering services, company canteens and schools), and the hotel and catering industry (restaurants, hotels,
holiday parks, cafeterias and cafes). The DeliXL assortment exists of more than 60.000 products, including fruits
and vegetables, meats and seafood, groceries, frozen products, tableware, and cleaning products.
4.2
Ethnic diversity within DeliXL
In April 2012, approximately 12 percent of the DeliXL workforce had an ethnic minority background. It
should be mentioned in this respect that people who are working for DeliXL via an employment agency are not
included in this number, while, as appeared during the interviews, especially among temporary workers a
relatively large percentage has an ethnic minority background. Moreover, DeliXL only registers employees on
the basis of their nationality and birth country. As the birth countries of the employees’ parents are not known,
the 12 percent of ethnic minority workers is not a good estimate of the actual diversity level within the
11
organization . After all, second and third generation immigrants are not taken into account, but they do form a
12
large part of the workforce, especially within the DeliXL sites in the Randstad (e.g. Amsterdam and Schiedam) .
A broad range of ethnic backgrounds is represented within DeliXL; workers come from all parts of the world.
Nevertheless, the four classical immigrant groups (people from Turkey, Morocco, Surinam and the Dutch
Antilles) and Polish people are relatively overrepresented compared to other groups.
Until date, DeliXL has not taken any initiatives within the field of ethnic diversity management, apart from the
past legal obligations that were prescribed by the Wet Bevordering Evenredige Arbeidsdeelname Allochtonen
(WBEAA) and the Wet SAMEN. As a result, DeliXL has no person that is responsible for the field of ethnic
diversity in whatever way. Moreover, management staff has not been purposively trained in ethnic diversity,
apart from a tiny group of people who accidentally received a small module on this topic within their team
manager training. So far, the higher management of DeliXL did not see any reason to interfere within the field
of ethnic diversity management, but actually did not research whether the workforce itself sees a need for
ethnic diversity management interventions. Depending on the results of the current research, DeliXL will
decide if and if yes how it will design an ethnic diversity policy. Until date, it has been up to the sites of DeliXL
themselves to decide how they manage ethnic diversity. However, in practice, both sites have not formulated
any practical guidelines or formal rules.
4.3
DeliXL Schiedam versus DeliXL Helmond
Schiedam and Helmond, the research sites, have a special function within DeliXL as they are so-called
‘combi-sites’. These sites deliver every type of product, and also deliver their products to a larger group of
clients (i.e. several markets) than the other regional sites. As combi-sites serve a larger client market and, as a
result, make more profit, combi-sites also employ a greater amount of employees. About 250 people are
working within DeliXL Schiedam, of whom about 160 people have a tenured position. DeliXL Helmond, on the
other hand, employs about 200 people, of whom about 140 people have a tenured position.
11
This percentage is based on the birth countries of the DeliXL employees.
The Randstad is the economic center of the country, in which historically seen most immigrants settle. It is located in the
Western part of The Netherlands and includes cities like Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam.
12
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
25
DeliXL Schiedam and DeliXL Helmond were chosen because of two reasons. First of all, Schiedam and Helmond
are the only two DeliXL sites that are fully comparable regarding products, client groups, profit and amount of
employees. This will enhance the reliability of the research. Secondly, Schiedam and Helmond fitted one of the
aims of this research, namely comparing a site that employs a relatively high percentage of ethnic minorities
(Schiedam: 22 percent of the total workforce) with a site that employs a relatively low percentage of ethnic
13
minorities (Helmond: 10 percent of the total workforce) . It should be noted in this respect that these
percentages present a rather distorted image. As discussed before, second and third generation immigrants are
not taken into account due to DeliXL’s administration system, as well as temporary workers with an ethnic
minority background. The expectation is that especially within DeliXL Schiedam many second and third
generation immigrants are working, because of its location near to the city of Rotterdam; the city that is known
as the most multi-ethnic city in The Netherlands. A majority of the respondents from DeliXL Schiedam also
acknowledged that many ethnic minority workers are relatively young second or third generation immigrants.
Moreover, within both research sites, a majority of the respondents mentioned that especially among
temporary workers a relatively high percentage of ethnic minority workers exist. Participants found it difficult
to give an estimation of the actual diversity percentage. Within DeliXL Schiedam, the estimated percentage
varied from 40 to 60 percent and “More ethnic minority than ethnic majority workers”; within DeliXL Helmond,
the estimated percentage varied from 10 to 30 percent. In general, participants agreed that the diversity
percentage has increased during the last few years, especially among temporary workers.
When asking participants what kinds of backgrounds ethnic minority people have, respondents within DeliXL
Schiedam mentioned that most of the ethnic minority workers have a Moroccan, Antillean or Surinamese
background. It was also mentioned that there is one team that consists for the majority of Polish people (4
Polish people, 1 Dutch). Within DeliXL Helmond, participants mentioned that a majority of the ethnic minority
workforce has a Turkish or Moroccan background. There are also relatively many ‘Limburgers’ (i.e. people
coming from the nearest south of The Netherlands) as a result of the acquisition of DeliXL Roermond by DeliXL
Helmond. Apart from the ‘Polish team’ within DeliXL Schiedam, people generally work in mixed teams. This was
not a deliberate choice; within both research sites, both management and executive staff acknowledged that
teams were composed in a rather natural way (i.e. staff turnovers). The impression was raised that people are
satisfied with this composition; no one complained about this subject and several people also indicated that
they hope that this trend could be continued in the future. It should be noted that during the evening/night
hours and weekends, a majority of the workforce comes via an employment agency. In practice, this means
that it could be the case that people are working with more ethnic minority than ethnic majority workers.
Within both research sites, the highest layers of the organizational hierarchy (i.e. the board of directors and
location manager, the chief warehouse, the team managers) do not contain any ethnic minorities.
Nevertheless, within both research sites there are ethnic minorities working within the function of team
coordinator. About half of the team coordinators within DeliXL Schiedam are ethnic minorities (e.g. Moroccans,
Antilleans); within DeliXL Helmond there is only one ethnic minority team coordinator (a Moroccan). Among
them, there are also people who have the ambition to become team manager in the future.
13
Note that these percentages are based on the birth countries of the DeliXL employees.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
26
5. Results
This chapter presents the results of the research performed within the Dutch organization of DeliXL. The results
are presented in five sections. First of all, the interests of a diverse workforce in ethnic diversity management
are discussed. Next, the experiences with ethnic diversity at work within the fields of communication, social
norms, and work norms are presented. The main objective of this section is to gain a better understanding of
the main issues people experience, although positive experiences are discussed as well too in order to get a
complete image. The third section draws the relationships between the interests and the experiences
presented. In section four, individual preferences regarding ethnic diversity management are discussed. This
section starts with an overview of the interventions the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity proposed,
followed by a discussion on how these stakeholders evaluated a target group approach and a generic approach
to ethnic diversity in the light of the proposed interventions. Finally, section five discusses the (im)possibilities
for an all-inclusive policy according to the stakeholders involved.
In each section the perspectives of the different stakeholders are grouped per theme. Within those themes,
the stakeholder perspectives are discussed successively, i.e. from high to low in the organizational hierarchy. In
instances where the perspectives of the different stakeholders do not differ that much, usually a distinction is
made between management staff (i.e. the people who lead others: location managers, chiefs warehouse and
team managers) and executive staff (i.e. the people who perform the work: team coordinators and warehouse
employees). In each case, perspectives from ethnic majority and ethnic minority participants are contrasted
with one another. Distinctions between the two research sites are made only if relevant.
5.1
Interests in ethnic diversity (management)
During the interview sessions, the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity were asked whether they think
that DeliXL has an interest in ethnic diversity (management), as well as whether they have an interest in ethnic
diversity (management) themselves. The purpose of these questions was to answer the first sub-question of
this research: ‘Do the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity have an interest in ethnic diversity management
14
and if yes, what are they?’ .
The first topic discussed was the extent to which DeliXL in general has an interest in ethnic diversity
(management), or at least, the participants’ impression of this subject. Especially the location managers and
chiefs warehouse acknowledged that, in the light of the fact that Dutch society is becoming more and more
multi-ethnic, DeliXL cannot ignore ethnic diversity. It was recognized that DeliXL needs ethnic minority people
in order to stay successful in the future. Especially within DeliXL Schiedam it was thought that in the future
more and more employees will have an ethnic minority background. In the words of one of the participants:
The society, especially here in the Western part of The Netherlands, also shows cultural diversity. Organizations such
as DeliXL need a lot of people in order to let their processes be well on track and therefore also need the people that
walk around here in society. And that are often people with an ethnic minority background. (Location manager)
According to this participant, DeliXL needs ethnic minority people to reach their organizational goals in the
long-term. One of the chiefs warehouse shares this opinion. He argued that DeliXL is dependent on a particular
type of workers: i.e. relatively lowly educated. This often appears to be ethnic minority people nowadays, he
proceeded. Two team managers reached a same sort of conclusion. They noticed that the kinds of people who
want to work for DeliXL are often young ethnic minority people. In their opinion, DeliXL has no specific interest
in ethnic diversity per se: DeliXL just needs workers, it does not really matter what kind of people they are as
long as the work is done well. A second aspect that came up is that all management participants tend to hold a
strong normativity regarding how the DeliXL workforce should be composed. A majority of the management
participants emphasized that DeliXL has a kind of social responsibility towards society. In other words, as Dutch
society is becoming more and more ethnically diverse, the organization should try to let its workforce be a
reflection of this population. One of the chiefs warehouse explained in this respect that especially in multiethnic regions like the Randstad it is important to convey this diversity, among others to show ethnic minority
workers that the organization has confidence in them and also to show potential workers that ethnic diversity
14
In the context of this research, ‘interests’ (in Dutch: ‘belangen’) should be interpreted as the regard for benefit or
advantage. In other words, this research aims to study what participants want and/or expect to win from ethnic diversity
(management) in the workspace.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
27
is an important aspect of the organization. This, in turn, is thought to result in a better working atmosphere.
The location manager of DeliXL Schiedam mentioned in this respect that during the recruitment and selection
procedures, DeliXL Schiedam tries to select Dutch majority people who do not have any problems with ethnic
minorities. “Otherwise you cannot work here”, he explained.
In line with the former, also several team coordinators and warehouse workers – both ethnic majority and
ethnic minority – hold the normativity that DeliXL has a social responsibility, that means: to let the workforce
be a reflection of the population. Nevertheless, ethnic majority participants generally think that there is not an
interest for DeliXL per se. In their opinion, the most important thing is that the work should be performed well,
be it by an ethnic minority or an ethnic minority worker. Ethnic minority workers, on the other hand, expect
that in the future Dutch majority people are not willing to do this type of work anymore (i.e. heavy and
demanding physical work). They explained that it are increasingly young ethnic minority people who apply for
vacancies in the DeliXL warehouses. Several ethnic minority workers had the impression that ethnic minorities
generally work very hard compared to the Dutch; the Dutch are thought to be too lazy to perform this type of
work. Ethnic minority workers therefore shared the opinion that DeliXL should respond to this trend in order to
have enough personnel in the future. One of the participants explained in this respect:
If you make a call to Tempoteam (employment agency): ‘I need 6 people today’, you already know that 4 of them
will be ethnic minorities. … You can do what you want, but you cannot say [as an organization] ‘I only want ethnic
majority people here’. If you do so, Tempoteam will tell you ‘Sorry sir, we cannot arrange that for you’. (Ethnic
minority warehouse worker)
As a second topic, participants were asked whether they have a personal interest in ethnic diversity
(management). This was asked by means of three themes: 1) interest in expressing one’s own cultural identity,
2) interest in a diverse workforce, and 3) interest in management staff that takes account of ethnic diversity.
Regarding the first theme, a majority of the participants answered that you should be able to be yourself at
work. More specific, participants mainly emphasized their interest in mutual respect. Dutch majority
participants generally expressed that they expect workers to be respectful towards others. Several Dutch
majority participants suggested that their cultural identity is not a marker of ‘difference’ within the work
context. Receiving respect towards their cultural identity is therefore not so much an interest for them.
However, respect towards others is important in order to keep a pleasant work atmosphere, which in turn is
good for the organizational processes. Ethnic minority participants, on the other hand, mainly expressed the
expectation to receive respect from colleagues. If these colleagues do not meet their responsibility of respect,
ethnic minority workers expect their management to intervene. An ethnic minority worker argued that
receiving respect is so important for ethnic minority workers, as it gives them self-confidence and the feeling
that they are appreciated. Nevertheless, the interest of ‘being yourself’ at work was expressed in combination
with certain limitations. More specific, participants emphasized that people should behave professionally. This,
in turn, was explained as a strong normativity, that means: how one should behave ideally speaking.
Management staff members mentioned that the organization should allow cultural identity expression as a
form of respect towards the ethnic minority, but this should not go too far. People should not have the feeling
that they cannot be themselves because of someone else’s culture or religion, or stated differently:
interrelations between people from various backgrounds or the group cohesion should not be harmed because
of someone’s identity expression. Additionally, it was stressed that someone’s identity expression should not
harm the work to be done. In other words, cultural identities should not be expressed in such an extreme way
that it prevents people from performing their work well. To give an illustration: several people mentioned that
a Muslim worker once prayed during work hours in the workplace (i.e. not in a separate room but in the
warehouse). This was not only thought to be dangerous, but people also shared the opinion that Muslims
should pray in their own time, for example during lunch/dinner-time. Ethnic minority participants, on the other
hand, generally understood ‘professionalism’ in a different way. Five out of six ethnic minority participants
argued that they do not want to express their cultural identity too strongly at work. They shared the
normativity that cultural identity is a private matter; at work you should focus yourself on your work, was the
widespread idea. An ethnic minority participant explained:
No, I think that my background is something for at home. That’s why I said, that question (i.e. cultural identity
expression) should not be raised in the workspace … At the moment that we are at work, you should not take into
account ‘Oh, that’s a Moroccan we should pay attention to that, or oh, that’s a Surinamese’. No, we have a common
interest and that is that the work should be done. People should work. (Ethnic minority warehouse worker)
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
28
Ethnic minority participants appeared to have a clear image of what the concept of integration means within
the work context. Professionalism seemed to be an equivalent of cultural and linguistic ‘adaptation’. This
conclusion is not specifically linked to the organization of DeliXL, but even more to the participants’ ideas of
what is expected from them in Dutch society and therefore also in Dutch organizations. An interesting
question, in this respect, is whether the participants have adapted themselves to the prevailing public and
political discourses, or whether institutions – such as organizations – more or less forced them to do so. One
warehouse worker seemed to stress both points by explaining that ethnic in-group members in his home
country advised him to opt for cultural adaptation in the public sphere in order to be successful in The
Netherlands:
You are living in The Netherlands, so you have to adapt to the Dutch culture. You can have your culture at home, you
know, if you want to show that you are an Antillean you should do that in your private life. But here you are coming
to your work, so here you are coming to collaborate with other cultures, with Dutch people. … I have learned … if
you come here [to The Netherlands] you should forget your culture. If doing so, you will be successful. (Ethnic
minority warehouse worker)
On the basis of the interviews it could be concluded that ethnic minority participants presented a rather
complicated picture regarding their interest in ethnic diversity management. On the one hand ethnic minority
participants made clear that they do not want to express their identity too strongly and raise the impression
that they are ‘not adapted’, as the consequence may be that for example Dutch majority employees mark them
as ‘different’. Ethnic minority participants do not want to be seen as ethnic minorities but as colleagues. They
generally do not like it when colleagues categorize them and therefore also try to prevent this to happen to
some extent. Especially within DeliXL Helmond several ethnic minority participants argued that they sometimes
get annoyed by other ethnic minorities who express their cultural identities too strongly. To give an illustration,
one of the ethnic minority warehouse workers (Muslim) argued that it annoys him when relatively conservative
Muslim workers try to preach their morality to others. In his opinion, these kinds of situations hinder the
establishment of good relationships at work: it leads to mutual irritations and does not do any good to the
work to be done as it distracts people. The same sort of reasoning was used regarding the use of native
languages. Nevertheless, on the other hand ethnic minorities expressed that they do have an interest in ethnic
diversity management in the sense that they would like to have the possibility to express the core values of
their culture of religion, for example having the possibility to take days off during for them important holidays,
having the possibility to fast (and to have dinner at times when they are allowed to), having the possibility to
pray during lunch/dinner-time, and having the possibility to visit family in the heritage country. Within both
research sites, participants stressed that DeliXL also gives them these possibilities. The widespread idea was
that these kinds of initiatives should be continued.
When asking people whether they have a personal interest in a diverse workforce, Dutch majority participants
tended to stress that their interest in ethnic diversity is not so much personal-based. This group generally puts
the organization first, that means: to have the right people for the right job so that organizational processes are
not hindered (i.e. the workforce does not need to be ethnically diverse per se as meritocracy is put first).
However, a location manager mentioned that a diverse workforce makes people richer in the sense that they
may get inspiration to develop themselves by seeing other perspectives. The other location manager shared
this opinion, by arguing that it is good for an organization to have diversity as it gives you the possibility to get
the best out of your people. However, as both expressions remained abstract because they were not further
explained by means of illustrations, they seem rather based on wish of thinking than on actual experience.
Regarding the ethnic minority participants, three out of six ethnic minorities indicated that they do have an
interest in a diverse workforce. It was suggested that a diverse workforce feels ‘familiar’. One of the
participants explained:
When I first came here it was very diverse. I was happy to see that, because, yes, after all, you are coming here
within a new company as an ethnic minority person. You could see different cultures and that makes you happy. At
that moment you think: ‘Hey, there are working black people here, white, yellow, brown, they laugh with each
other, they get along very well with each other. This is thus a normal company’. (Ethnic minority team
coordinator)
Interestingly, two out of three ethnic minority participants from DeliXL Helmond argued that they would not
like it if their workforce becomes more ethnically diverse in the future. Both participants explained that they
feel a kind of social obligation to segregate with other ethnic minorities, in other words: that other ethnic
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
29
minorities expect them to hang around with them instead of mixing with the Dutch. This is not only against
their own principles, it is also thought that it leads to negative consequences for the organization (e.g. group
segregation and as a result decreased group cohesion) as well as for themselves (e.g. increased categorization
by ethnic majority workers, interethnic tensions, reinforced prejudices and discrimination, and preferential
treatments among Dutch majority members who feel threatened by ethnic out-groups). It is unfortunately not
totally clear whether this statement is based on actual experiences with a highly diverse workforce or whether
it is just an expectation or a fear of losing the currently pleasant atmosphere at work.
Finally, participants were asked whether they have an interest in a management that takes account of ethnic
diversity within the work context. In fact all participants answered this question in a rather normative way.
Management participants expressed the normativity that the management cannot ignore cultural diversity
given the fact that we live in a highly multi-ethnic society. It was therefore thought to be inevitable that
management staff members need to know something about other cultures and respond to their workers’
cultural needs. This could lead to a more pleasant working atmosphere, which in turn is thought to lead to
increased organizational advantages. A majority of the management participants found this important
independent of the actual number of ethnic minorities within their DeliXL site, as the number of ethnic
minorities was expected to grow in the future. Nevertheless, it was especially the cultural knowledge that was
sometimes thought to be lacking. The chiefs warehouse and team managers expressed in particular that they
could feel uncertain in certain situations. One of the chiefs warehouse for example explained that the more
exceptional situations could be difficult, such as when an ethnic minority worker has to go back to his heritage
country for a funeral, requests for a vacation that takes more than three weeks, etcetera. He explained that the
organizational interest is often put first, while sometimes you have to find a more human solution. At the same
time you should try to treat your workers in an equal way. Nevertheless, in fact all the management
participants had the impression that the management staff of DeliXL also takes account of their diverse
workforce. In the words of one of the location managers:
We adjust our leading style, I think that we take account of their behavior so to speak … The way of collaborating,
the way of leading, trying to get people together … Trying to get that mixture between ethnic majority and ethnic
minority people. (Location manager)
Executive staff largely shared the opinion that the management should be consistent, although they were also
aware of the fact that the latter may be difficult sometimes. Also here, Dutch majority participants expressed
the normativity that it is good to have a management that knows something about cultural backgrounds, not
so much for their own sake but in the interest of others (e.g. reducing for them important problems). In the
words of a warehouse worker:
If something happens you have to be able to respond to that, or if they (ethnic minorities) have problems you have
to take account of it. That’s why you need to know something about cultures. (Ethnic majority warehouse
worker)
Nevertheless, an ethnic majority team coordinator and a warehouse worker stressed that cultural knowledge is
important, but not at the expense of ethnic minorities’ integration. In their opinion, ethnic minorities should
adapt as much as possible to the norms of their host society. Strikingly, ethnic minority workers argued that it
is not so much cultural knowledge that they expect from their management; they rather want their
management to show interest in and understanding towards their situation. In other words, they generally
expect their management to listen to people and to try to find solutions in which every party could recognize
themselves. In the opinion of one ethnic minority team coordinator, some management staff members react a
bit indifferent to cultural issues (e.g. “Is that my problem?”). Though, most of the ethnic minority participants
think that their management tries to respond to their needs most of the time and treats everyone in an equal
way.
Based on the previous the following conclusions could be drawn. First of all, ethnic majority participants
approached the interview questions regarding interests more business-like. This group of participants focused
on organizational goals by stressing that DeliXL should guarantee that 1) they have enough workers in the
future, 2) the work should be done well irrespective of cultural diversity, and 3) that the positive work
atmosphere and positive organizational relations should be maintained in order to reach high organizational
achievements. Ethnic minority participants, on the other hand, tended to look more at the benefits for
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
30
themselves, that means: working within a positive atmosphere and recognition of individual needs. While the
former was mainly linked with receiving respect, enhancing self-confidence and preventing ethnic
categorizations and interethnic tensions to happen, the latter was brought in relationship with having the
possibility to express cultural/religious core values and a management that shows interest and understanding.
5.2
Experiences with ethnic diversity at work
In order to answer the second sub-question – ‘What are the issues the various stakeholders of ethnic
diversity experience regarding ethnic diversity?’ – participants were asked about their experiences with cultural
diversity at work within the fields of 1) communication, 2) social norms, and 3) work norms. The overall image
is that DeliXL participants perceive and experience ethnic diversity within DeliXL quite positive. Of course,
people do experience issues, but these appeared to be more often caused by circumstances in the workspace
(e.g. individual competences, interactions between employees, etcetera) than by organizational practices or
policies. This is illustrated more in detail in the next three sections. The emphasis will be on the issues
experienced, although several positive experiences will come forward as well.
5.2.1 Experiences within the field of communication
DeliXL Schiedam and DeliXL Helmond both use Dutch as the ‘official’ language for addressing their
employees. The Dutch language is also used as a prerequisite for hiring people. DeliXL Schiedam, however, also
employs people who cannot speak Dutch but do speak English, for example Polish people who stay in The
Netherlands on a temporary basis. Apart from this group of people, participants within both research sites
estimated that about 80 till 90 percent of the DeliXL employees speak proper Dutch. The remaining 10 till 20
percent have relatively low Dutch language proficiency. It were especially the chiefs warehouse, team
managers and team coordinators who indicated that language barriers regularly (i.e. weekly to monthly) makes
effective communication more difficult. They explained that it can be time-consuming and complicated to
explain work instructions (especially during complicated courses about for example dangerous chemical
substances) or to understand feedback given by ethnic minority employees. To a lesser extent, it sometimes
appeared difficult to engage ethnic minority workers in work discussions. Although the latter was found
regrettable, it was not indicated as a real issue. According to the chiefs warehouse, team managers and team
coordinators, misunderstandings or misinterpretations sometimes result in errors in the work process (e.g.
clients who receive the wrong products, too little or too many products, etcetera). However, participants also
mentioned that it are not only ethnic minority workers who make mistakes. Although team coordinators
usually try to tackle misunderstandings (e.g. by being direct and trying to be clear, that means: “What do we
expect from you?”), it appeared that some ethnic minority workers tend to say that they understand
something, while in fact they do not. Participants explained that this is mainly the result of shame and/or pride.
They generally think that ethnic minority team coordinators fulfill an important role here, as they are thought
to have a better sense of detecting language misinterpretations than Dutch leaders. It was also thought that
ethnic minorities feel less ashamed to ask an ethnic minority team coordinator for a clarification than to ask a
Dutch colleague. An ethnic minority team coordinator explained:
If they (ethnic minority workers) don’t understand something, they automatically come to me … They say at these
kinds of moments: ‘[name team coordinator], what did they say because I didn’t understood a word of it! I nodded
yes but/’ … They feel ashamed for that, more or less. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
Warehouse workers, both ethnic minority and ethnic majority, generally do not experience language barriers
as a real problem. They indicated that they try to adapt to people’s language proficiency by simplifying their
speech or simply by speaking English. It should be mentioned in this respect that a majority of the warehouse
workers works on an individual basis. In other words, they don’t have to engage very often in work-related
communications. Two ethnic minority workers expressed strongly that management staff members should not
complain about the consequences of language barriers because they hired them themselves. A participant
explained: “You throw a stone through the window and then you say: ‘Hey, that window is broken’”. According
to the participants this is the world upside down: if you ‘ask’ for a problem yourself, you should know what the
consequences are.
A second theme that came across during the interviews was related to the use of English. Several team
coordinators and warehouse workers from DeliXL Schiedam found it regrettable that management staff
members have difficulties to speak English. According to their opinion, people should be able to speak more
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
31
than one language, or at least English; especially in these times of globalization and in multi-ethnic regions such
as in the Randstad. One of the participants argued in this respect:
What does it tell about Dutch people then, if they do not want to learn another language, only their own language?
They stick to the old days, a long time ago. Come on, you have to develop yourself! (Ethnic minority team
coordinator)
This participant not only calls it old-fashioned, he also suggests that it is somewhat disrespectful that ethnic
majority workers do not want to spend energy in learning a new language. In line with this, his colleague
argued:
I’m surprised sometimes that people cannot speak English at all! … In these times?! … Sometimes I think: Listen, you
demand them [employees] to speak English, then you should also expect that you can speak English yourself.
(Ethnic majority team coordinator)
Finally, a minority of the participants mentioned that they see differences in communication style between
ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers. The location manager, a team manager and a Dutch majority
warehouse worker from DeliXL Schiedam argued that the Dutch tend be relatively direct, especially in the
Western part of the country. They explained that the Dutch generally do not feel restricted to tell what they
think. Ethnic minority workers, on the other hand, are thought to be polite as they always greet other
colleagues (sometimes even several times a day) and their communication style reflects respect for
organizational hierarchy. This difference in communication style sometimes leads to irritations among ethnic
minority workers. The latter was also expressed by several ethnic minority workers themselves; they generally
find the Dutch quite rude in their communication style (e.g. cursing, not greeting co-workers, less respect for
hierarchy). Although this was found regrettable, it was not really experienced as a big issue.
5.2.2 Experiences within the field of social norms
In order to let the participants talk as freely as possible, the field of social norms was asked in a rather
open way (‘How could you describe the contacts among colleagues, how do they deal with each other?’). More
specific, it was asked what kind of cultural clashes or tensions people experience. A total of six themes came up
during the interviews: 1) cultural temperament and dealing with critique, 2) group segregation, 3) use of native
languages, 4) cultural norms and values and (lack of) mutual respect, 5) jokes or remarks about cultural
backgrounds, and 6) prejudices, discrimination and preferential treatments.
5.2.2.1
Cultural temperament and dealing with critique
Several management participants had the impression that ethnic minority workers show a stronger
temperament than ethnic majority workers. A chief warehouse and a team manager expressed the impression
that ethnic minority workers are somewhat touchier or easier offended, especially Antillean and Surinamese
workers, and to a lesser extent also Moroccans. The team manager for example explained that the Dutch are
somewhat easier and perceive things more in relative terms than ethnic minority workers. This feeling was
recognized by one of the ethnic minority team coordinators, who explained that ethnic minority workers are
always attentive and tend to seek for implicit meanings by nature (i.e. they do not want to be discriminated);
not so much because of DeliXL, but the more because of the widespread pubic and political discourses.
Nevertheless, management participants expressed that cultural temperament can be a difficulty as they
sometimes have the feeling that they should select their words very carefully, especially when giving ethnic
minority workers feedback. This can be difficult, as you do not want to conceal your critiques, one of the chiefs
warehouse explained. He argued that ethnic minority workers deal with critique in a different way. According
to his opinion, ethnic minority workers often take critique very personally; they could really feel touched in
their souls. Dealing with critique was a theme that came up during more interviews. One of the location
managers and one of the chiefs warehouse expressed that it is especially an issue regarding performance
appraisal. The location manager explained that DeliXL works with an A-B-C-D-E performance appraisal system,
within which an A is seen as the lowest and an E as the highest appraisal. In theory, a C is seen as ‘sufficient’,
that means: you have done your work well. According to the location manager, ethnic minority workers tend to
be more disappointed with a C than ethnic majority workers. To his opinion, especially ethnic minority workers
have to be told time and time again that you should be happy with a C appraisal. In line with the former, one of
the chiefs warehouse explained that ethnic minority workers tend to take performance appraisals more serious
than ethnic majority workers. They want critiques to be very clearly explained, as well as how they could
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
32
improve themselves. All the team managers and team coordinators also stressed this point. Two participants
explained this as follows:
We once had a second generation ethnic minority, we expected a lot from him and we also knew that he could, but
his performance was really low. We addressed him on that issue and initially he felt offended. However, after we
explained what was happening … he understood it. (Team manager)
Most of the ethnic minority workers like to loose oneself in their job. They are passionate. If something goes wrong,
they want to improve themselves … But you know what? In most of the situations, if someone gives you feedback, it
is not explained … That is a bit … rude. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
While the first participant regarded the issue as a result of a misunderstanding, the ethnic minority participant
argued that it is also a matter of respect. One of the location managers illustrated both of these points at the
same time with a nice anecdote. One of his ethnic minority workers was criticized on his behavior. After mutual
irritations were expressed and explained, the management of DeliXL thought that the case was closed.
However, the management found out that several organizational processes were hindered. Afterwards it
appeared that the ethnic minority referred to above felt so offended, that he could not make any positive
contributions to the organizations anymore. The location manager concluded that clear feedback is very
important in order to be clear and to show respect, which in turn will prevent situations like this to happen.
Another issue that came up is that critique is sometimes interpreted as discrimination. This point was mainly
stressed by ethnic minorities; both team coordinators and warehouse workers. Strikingly, all of these
participants do not take these kinds of expressions very serious. In the words of an ethnic minority worker:
It is a matter of pride … If something happens, they immediately say: ‘That’s discrimination!’ … If you ask them what
discrimination is, they do not even know it themselves … They know it is a sensitive issue. If the management
addresses them, they are going to play a game. In my view, it is all just a game. (Ethnic minority warehouse
worker)
As ethnic minority co-workers, it tends to be the case that they know exactly what is happening. In their
opinion, some ethnic minorities unjustly try to benefit from accusing someone of discrimination. However,
others explain that they do not really know where this kind of behavior is coming from. They ask themselves
whether it is some kind of ‘natural’ behavior as a result of today’s pubic and political discourses or whether
they just want to frustrate management staff members.
5.2.2.2
Group segregation
Regarding the topic of segregation, it appeared that the two DeliXL sites differ quite extensively in their
experiences. This could simply be explained by the fact that DeliXL Schiedam has more ethnic diversity than
DeliXL Helmond, and, as a result, also experiences more segregation between ethnic majority and ethnic
minority workers. Within DeliXL Schiedam, actually all Dutch majority participants mentioned that ethnic
majority and ethnic minority workers segregate, but only during the lunch/dinner breaks as work teams are
mixed. Dutch majority participants mentioned several reasons to explain this form of group segregation. First
of all, the chief warehouse and team manager mentioned that it partly results from eating habits; something
that was thought to be inevitable and in this respect also not disturbing. For example regarding the Moroccan
workers, every person brings something to eat, which in turn is shared with the other Moroccans. This is
something that is thought to be inherent to Moroccan culture. One of the team managers commented:
I always enjoy seeing those Moroccans … the whole table full of food, everyone takes something and joins …
However, as an organization you would prefer, of course, a long big table or a round table so that everyone sits
together. However, you have to accept that we cannot always be each others’ friends. (Team manager)
As a second explanation, participants mentioned that it is natural to segregate; it is something that happens
unconsciously. In other words, people are thought to feel more attracted to their ethnic in-groups. Moreover,
it should be mentioned that participants indicated that group segregation also depends on the situation.
Segregation between ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers tends to occur more often during the
evenings and weekends; the times when temporary workers (often students) work. As these students may
know each other from their neighborhood, school, etcetera, it may also be more natural to segregate.
Nevertheless, Dutch majority participants generally do not experience group segregation as a big issue. One of
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
33
the Dutch majority team coordinators explained that it would start to be a problem when tensions would arise
or when ethnic minorities would form groups purposively. Strikingly, all the ethnic minority workers
interviewed expressed that there is no group segregation. In their opinion, everything is ‘mixed’. Workers even
meet with each other after work, also in mixed groups. However, it might have been the case that these people
mix themselves and therefore have a somewhat distorted image. Moreover, these workers mainly work during
day hours, so they do not have much experience with temporary workers.
Within DeliXL Helmond, actually all the participants expressed that there is hardly any segregation. However,
two exceptions deserve to be mentioned here. The location manager remarked that also here ethnic minority
temporary workers tend to segregate. On the other hand, he also admits that especially management staff
members (all Dutch majority members) also segregate; perhaps unconsciously because they often use lunch
breaks as extended gathering time. Secondly, two ethnic minority workers explained that during company
parties ethnic minorities segregate more. As an explanation it was argued that they feel more attracted to
other ethnic minorities in their private time (thus also a party after work hours), as they share more interests
with one another.
5.2.2.3
Use of native languages
Although the ‘official’ language of DeliXL is Dutch, it appeared that ethnic minorities sometimes speak in their
native languages, however, not on a very regular basis. Participants stressed that the use of native languages
usually serves two purposes: 1) informal talk among ethnic minorities during lunch/dinner-time, and 2) workrelated communication in order to clarify things to ethnic minorities who do not speak Dutch very well. All
Dutch majority participants strongly disapproved of the first point as it makes them feel uncomfortable. Ethnic
minority colleagues may raise the impression that they gossip about others or exclude ethnic majority
colleagues on purpose. One of the chiefs warehouse argued in this respect that if feels ‘more serious’ if ethnic
minorities speak in their own languages. Additionally, participants mentioned that it is ‘disrespectful’ and ‘rude’
to use native languages in presence of people who cannot understand them. This opinion was also shared
regarding people who speak a Dutch dialect among each other, such as ‘Limburgs’. A majority of the Dutch
ethnic majority participants explained that they do not feel reluctant to request others to speak in Dutch. In
case native languages are used when no ‘linguistic others’ are present, people generally find it not disturbing. A
majority of the participants argued that it might also be helpful to explain or clarify things to ethnic minorities
who do not master the Dutch language very well. However, one ethnic majority workers argued that the use of
native languages should not be at the expense of Dutch language acquisition:
I think that you should explain things in Dutch. If … an ethnic minority workers then says” ‘Sorry, I don’t understand
you’, you may be inclined to think ‘Ok, I will clarify it in Arabic’ … I don’t have any difficulties with the fact that native
languages are used to clarify things. However, I would also tell them: work on your Dutch language proficiency.
(Ethnic majority warehouse worker)
As a Limburgian, others also expect from him to speak Dutch. In this respect, he expects ethnic minorities to
speak in Dutch too. Nevertheless, he also explained that using your ‘own’ language sometimes happens
unconsciously; it is a habit, more or less.
Regarding the opinion of ethnic minority participants, a clear distinction could be seen between DeliXL
Schiedam and DeliXL Helmond. Within DeliXL Schiedam, ethnic minorities tend to hold a more multiculturalist
stance regarding their own language usage, more specific: it was found that people should be able to speak
their languages when they would like to, especially in your own time (i.e. lunch/dinner breaks). One team
coordinator explained:
If you are having your break, it is your own time so you are allowed to speak whatever language you want. If they
[ethnic minorities] … have lunch together, … what language are they going to speak? Dutch, so that everyone can
understands them? No. We speak in our own language. It is our own time, we pay for it ourselves you know …
However in the workspace, during work hours, you have to speak Dutch. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
According to one of the warehouse workers, ethnic minorities do not use their languages to exclude or harm
others. It is rather a matter of ease. He explained that some things cannot be expressed in Dutch or are easier
to express in the native language (e.g. humor, cursing). Nevertheless, within DeliXL Helmond, on the other
hand, ethnic minority participants tend to hold a more assimilationist view. This tendency was expressed
regarding one’s own language usage, as well as regarding the language usage of others. Ethnic minorities
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
34
explained that they try to use their native languages as little as possible, basically for two reasons. First of all,
they do not want to act disrespectful towards others. Secondly, it also annoys them if other ethnic minorities
speak languages they cannot understand simply because of the same reasons Dutch majority participants
mentioned. In the words of two participants:
I take account of how others would feel when two Turks speak Turkish with each other. How would you feel? You
would not like it if it occurs all the time, you would think: ‘Are they talking about me?’. In my opinion, if you live
here, you should adjust to the language … I also tell them [ethnic minorities]: ‘We are in The Netherlands here, so
you should speak Dutch”. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
If someone speaks Arabic to me, I answer in Dutch. If they don’t understand me, it is simply their problem. Look,
there are also Moroccans here who cannot speak Dutch. I take account of that, but I say to them: ‘If you want to
speak Arabic with me, we move to another room’. … It annoys people … I understand that, because it also annoys
me. (Ethnic minority warehouse worker)
The participant last mentioned explained that the issue comes mainly from ethnic minorities who cannot speak
the Dutch language very well. In his opinion, these people often feel ashamed. However, he experienced it
himself that the only way to learn Dutch is to try it. You cannot learn a language without making mistakes:
“First people need to laugh at you before you can laugh at them”, he concluded.
5.2.2.4
Cultural norms and values and (lack of) mutual respect
Actually all participants mentioned that ethnic majority and ethnic minority colleagues do not engage in real
conflicts or experience heavy tensions as a result of differences in norms and values. If there are conflicts or
tensions at all, they are often related to personal frustrations or differences in personality and these, in turn,
can be solved relatively easily. People do have discussions about each others’ cultures (e.g. someone asking a
question about the Islam, discussions about the news), but these discussions were generally characterized as
‘correct’, ‘peaceful’ and ‘amicable’, or: discussing culture in a rather normal and informative way. As illustrated
by a participant:
Lately we had a discussion … I always like discussions, especially with ethnic minority workers because I am
interested in how they think about certain issues … I was talking with a Moroccan colleague about girls, you know. I
said to him: ‘How do you experience it if someone says to you ‘Your sister is hot’, what would you do?’. He
answered: … ‘I would be mad’. I mentioned another example: ‘You have a nice wife’ … They could accept ‘a nice
wife’, but they won’t accept ‘a beautiful wife’. We [the Dutch] experience [such an expression] as a compliment,
while they would think: ‘What do you want from my wife?’ … I liked that discussion. Afterwards he understood how
we [the Dutch] think about this issue and I also understood how they think about it. (Team manager)
According to the participants, the atmosphere among colleagues is generally nice and positive. Nevertheless,
during the interviews it also appeared that colleagues from different ethnic groups sometimes do experience
differences in norms and values, which in turn can lead to irritations. One ethnic minority warehouse worker
explained in this respect that discussions between workers could be heated sometimes, mainly as a result of
ignorance. You have to explain how your culture works so that people know what they can and cannot say or
do, he explained. If explained, then, people usually do not make the same ‘mistake’ again and the discussion
does not result in a conflict.
All Dutch majority management participants and one Dutch majority warehouse worker mentioned that ethnic
minority workers usually behave very respectful towards the organizational hierarchy. In their opinion, ethnic
minorities look up to the management and treat them with more respect than their Dutch majority colleagues.
To illustrate, ethnic majority colleagues generally greet their superiors more extensively and always shake
hands. According to one of the team managers, this is a matter of education; ethnic minority cultures teach
these colleagues from childhood onwards that they have to respect their superiors, i.e. the elderly and the
‘experienced’. This is something that was confirmed by the ethnic minority participants themselves. One
Muslim team coordinator explained that it is also something that is imposed from the Islam. On the other
hand, ethnic minority participants expressed that they sometimes experience a lack of respect regarding their
Dutch majority colleagues. In their opinion, Dutch majority colleagues are not very polite. While this is not seen
as a real issue, it was found regrettable. To give an illustration: two team coordinators and one warehouse
worker argued that many Dutch colleagues behave a bit rude as they do not greet others. In the words of two
participants:
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
35
I enter the canteen, most of the Dutch enter and just going to sit down. No greetings, no coffee or tea … Nothing …
That’s normal. I always ask them; ‘Don’t you greet others?’. Then they say: ‘No, we don’t do that’. Then I answer:
Haven’t you learned some manners? … What I have learned here is that the Dutch are more business-minded … they
don’t say a lot actually. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
Everyone hears you but you don’t get a reply. Well, it’s not nice to work that way … After 5 days, a colleague came to
me and said: ‘I heard you say ‘Good morning’ for the whole week, but they don’t reply’. I said to him: ‘You heard?!’. I
don’t say it for them anymore, It is just a general remark, you know. It is just ‘Good morning, I am here, good
morning, we are going back to work again’. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
Nevertheless, it was expressed that these kinds of happenings do not alter ethnic minority participants’
behavior. All of them argued that it is very important to treat your colleagues with respect. One team
coordinator explained that if you put the people to work in a respectful way, you also receive respect from
them. According to another team coordinator, the ethnic minority workers are also not always that respectful
towards their Dutch fellow-warehouse workers. In his opinion, this is the result of ‘the current situation’, that
means: the media that depicts ethnic minorities in a negative way, which leads to disrespectful behavior on
both sites.
5.2.2.5
Jokes about cultural backgrounds
Virtually all participants mentioned that people make jokes about cultural backgrounds. However, participants
differed quite extensively in indicating the frequency of and reactions towards these jokes. Whether this is a
result of difference in perspective (i.e. not ‘knowing’ everything) or not wanting to see everything is not totally
clear. As will appear later on, especially Dutch majority participants also feel insecure sometimes about the
kinds of jokes they can make; they do not want to be seen as racist or violating their cultural norms. Executive
staff participants made clear that jokes about cultural backgrounds will always be made; in their opinion it is
something you cannot prevent. However, especially management participants made clear that you can
supervise more strictly, address the people who make such jokes and ‘sarcastic’ remarks and to let them
experience the consequences (which is also done in practice, as one of the team managers argued that he fired
someone exactly because of this reason).
Participants indicated that jokes about cultural backgrounds are mainly about stereotypical content
(“Moroccans are criminals”) and religion (Islam) and virtually always between warehouse workers, not
between management staff and warehouse workers. When asking participants whether jokes about cultural
backgrounds are made on a regular basis, especially Dutch majority participants tend to mention that the rate
is not very high. However, they also mentioned that it is difficult to estimate: what is experienced as teasing by
the one may be experienced as bullying by another. The same goes for the distinction between ‘joke’ and
‘insult’. One of the location managers once said to an ethnic minority worker that he engages in black-andwhite thinking (i.e. being not very nuanced). The ethnic minority worker, in turn, experienced this as a form of
discrimination. The location manager explained that a certain expression could thus be interpreted in very
different ways. Another example that popped up several times has to do with the use of Facebook. A Dutch
majority worker had sent a public message to a Polish worker that contained ‘Full is full’. While this message
was related to a new tattoo of the Polish worker concerned, others interpreted this as discrimination (i.e.
referring to the political message that The Netherlands has too many immigrants). This resulted in quite some
commotion within the DeliXL site concerned. The opinions differed when asking Dutch majority participants
whether they have the impression that ethnic minorities do or do not have problems with cultural jokes or, i.e.
whether they can cope with it. One of the chiefs warehouse explained that he has a Jewish worker who reacts
quite sensitive towards jokes about his religion, for example when Dutch majority colleagues discuss the news
about Palestine and make sarcastic remarks such as “The Jews are behaving well again”. The other chief
warehouse argued in this respect that he is happy to have an ethnic minority team coordinator. In his opinion,
this person feels better what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior and teaches management staff
members where to pay attention to. On the other hand, several other people explained that ethnic minorities
generally do not have many problems with jokes about their cultural backgrounds. However, one of the team
managers explained that he does check this, as he does not want his workers to feel insulted or discriminated
against. In his own words:
I heard jokes like ‘Watch out for your purse, a Moroccan is walking behind you!’ several times. People can cope with
it and also laugh about it. … I once asked a guy whether he found it a negative experience when people say things
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
36
like this, he answered that he can deal with it. However, jokes should not go too far … If there is something that I
cannot endure it would be pure racism. (Team manager)
One of the ethnic majority team coordinators argued that jokes are often sarcastic. They seem rude, but he has
the impression that people know to whom they can say these kinds of things. Another ethnic majority team
coordinator and an ethnic majority warehouse worker acknowledged this. The participant last mentioned
explained that he is sometimes a bit shocked by the kinds of jokes made, but when he sees that ethnic minority
workers are not terrified to make jokes about the Dutch he always feels relieved. The previous was
acknowledged by an ethnic minority team coordinator, who argued that if you would say the same kinds of
things to other people, they would think it is discrimination. However, as people know each other well and
therefore also know what they can say to one another, ethnic minorities do not have problems with cultural
jokes, he argued. Nevertheless, this opinion was not shared by the other ethnic minority participants. Especially
the Turkish and Moroccan workers explained that they could feel hurt by jokes, perhaps also because these
two groups gain the most negative attention in Dutch public discourses. Especially when people make jokes
about the Islam repeatedly, the Turkish and Moroccan workers become mad. Also jokes about family members
are quite sensitive. One of the team coordinators explained:
I always said that my religion is close to my heart, and of course my family too. I don’t want to hear any jokes about
that anymore or whatever. Respect needs to come from both sites. I don’t make jokes about these kinds of topics
either. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
According to the ethnic minority participants, people make quite some jokes. Moreover, it is argued that most
jokes focus on the Turks and Moroccans and are made by Dutch majority colleagues. A Moroccan team
coordinator for example illustrated that several Dutch colleagues once made a joke about Mekkafood (a brand
that sells halal food products) by stating that you can only eat this food by moving in the direction towards
Mecca. He does not like these kinds of silly jokes. Another example is that Dutch colleagues were discussing in
the canteen that they would not step into an airplane in which Arabs are sitting as they might carry bombs with
them. As this team coordinator is an Arab himself, he felt insulted by this comment. He also addressed the
people involved to tell them that they should not generalize. However, not all ethnic minorities dare to say
something about it. One of the ethnic minority team coordinators explained that he does not bring up every
joke to his team manager:
You won’t go to your leader: ‘He said this and this’ (childish voice) … You hold on, you hold on for a very long time,
which is of course not good as at a certain moment it will come to an explosion. (Ethnic minority team
coordinator)
In line with the former, it may be the case that the management staff does not know everything and, therefore,
expressed less negative experiences than the ethnic minority participants. Nevertheless, in the opinion of an
ethnic minority warehouse worker, Dutch majority colleagues make these silly jokes on purpose, as they know
that ethnic minorities will feel hurt. For this reason, he does not react to silly jokes or comments. The same
participant also indicated that humor is a complicated issue. In his opinion, also ethnic minorities sometimes do
not know how far they could go when making jokes towards the Dutch; it is something the time will learn you,
you have to get to know each other in order to learn what is appropriate and inappropriate.
5.2.2.6
Prejudices, discrimination and preferential treatments
Dutch majority participants are generally not very aware of prejudices and discrimination among their
workforce. A majority of them explained that people will have prejudices – just like anybody else –, but you do
not remark them very often. Discrimination is also thought not to occur very often. To give an illustration, one
of the location managers argued that ethnic minorities like to work for DeliXL. If there would be many
prejudices and/or discrimination, he would have expected that these people would have left the company. An
interesting question, in this respect, is whether these participants are really not aware of practices of prejudice
and discrimination or do not want to see it (i.e. colorblindness), or whether they did not want to highlight them
during the interviews. One of the team managers explained that there are in fact prejudices, but not on a very
large scale. He always tells people that if there are any problems, they will hear it from them; not from their
fellow warehouse workers. Moreover, he asks workers to come to him when they experience any problems. In
doing so, he tries to detect who of his workers discriminate against others. One warehouse worker also gave a
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
37
positive experience regarding prejudices, as his own prejudices – especially about Moroccans (i.e. criminals,
rude, no manners) – were in fact falsified as a result of working with ethnically diverse colleagues.
A majority of the ethnic minority workers argued that they experience especially prejudices on a quite regular
basis, and to a lesser extent also racist remarks (i.e. mainly indicated as abusive language on ethnicity/religion).
One of the ethnic minority team coordinators explained that it are always the same Dutch majority warehouse
workers that engage in such behavior; no groups of people and also not the organization. He has the
impression that it are often people who are not ‘used’ to ethnic minorities. They take over the discourses that
are presented in political debates and the Dutch media. He further illustrated this with the example that many
Dutch majority members link ethnicity to criminality and let this influence their behavior. Although
understandable, he finds this highly unjust:
I heard so many remarks (in his life). If I am going to an ATM machine and have to wait for an older woman, she
hides her bag for me. Then I think: ‘If I walk away, she will suspect me’. Look how you are going to think yourself! …
It is understandable what is happening (in society). But yes, there are happening so many things?! If I am walking
with my little niece and I see a Dutch guy, should I walk away and be careful because it is a pedophile? … How would
they feel? [People] usually don’t say anything, but how they behave already tells enough. (Ethnic minority team
coordinator)
He finds this regrettable, but he does not want this to influence him. If he experiences prejudices or racist
remarks (which he indicated as “abusive language” and “people who talk to ethnic minorities as if they are
dogs”) from his fellow workers, he tries to ignore them, he explained. Another ethnic minority team
coordinator emphasized his disgust towards instances of generalization. He argued that there are good and bad
ethnic minorities, as well as good and bad Dutch majorities. He continued that as a result of negative public
and political discourses, people tend to remind the negative messages, form prejudices and generalize the
content of these messages to the whole ethnic group. He cannot stand such instances and therefore tries to
combat them. He illustrates this with a nice anecdote. When this participant visited the employment agency
about seven years ago, they told them that they found work for him, but warned him that the organization
concerned (DeliXL) had negative experiences with Moroccans. The participant – who is also Moroccan –
decided to visit DeliXL; not with the intention to work for them, but to tell them that you cannot generalize
regarding ethnic groups. During the appointment that followed, the participant had the impression that the
DeliXL management staff member concerned did not saw his initial ideas about Moroccans confirmed. He gave
the participant a chance to work for DeliXL. He, in turn, took this chance to prove the manager that he was
wrong. This eventually also happened; the manager admitted he was wrong and made excuses. The participant
explained that he could understand that people have prejudices, but these should not determine your actions.
He expressed that he sometimes has the feeling that some of his fellow warehouse workers’ behavior is too
much determined by prejudices. For example when something is stolen, he has the feeling that some people
always think that an ethnic minority is the perpetrator, while in fact practice has shown that this link between
ethnicity and criminality is highly unjustified. In line with the former, two ethnic minority team coordinators
and two warehouse workers indicated that they sometimes feel that colleagues do not like ethnic minorities. In
their opinion, expressions by ethnic majority colleagues sometimes contain a covert prejudicial or racist
message. One of the participants illustrated that several ethnic majority executive staff members blame ethnic
minorities for things that went wrong simply because of their ethnic background:
In my opinion, the ethnic majority workers are not always honest towards others. If a Moroccan makes a mistake, it
is discussed extensively. If a Dutch makes the same mistake, it is not discussed at all … If someone puts a box at the
wrong place, the chauffeur will say: ‘Oh, it will be an ethnic minority again, they do not understand anything!’.
(Ethnic minority warehouse worker)
Moreover, some Dutch majority warehouse workers have the tendency to mention that their ethnic minority
colleagues are not ‘like the rest’ of the ethnic group concerned, e.g. they wish that all Moroccans were as kind
and well-mannered as them. According to one of the ethnic minority warehouse workers, these expressions
still hurt. In his opinion, the Dutch have to get to know people before relying on such generalizations.
Nevertheless, the best way to deal with these kinds of instances is to ignore it, ethnic minorities explained.
While numerous examples were given about prejudices and generalizations, none of the ethnic minorities
explicitly argued that prejudices or racist remarks are a real issue. An explanation may be that they do not
experience these instances from their management. Some of them also mentioned that the management is not
to blame; they respond to it in a delicate way. One of the ethnic minority team coordinators argued that
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
38
prejudices are something that is in the minds of the people, and therefore difficult to address. In other words,
it may be something that cannot be changed. Additionally, it may also be the case that ethnic minorities simply
do not want to spend energy on these instances and/or suppressed them.
In line with the former, five out of six ethnic minority participants argued that their management does not
engage in preferential treatment. One of the location managers and an ethnic majority team coordinator once
heard people say that ethnic minorities cannot advance their career. However, this was not so much expressed
by ethnic minority participants themselves; except from one ethnic minority team coordinator, ethnic minority
participants believe people have a fair chance to become for example a management staff member. The
former participant first wants to see an ethnic minority worker become a team manager before arguing that
people have a fair chance. However, an ethnic minority warehouse worker expressed his happiness about the
fact that managers only look at your performance and not at your ethnic background. The only disadvantage he
could think of are the snacks distributed during Holidays, such as non-halal snacks during Christmas; days on
which many ethnic minorities work. However, he thinks this is rather a matter of unawareness than a matter of
preferential treatment. The only ethnic minority who did mention preferential treatment had the feeling that
ethnic minorities always have to work twice as hard as their ethnic majority colleagues. He expressed the
feeling that ethnic minorities get a lower performance rate than the Dutch. However, he also expressed that he
is not totally sure about this, as it is not based on facts. He received one of the highest performance rankings
himself. An explanation may be that his view is rather based on previous experiences within other companies,
than on actual experiences within DeliXL.
One of the chiefs warehouse argued that some ethnic minorities tend to misuse their background for accusing
others of discrimination, for example after they have received negative feedback. It could be difficult as a
leader to assess whether these kinds of incidents are jokes or real examples of discrimination. Several ethnic
minority team coordinators acknowledged this. One of them explained that this could also be difficult for
himself, as ethnic minorities often expect him to stand up for them. At the same time, he is very aware of the
fact that Dutch majority workers may monitor him in order to see whether he does not treat other ethnic
minorities in favor of the Dutch. He therefore acts very carefully in these kinds of instances.
5.2.3 Experiences within the field of work norms
Work norms appeared not to be a major problem field for the participants. Most of the participants
could not even think of any examples when asking them whether ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers
differ in how they perform the work. Differences were experienced by a small majority of the participants.
These differences, in turn, were not thought to result in issues. For example, in line with one of the location
managers, a chief warehouse argued that different ethnic groups tend to have a different work pace. However,
he explained that this does not have to be a disadvantage:
What you see is that the Polish people work very hard … We also have several African workers who seem to work
more slowly. Perhaps they are also more slowly, but also more punctual. … You need to have a mix in that. (Chief
warehouse)
A majority of the participants argued that work pace, but also work method and keeping to one’s
appointments are determined by someone’s personality, not so much by culture. In fact, the only cultural
related difference that was brought up concerns work mentality. One of the chiefs warehouse argued that
ethnic minority workers have a stronger work mentality than Dutch majority workers. He experienced that
ethnic minorities work hard, are loyal towards the organization, often have a positive attitude and do not
complain a lot. Moreover, ethnic minorities take messages from their management very serious, even more
than the Dutch was the impression. This participant therefore argued that Dutch majority workers could take
the work mentality of ethnic minority workers as an example. One of the team managers agreed with the chief
warehouse. In his opinion, ethnic minorities tend to feel a strong pressure to prove themselves, and, as a
result, work even harder than Dutch majority workers. Both ideas correspond with the opinion a majority of
the ethnic minority workers hold. Except from one warehouse worker, ethnic minority participants thought
that the Dutch are not very willing to perform heavy and physically demanding work. They do not seem very
motivated. Ethnic minorities also shared the opinion that ethnic minorities are more loyal towards the
organization; they work overtime, do not dawdle, and put the interest of the organization first. It is also argued
that ethnic minority workers work twice as hard as the Dutch. Two ethnic minorities argued that working hard
is inherent to immigrant groups, as they just want to make money. However, three ethnic minority warehouse
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
39
workers explained that ethnic minorities feel a strong motivation to prove themselves as a result of the
negative images about ethnic minorities that prevail in public and political discourses. They do not want to
confirm the stereotypes that many people in Dutch society hold and therefore work hard. In fact, none of the
ethnic minority participants blamed the organization. In the words of an ethnic minority worker:
It is something that comes from us. To be honest, we have built this feeling ourselves, the feeling that we want to
prove ourselves, to show others what we want. (Ethnic minority warehouse worker)
Nevertheless, three ethnic minority workers argued that their hard work is not always appreciated, more
specific: the management compliments too little (not only regarding ethnic minorities but in general). The
same participants explained that compliments are especially of value for ethnic minorities, as it gives them a
feeling that they have proved themselves and are a valued part of the workforce. This, in turn, is supposed to
lead to higher work motivation. A Moroccan warehouse worker also mentioned that compliments are a
cultural aspect. In his culture, he argued, people hear it when they did something wrong, but also when they
did something right. In line with this, it was thought that the Dutch often tend to stress the negative aspects
and not so much compliment in case someone did something well. Nevertheless, it were in fact only the ethnic
minority warehouse workers who found this regrettable.
Finally, the interviews suggested that ethnic minority participants hold a stricter division between their work
and private life than ethnic majority participants. One of the ethnic minority team coordinators as well as two
ethnic minority warehouse workers explained that they are not coming to work to make friends. This counts
not only for their work within DeliXL, but also within other companies, they explained. Moreover, this
statement also appeared not to be connected with their colleagues, as these were often characterized as
‘kind’. Nevertheless, as ethnic minority workers indicated that they work hard in order to prove the inaccuracy
of societal prejudices, they may not want to waste their work hours. Interestingly, one of the location
managers and a team manager argued that ethnic minorities also visit company parties less than their Dutch
co-workers. If they come at all, this group tends to come alone, that means: they do not take their wives with
them. Especially the location manager showed his disappointment towards these points, as he finds company
parties the perfect occasion to get to know people better and also to create more cohesion among workers.
Ethnic minority participants acknowledged these conclusions. One of the ethnic minority team coordinators
explained that he does visit company parties, but only because he is a team coordinator and therefore
supposed to show up. In his opinion, activities after working hours are not very important for him. Moreover,
this participant does not bring his wife to company parties. Although his wife does not want to come herself for
religious reasons, the participant gave the impression that he does not find it regrettable. His wife wears a
headscarf, which in turn may confirm the stereotypical ideas some Dutch majority workers may have about
Muslims (e.g. men who overrule their women). Another team coordinator and a warehouse worker argued
that company parties are not very appropriate for many ethnic minorities, as it does not ‘fit’ with their religion
(i.e. alcohol, men and women dancing together, etcetera).
5.3
Interrelations between the interests and issues experienced
So far, this chapter presented the stakeholders’ interests in ethnic diversity (management) and the kinds
of issues they experience within the fields of communication, social norms and work norms. However, in line
with sub-question 3, how are these two aspects related to each other? The data suggest two patterns: the first
regarding the management and the remaining ethnic majority participants, the second regarding the ethnic
minority participants.
Management participants mainly showed an interest in ethnic diversity (management) from a business
perspective; their interest appeared not so much personal-based. More specific, this group emphasized that
DeliXL needs ethnic minority workers in order to continue its activities in the future and to reach its
organizational goals. This perspective could be recognized in the kinds of issues management participants
experienced. The data suggest that especially issues within the field of language barriers seem to be connected
with their interest, as the success of organizational processes may be at risk. Indirectly, issues regarding
cultural temperament, dealing with critique, jokes about cultural backgrounds, prejudices, accuses of
discrimination, and turnouts regarding activities outside working hours are also linked with this interest. A
majority of the management participants mentioned the importance of respect and positive interrelations
among workers. Respect and positive interrelations were linked to a positive work atmosphere, which in turn is
thought to encourage workers to give its best. In this regard, management participants indicated that the use
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
40
of native languages and group segregation should be monitored, as tensions among workers should be avoided
as much as possible. Ethnic majority executive staff indicated that they do not really have an interest in ethnic
diversity (management). In their view, the most important aspect is that the work is done well, irrespective of
the kind of people who perform this work. Nevertheless, as this perspective is closely linked to the
management’s interest of achieving organizational goals, in fact the same indirect links could be made
regarding the issues they experienced (i.e. the use of native languages, group segregation, and prejudices and
jokes about cultural backgrounds).
Regarding the ethnic minority participants, the pattern is somewhat more complicated. All ethnic minority
participants explained that their interest in ethnic diversity (management) is for a large extent based on
respect, that means: a management that guarantees that ethnic minorities receive respect in the workspace
regarding their ethnic, cultural and/or religious background. The issues experienced by these workers reflect
this interest. First of all, several ethnic minorities experienced that the Dutch can be quite rude (i.e. little
respect for organizational hierarchy, no greetings, direct). As they are often polite themselves, this is more or
less a disappointment. In line with this, some ethnic minorities found it regrettable that management staff
members have a rather limited command of English; it would be a sign of mutual respect when both ethnic
minorities and ethnic majorities are able to adjust their language behavior. Secondly, a majority of the ethnic
minorities indicated that ethnic majority warehouse workers make silly jokes and prejudicial – and to a lesser
extent also racist – remarks about cultural backgrounds on a quite regular basis. These are often interpreted as
offending or discriminating; disrespectful behavior to which the management should act upon. As a third
aspect, several ethnic minorities argued that they receive too little respect from their management regarding
the activities they perform. As they usually found themselves very hard-working, ethnic minorities indicated
that they expect their management to show some appreciation. The data suggest that ethnic minorities have a
strong tendency to prove themselves as a result of the (often) negative public and political discourses. Ethnic
minority participants are in fact pretty aware of their weaker position in Dutch society and as a result also in
Dutch organizations. This awareness creates a pressure to behave in line with the expectations. The data
suggest that this in turn creates feelings of uncertainty among ethnic minority participants. Several ethnic
minority participants mentioned that a diverse workforce feels ‘familiar’. Moreover, ethnic minorities indicated
that they expect their management to show interest in and understanding of their situation. In this respect,
ethnic minority participants seem to ask confirmation from their management that they are a valued and
appreciated part of the workforce. As a fourth aspect, ethnic minorities explained that they do have an interest
in ethnic diversity (management) regarding the most important or core values of their backgrounds. They wish
the management to respect and appreciate these core values, so that the ethnic minorities have the freedom
to express them. On the other hand, however, ethnic minorities argued that they do not want to express their
identity too strongly at work, as they do not want to attract negative attention. Ethnic minorities (especially
from DeliXL Helmond) appeared to have a clear idea about what professionalism means in the work context:
cultural and linguistic adaptation. In this respect, they usually prevent speaking in their own languages and also
annoy themselves when other ethnic minorities use their native tongues or express their cultural identities too
strongly. They do not want to give ethnic majority colleagues a chance to see their prejudices and the
mainstream social and political discourses acknowledged, as this may result in even more silly jokes, remarks,
etcetera. In line with this, several ethnic minority DeliXL Helmond workers argued that they hope their
workforce is not becoming more ethnically diverse.
5.4
Individual management preferences
This section presents the management preferences of the individual stakeholders. Participants were
asked which kinds of measures they would like to take in order to make ethnic diversity more ‘workable’.
Moreover, participants were asked whether these measures should focus on the whole workforce or on several
(groups of) individuals. The purpose of these questions was to answer sub-question 4 (‘Which management
interventions do the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity propose themselves in order to let their interests
become recognized and their issues become solved?’) and 5 (‘How do the various stakeholders of ethnic
diversity evaluate a target group approach to diversity and a generic approach to diversity in the light of the
management interventions they propose?’).
5.4.1 Proposed interventions
In fact all participants indicated that they are quite happy with DeliXL as an organization; they expressed
that they like to work for DeliXL and that the management is good for their workers. In this respect, the
proposed management preferences mainly function to fine-tune and not so much to rigorously change the
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
41
actual situation. Moreover, it appeared that these preferences are not always expressed to the solve issues as
discusses in section 5.2, but to make the actual situation more positive for the stakeholders involved and/or to
let their interests become (even more) recognized. Issues appeared not always problematic enough to do
something about it, or participants might have thought that they could not be solved anyway. Nevertheless,
management participants generally think that they already respond quite well to ethnic diversity. Within DeliXL
Schiedam, however, the location manager had the feeling that DeliXL in general does not really recognize the
challenges and difficulties his site encounters, as most DeliXL sites are not very ethnically diverse. It would be
good if the headquarter is more aware of these challenges and difficulties. Additionally, especially the chiefs
warehouse and team managers indicated that ethnic diversity could make them feel insecure about their
actions, as they experienced that different ethnic groups show different types of behavior and have different
needs. Regarding the executive staff, ethnic minority participants liked the fact that attention was paid to the
topic of ethnic diversity by means of this research. This group indicated that they talk about this topic among
each other on a quite regular basis, but it is not something the management pays much attention to. Ethnic
majority team coordinators and warehouse workers indicated that they do not really have an interest in ethnic
diversity management and in fact also do not experience many issues. If they proposed management
preferences at all, it were mainly interventions of which it was though that ethnic minorities would be happy
with; thus not so much in their own interest.
The management interventions proposed during the interviews basically focus around seven themes: 1)
training programs, 2) recruitment and selection, 3) performance appraisal, 4) identity support, 5) activities
outside working hours, 6) investigating and processing complainants, and 7) responding to ethnic minority
client groups. Each theme will be discussed separately by discussing which participants came up with those
themes, what their exact preferences are, and if and how these preferences relate to their interests and issues
experienced.
5.4.1.1
Training programs
Several management participants argued that it would be good to offer management staff a training module in
ethnic diversity (management), especially for the chiefs warehouse and even more for the team manager as
they are the first ‘contact person’ in the workspace. One of the location managers argued that it is always
sensible or good for a management to know something about other cultures. In his opinion, cultural knowledge
becomes even necessary in situations where the number of ethnic minorities is relatively high. In doing so,
DeliXL will be able to respond to an increasingly ethnically diverse workforce. In order to stay successful in the
future, also ethnic minorities should feel comfortable within the organization. A well-informed management
staff may encourage this, he explained. One of the chiefs warehouse acknowledged this opinion. As he expects
ethnic diversity to increase in the future and places large value on mutual respect, it would be good if for
example the team managers know how to deal with certain situations. In his opinion, the head quarter
provides too little – or in fact no – guidelines regarding how to deal with certain situations. This sometimes
leads to feelings of uncertainty, as you have to take account of the organizational interest, the human interest
and the issue of equality. At the same time you should try to treat your workers in an equal way. According to
these two participants, a training on cultural knowledge may help management staff members to better
recognize and address ethnic minorities needs’ (i.e. a better interaction between the needs of the organization
and the needs of the ethnic minorities), increased respect, and more recognition regarding what is and what is
not appropriate behavior regarding ethnic minorities (e.g. better able to adjust their communication style, to
recognize offending jokes or remarks and discrimination (something that was found difficult at the moment),
etcetera). The other chief warehouse expressed his preference for training in conflict management and/or
negotiation strategies. This participant especially emphasized difficulties regarding ethnic minorities’ cultural
temperament and dealing with critique. Training might help him – but also other management participants – in
addressing these issues.
Additionally, the interview data showed a preference for training within the field of language and
communication. These preferences took two forms: 1) training management staff how to lead ethnic minorities
with relatively little knowledge of Dutch, and 2) supporting Dutch language acquisition for those ethnic
minority employees who have problems with the Dutch language. Regarding the first point, one of the chiefs
warehouse argued that the management could learn more about how to let ethnic minorities confirm that they
have understood their management in order to prevent faults in the work process to occur. In his words:
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
42
I think we currently forget this too easily, which in turn leads to mistakes. The employees make mistakes because
they did not understand us or felt too ashamed to ask us. They often say the have understood us, while this is not
always the case. (Chief warehouse)
One of the location managers and a team manager expressed the second point. According to the location
managers, organizations have to be more creative as a result of the aging population and shortages on the
labour market in order to stay successful in the future. Everything you invest in your organization – such as
language training – will eventually have a positive influence on the operational sides of the organization, he
explained. According to the team manager, some ethnic minority workers should receive more guidance
regarding their Dutch language acquisition in order to improve organizational efficiency (i.e. effective
communication, less faults in the organizational processes, ethnic minorities more involved in work
discussions). Moreover, language training may also enhance ethnic minority workers’ chances regarding career
advancement. However, he also expressed his doubts about whether language training is a task for the
organization or the Dutch government.
5.4.1.2
Recruitment and selection
In both research sites participants expressed the preference for having more ethnic minorities in the higher
management layers (i.e. team manager and higher). However, these preferences were shared for different
purposes. Within DeliXL Schiedam, the location manager and chief warehouse emphasized that DeliXL should
invest more in hiring ethnic minority management staff members. The philosophy behind this preference was
not so much based on issues experienced, but came mainly from the belief that DeliXL has a social
responsibility, both in order to let the workforce be a reflection of the Dutch population and to show other
ethnic minority workers that they have confidence in them. Moreover, ethnic minority management staff
members could function as an example for other ethnic minorities; they show others that it is possible to reach
such a position if you have proved yourself. Both aspects are thought to lead to a more positive working
atmosphere, which in turn may improve organizational processes. The location manager and chief warehouse
explained that DeliXL Schiedam actively tried to attract ethnic minorities in these positions, but that it is
difficult to find the right person. They do not want to hire someone only because he is an ethnic minority;
people should have the right qualities. Moreover, they experienced that ethnic minorities apply less often for
these kinds of jobs. The location manager argued in this respect that DeliXL could win something from
improving their information provisions. As a large part of the DeliXL workforce does not use Intranet and email, employees may be informed about internal developments too late. Also: good information provisions
may give employees – especially ethnic minorities – the feeling that they are not overlooked in the recruitment
procedures. In the words of the participant:
If you perform your information provisions well and you make sure that everyone is informed about the
developments within the organization, people will be more involved. People will also see: Hey, DeliXL does not focus
on ethnic majority people only, especially in the management. So I think that we need to improve our information
provisions and via those channels promoting [vacancies] and challenge people to apply for those functions in order
to become a team manager. (Location manager)
The same participant argued that the team manager function might not be attractive enough for ethnic
minorities, as the difference in salary between team coordinator and team manager is not very high. However,
the chief warehouse suggested that DeliXL could also invest more in testing their workers in order to detect
whether these people have the right qualities. In his opinion, it is sometimes too easily presumed that people
that someone does not have the right qualities, while this person in fact may be a good team manager.
Also in Helmond, the chief warehouse and the team manager argued that it would be good if there were more
ethnic minorities in the management layer. Besides that they found it important that the workforce reflects the
composition of Dutch society, ethnic minorities were also thought to fulfill an important role: to tackle and
solve culturally related issues. Both participants explained that ethnic minorities are thought to be better able
to communicate with other ethnic minorities and to tackle misunderstandings. Moreover, ethnic minority
leaders are thought to be better able to recognize other ethnic minorities’ needs and to detect silly jokes,
prejudices, racist remarks and discrimination earlier than ethnic majority leaders. It was explained that ethnic
minority workers more often address their ethnic minority leaders in case of any misunderstandings or
problems. This group of people generally feels less ashamed towards other ethnic minority members, as they
have the feeling that they understand them better. An ethnic minority team coordinator acknowledged this. In
his opinion it would feel ‘familiar’ when there are more ethnic minority management staff members. Together
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
43
with an ethnic minority warehouse worker, this person argued that DeliXL Helmond does not communicate
open enough about their vacancies. They sometimes have the feeling that the management already chose a
candidate before workers had the chance to apply. While this comment not only concerned the chances for
ethnic minority workers, the participants argued that it makes the chances for ethnic minorities even smaller.
This, in turn, makes it quite difficult to let the workforce become a reflection of the Dutch population.
5.4.1.3
Performance appraisal
Several ethnic minority stakeholders expressed their dissatisfaction regarding performance appraisal.
According to these participants, DeliXL compliments or appreciates their workers too little. This issue was not
only expressed regarding the ethnic minority workers, but counts for the whole DeliXL workforce. According to
one of the ethnic minority team coordinators, compliments are important to motivate workers. If you show
your appreciation, people are also willing to work hard for you and to work extra during the times when it is
needed, he explained. However, one of the ethnic minority warehouse workers argued that especially ethnic
minority workers are sensitive to such appreciation or compliments. While the Dutch generally expect
compliments only in cases when they did something special, ethnic minorities need this positive feedback on a
more regular basis in order to feel an appreciated or valued part of the workforce. The participant explained
that ethnic minorities generally work very hard – even harder than Dutch majority workers – and have a strong
motivation to prove themselves in order to combat stereotypes or prejudices to be confirmed (see also section
5.2.3). In this respect, the participant argued that ethnic minorities want to receive a confirmation that they are
doing their work well, have proved themselves (i.e. they are a respected part of the workforce). In his opinion,
the DeliXL management could pay more attention to this. An ethnic minority team coordinator and two other
ethnic minority warehouse workers agreed with this point. However, they also argued that positive feedback
should not be at the expense of negative feedback. The team coordinator explained that ethnic minorities are
very keen on improving themselves in order to get the best out of themselves. In other words, if they perform
their work well they would like to hear it, but they also wish to hear it when something is wrong.
5.4.1.4
Identity support
When asking participants what kinds of diversity management interventions DeliXL should take in the future, a
majority of the expressed preferences relate to the field of identity support. Two themes came up during the
interviews: 1) facilitating a prayer room, and 2) adjusted catering services. Ethnic majority and ethnic minority
participants expressed different patterns of thought in this respect.
Currently, both DeliXL sites do not have a prayer room. If workers want to pray, they usually look for a room or
quiet space themselves. However, as a majority of the ethnic minority workers are believers (i.e. mainly Muslim
and Christian), several participants argued that it would be good to facilitate a prayer room. This preference
seems to be highly normative, as none of the participants ever heard an ethnic minority ask for a prayer room
and this expression was also not so much linked to the kinds of issues the participants experienced. According
to one of the chiefs warehouse and a team manager, ethnic minorities will appreciate it if the organization pays
more attention to their ethnic background in the form of a prayer room. It was thought that they will not only
experience it as a sign of respect, they will also hold more positive ideas regarding DeliXL as an employer, i.e.
an employer who is willing to do something meaningful for its workers. In this respect, an ethnic majority team
coordinator explained that for example Muslim workers do not have the possibility to pray in a quiet and
proper room; they usually use the changing rooms. In order to keep positive interrelations in the workspace,
together with the expectation that the amount of ethnic minority workers will increase in the future, these
participants argued that a prayer room might be a necessary prerequisite for a multi-ethnic organization such
as DeliXL. Another team coordinator stressed the usefulness of a prayer room from a different kind of
perspective. In the opinion of this participant, a prayer room will prevent ethnic minorities to use inappropriate
and dangerous spaces to pray, referring to the incident of a Muslim worker who was praying in the warehouse.
A prayer room decreases the chance that – in the eyes of ethnic majority workers’ – extreme identity
expressions interfere with the work process.
A Christian ethnic minority team coordinator and a Christian ethnic minority warehouse worker explained that
they would like it if DeliXL makes a prayer room, however it is not their first priority. It is simply something that
is nice to have – especially because of the fact that no suitable room is available at the moment –, but it is
thought to be more relevant for Muslim workers. Muslim participants (i.e. two team coordinators, two
warehouse workers), on the other hand, presented a more complicated picture regarding the facilitation of a
prayer room. It is argued that a prayer room will become more and more a necessity because of the fact that
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
44
there in an increase in especially Muslim workers who demand for such a room. Both team coordinators
explained that these demands are in fact only directed towards them. They, in turn, deliberately choose not to
direct these demands to their management yet. One of them clearly explained that he already expects that the
answer is ‘no’. He does not want to hear this answer, as this will influence his positive perception about the
management staff. The other team coordinator waits for the ‘right moment to come’, i.e. the moment
management staff cannot ignore this issue anymore as a result of a high demand. These patterns of thought
are interesting, especially when taking the expressed interests (as discussed in section 5.1) into account. Ethnic
minorities explained that they generally do not want to express their identity too strongly at work, among
others because they do not want to be seen as different. The choice not to raise the question towards their
management staff may be linked to this interest. These participants may have the feeling that their question
for example confirms the stereotypes that ethnic majority workers hold or that ethnic majority workers may
think that it leads to increased group segregation. However, as ethnic minorities indicated that they do want to
have the possibility to express core values and praying is in fact an important core value for these participants,
they do have an interest in a management that shows understanding and respects their demand. An ethnic
minority warehouse worker argued that DeliXL should only facilitate a prayer room in order to show this
understanding and respect. If it is only used as ‘window dressing’, he would not support this initiative.
To a lesser extent, participants mentioned that the catering services should be better adjusted to the DeliXL
workforce. In Schiedam, the chief warehouse and a Muslim ethnic minority team coordinator argued that the
canteen provides too little halal food products (i.e. only a few times a month). An ethnic majority team
coordinator emphasized that organizations simply have to take account of diet wishes. Just like you have to
take account of vegetarians, you have to take account of religious diet wishes, he explained. In Helmond, an
ethnic minority warehouse worker argued that the canteen – which is managed by a catering service – does
not provide any halal meals at all. He explained that the canteen should better adjust its meals to the
workforce as food determines for a large extent how people work; good food gives people more energy, which
in turn will have a positive influence on the work pace. As a second aspect, an ethnic minority team
coordinator and an ethnic minority warehouse worker argued that the organization should pay more attention
to the snacks it distributes during holidays such as Christmas. They often distribute snacks with pork meat in it.
The participants explained that especially during holidays, ethnic minorities – mainly Muslims – work. The
ethnic minority warehouse worker explained that it does not motivate ethnic minorities if only Dutch majority
workers can enjoy a free snack:
It is not only unfair treatment. Look, it is [distributed] during the first break, but I still have to work for six hours
afterwards. If I go back to work after my break, I am not going to work any harder. Come on! … Yes, it has an effect
on my work. (Ethnic minority warehouse worker)
In the opinion of this participant, the organization would show more respect and appreciation for its diverse
workforce when it adjusts these snacks to its workers.
5.4.1.5
Activities outside working hours
Especially the location manager from DeliXL Helmond argued that a majority of the ethnic minority workers do
not show up during activities outside working hours. He finds this highly regrettable, as these kinds of activities
are in fact meant to create more cohesion among workers and to develop positive interrelations. For example,
issues such as group segregation, prejudices and silly jokes or remarks about cultural backgrounds may
decrease. Moreover, as company parties are the perfect occasion to get to know people better, it can make
workers also richer in the sense that they see a diversity of perspectives. Both aspects, in turn, are supposed to
have a positive influence on organizational processes and organizational performance. The location manager
wonders where it goes wrong, that means: why ethnic minorities do not come. In his opinion, DeliXL already
organizes quite some initiatives, such as a yearly company party, a yearly (also halal) barbeque, the Dutch
festivity of Sinterklaas, a yearly trip for every team, etcetera. He found it difficult to mention an exact policy
intervention, but he is sure that something needs to happen. The chief warehouse of the same DeliXL site
argued that only one ethnic minority belongs to the team that organizes these activities. He explained that
ethnic minorities should be made more enthusiastic for these teams. To get them more involved, ethnic
minorities should for example be invited for this team personally. Nevertheless, according to a team manager it
is difficult to organize company parties or trips that fit the interests of the whole workforce. It becomes
especially complicated when the number of diversity is relatively high, such as within DeliXL Schiedam. As
activities outside working hours are a nice occasion to create more solidarity among employees, he thinks that
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
45
it is important that the organization pays attention to this. This participant expressed that it may be an idea to
organize parties that are more adjusted to the cultural groups (i.e. ‘cultural’ foods, music, etcetera). Besides
the fact that other employees may learn something about other cultures, he also thinks that it could increase
the involvement of ethnic minorities in these activities.
5.4.1.6
Investigating and processing complainants
The location manager and chief warehouse of DeliXL Schiedam explained that the bullying rate is relatively high
compared to other DeliXL sites. While several anonymous researches are performed, it seemed difficult to
grasp who bullies who and where it exactly is about; is it for example a matter of ethnic, cultural or religious
diversity or is bullying linked to other factors (e.g. personality, looks, etcetera). The workforce thus does
complain about this issue anonymously, but it does not speak openly about the causes and consequences for
themselves. Especially the location manager argued that he really would like to know where this behavior
comes from and how to decrease the bullying rate, for example by making people even more aware that
bullying is not tolerated by the management, making people aware of the availability of confidential advisors.
This is thought to be important mainly from a business perspective: a fight against bullying may lead to more
positive interrelations between workers (and possibly also decreased group segregation, prejudice and
discrimination), which in turn is thought to lead to higher work motivation and a more positive image for
DeliXL. However, the location manager also suggests that this may be an impossible task as they already
undertook quite some initiatives.
In line with the former, the location manager of DeliXL Helmond argued that his site should invest more in
getting ethnic minorities involved in the employee satisfaction team. Until date, the management did not
invest energy in creating a diverse team that is actually a good representation of the workforce. As a result, the
issues the employee satisfaction team brings up may not be representative for the kinds of issues ethnic
minority workers experience. This is found regrettable, as the employee satisfaction team may help the
organization to become more successful, both regarding the organizational performance as well as regarding
the atmosphere. The chief warehouse explained that ethnic minorities usually do not put themselves at the
forefront when asking workers in general to become a member of a certain organization or improving team. In
this respect, the chief warehouse argued that it might be an idea to recruit ethnic minorities more personally,
for example: by saying “I think you would be a perfect member for our team”, ethnic minorities might feel
honored and as a result do become a member of these kinds of teams.
5.4.1.7
Responding to ethnic minority client groups
As a final point, two team coordinators (ethnic majority and ethnic minority) and an ethnic minority warehouse
worker stressed a more business-related management preference. In their opinion, the organization should
respond to the multi-ethnic society from a client perspective. These participants stressed that it is important
that the products DeliXL sells should reflect the demands of a multi-ethnic client group; something that is
already the case. However, more importantly: a diverse workforce could help the organization to recruit more
ethnic minority client groups. According to the ethnic majority team coordinator, ethnic minority client groups
usually buy their products at their own wholesalers, so there is a lot to win for DeliXL. Especially in the
Randstad there is a huge ethnic minority client market from which DeliXL Schiedam can benefit, he explained.
One of the location managers argued that DeliXL could hire an ethnic minority representative. However, an
ethnic minority warehouse workers suggested that ethnic minority warehouse workers can visit these client
groups themselves during working hours, i.e. there is no need to recruit a representative. He strongly
emphasized that it is important that ethnic minorities perform these kinds of jobs. As many ethnic minority
businessmen do not speak the Dutch language very well, an ethnic minority DeliXL worker may achieve more
than an ethnic majority DeliXL worker. Moreover, ethnic minority client groups often have the idea that DeliXL
is expensive, the warehouse worker explained. As ethnic minority DeliXL workers usually understand their
situation better than the Dutch, they may convince the potential client more easily than ethnic majority DeliXL
workers. None of participants argued that these preferences are linked to a certain interest for themselves or
to their issues experienced. It is simply something of which they think it is smart for the organization to think
about, they explained. However, while not mentioned by the participants themselves, it may be the case that
especially ethnic minorities expect to receive more respect from their employer when recruited new client
groups (i.e. they did something meaningful for the organization). As ethnic minorities suggested that they need
and want to prove themselves towards their employer and wish to receive positive feedback, recruiting new
client groups may give them the appreciation they wish for.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
46
5.4.2 Preferences for target group versus generic management approaches
As a second aspect, the participants were asked what kind of management approach should be taken
regarding the proposed management interventions. The participants seemed to have a clear idea about this.
However, the interviews suggest different patterns regarding people’s preferences in general and their
preferences for individual management interventions. While the former seems to be rather normative and also
socially desirable expressions, the latter seems to come more close to the participants’ impressions of how it
works in the real world.
When asking people in general what kind of management approach they prefer, none of the participants
expressed a preference for a target group approach. A majority of the participants explicitly mentioned to be a
proponent of equal treatment; ethnicity should by no means be a selection criterion in whatever way. An
ethnic majority team coordinator argued that ethnic minorities already get enough attention in Dutch society
as they label behavior or interventions as ‘discrimination’ quite easily. In order to prevent this to happen within
DeliXL, the organization should treat everyone as equal as possible, he explained. In fact all the participants
argued that all the workers should be treated in the same way, that means: getting the same privileges, the
same chances, etcetera. In this respect, all participants expressed their preference for a generic approach, but
preferences for the type of generic approach to be taken differed quite extensively. Only an ethnic minority
team coordinator expressed his preference for a multiculturalist approach. He explained that he would pay
much attention to how people differ in the broadest sense of the word, both because it is important for
workers to express their own identity and these differences may be valuable resources for the organization
(although he gave no examples of these resources). In this respect, he describes his own behavior as ‘taking
account of the human’ and ‘being social’. Six participants made clear that they support a colorblind approach.
They stressed that ethnic diversity management should focus on what connects people, the things that people
have in common, and not so much on the characteristics that create difference. One of the team managers
argued:
I think … you (the organization) should stress that you do not have any differences … and that every team or every
department is equal, irrespective of the fact that the one cultural background may be more noticeable than the
other. (Team manager)
Two ethnic majority team coordinators and an ethnic minority warehouse worker explained that every person
comes to DeliXL to work. As work is the binding factor, culture should be irrelevant. Another ethnic minority
worker explained in this respect that DeliXL should look at its workforce as ‘workers’, not as ‘culturally different
people’. According to this participant, interrelations may become under pressure in case the organization
adjusts its procedures to cultural different groups, as also ethnic majority workers may wish to receive special
treatments:
You are coming here to work. You have to accept the rules. You shouldn’t take account of cultural backgrounds,
otherwise you are going to cause unnecessary problems … An ethnic majority worker can also say: ‘Listen … I also
want different working hours’ (i.e. comparison with Ramadan). (Ethnic minority warehouse worker)
An ethnic majority warehouse worker argued in this respect that workers should convey the overarching
identity: the identity of DeliXL. In his opinion, workers do not need to put their ethnic background to the fore if
they are passionate and enthusiastic regarding their work. DeliXL should take a management approach that is
in line with this idea. Nevertheless, a majority of the participants (nine out of sixteen) would opt for an
inclusionist approach. They argued that ethnic diversity management should take an approach that focuses on
the things that binds people in order to create cohesion and belongingness, but also leaves space for the
individual (i.e. individual characteristics should be acknowledged, recognized and valued). According to the
location managers, this approach will help the organization to take account of individual needs, as an approach
that focuses on the group only makes it very difficult to see the individual interests. Both chiefs warehouse
argued that an inclusionist approach helps DeliXL to put the client interest at the fore (“Getting the best our of
your people”). One of the team managers, on the other hand, stressed the more human aspect. This
participant stressed the importance of a team approach in order to create a feeling of belongingness and
cohesion among workers. However, he also stressed that workers should respect each other and to let each
other feel comfortable by having the possibility to express individual identities. Two ethnic minority team
coordinators, an ethnic minority and an ethnic majority warehouse worker acknowledged this point. However,
one of the ethnic minority team coordinators also indicated that valuing uniqueness should not go too far, as
the organization cannot make exceptions continuously.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
47
When looking at the management preferences for the individual interventions, the interview data suggest a
slightly different pattern. Table 5.1 presents an overview of the management interventions, the proposed
target and the approach to be taken according to the participants. Regarding all of the proposed interventions,
participants argued that they should be aimed at giving workers the same or at least similar chances, that
means: ethnic groups – both majority and minority – should not be disadvantaged in any way. Strikingly,
regarding two out of seven of the proposed interventions the participants concerned opted for a target group
approach, while in fact this approach was strongly rejected when asking them in general which management
approach they would prefer. However, in these cases a target group approach was exactly chosen to reduce
workspace inequalities. The intervention regarding recruitment and selection could be seen as a so-called
differential treatment or tiebreak program in order to enhance workspace equality. That means: in case that an
ethnic minority and an ethnic majority are equally qualified, one should choose for the ethnic minority. The
interview data have shown that meritocracy is the guiding principle here. In fact all the participants who opted
for this intervention argued that honesty and justice should come first in all organizational procedures. Both
location managers for example strongly emphasized that ethnicity can be a criteria in recruitment and selection
procedures in order to get ethnic minorities in the management layers, but in the end DeliXL should select the
‘best candidate’ on the basis of his or her qualities. Regarding the intervention ‘responding to ethnic minority
client groups’, the participants who suggested this intervention warned that the target group approach should
not take too strong forms. More specific: DeliXL could use ethnicity as a criterion to recruit more clients, but it
should not give the target group a reward above their hourly wage. If they would do so, DeliXL would strongly
distinguish between workers and this is exactly what the participants want to prevent.
However, in line with the general preferences, stakeholders opted for a generic approach for a majority of their
management interventions. Also here the ultimate aim is to reduce workspace inequalities, however, they do
not target at ethnic minorities in the sense that ethnic minorities are chosen as a target only because of their
ethnicity. For example, the training programs intervention targets at management participants in general;
ethnicity plays no role. Moreover, while the ‘performance appraisal’, ‘activities outside working hours’, and
‘investigating and processing complainants’ interventions are particularly relevant for ethnic minority workers,
the participants who suggested them argued that the ultimate aim is to involve the whole DeliXL workforce.
The ultimate aim of the employee satisfaction team, for example, is that it should bring issues to the fore that
are representative for all the workers. The same sort of reasoning is relevant regarding the company parties;
they should be appealing to every one. Especially the intervention regarding identity support is an interesting
one. While it could be expected that interventions focusing on identity support target at ethnic minorities only,
none of the participants who opted for these interventions argued that they should target at this group only.
Exactly because (especially ethnic minority) participants do not want to raise the impression that DeliXL only
takes initiatives for this group, participants explained that the work situation should be as positive as possible
for everyone (i.e. ethnic majority and ethnic minority, Muslims, Jews, Christian, Buddhists, vegetarians, people
who suffer from allergies, etcetera). To illustrate: one of the ethnic minority team coordinators explained that
also Christians and Jews should be able to make use of a prayer room. Even if you believe in the wall so to
speak this room should be appropriate, he explained. Some of the ethnic minorities therefore suggested that it
is better to call it a ‘silence room’ instead of a ‘prayer room’ in order to raise the impression that everyone can
use it. According to a chief warehouse and an ethnic minority team coordinator, such an approach cannot
offend someone.
While not asked directly, the interview data do suggest which generic approach is the most preferred one by
the participants. While regarding the general preferences a relatively large part of the participant group opted
for a colorblind generic approach, in fact none of the proposed interventions ignores or de-emphasizes ethnic
or cultural differences. For example, even in the case of the performance appraisal intervention (which was
thought to be relevant for all workers), management staff members should be aware of cultural differences as
appeared that especially ethnic minorities tend to have an interest in this intervention. The same sort of
reasoning is relevant for investigating and processing complainants. The aim of this intervention is to detect all
issues that are relevant for both ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers, that means: these issues could
also be ethnic- or culturally related, so de-emphasizing culture would in fact be very unwise. As the proposed
generic interventions aim at creating a greater sense of belongingness for everyone while at the same time
taking account of and/or valuing individual needs, it could be concluded that all them fall into the spectrum of
the inclusionist generic approach.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
48
Table 5.1
Target and approach management interventions
Intervention
Target
1) Training programs
Culture: management staff
Conflict/negotiation: management staff
Language: management staff and ethnic minority staff with a
language arrear in Dutch
Approach
Generic
Generic
Generic
2) Recruitment and selection
(Future) ethnic minority staff (but meritocracy!)
Target group
3) Performance appraisal
Whole workforce
Generic
4) Identity support
Prayer room: whole workforce
Catering: whole workforce
Generic
Generic
5) Activities
Whole workforce
Generic
6) Complainants
Bullying: whole workforce
Employee satisfaction team: whole workforce
Generic
Generic
7) Ethnic min. client groups
Ethnic minority staff/ethnic minority client groups
Target group
5.5
Possibilities for an all-inclusive policy
The important question now is how the interests, issues and management preferences of the various
stakeholders of ethnic diversity are interrelated according to the stakeholders themselves. More specific: do
the various stakeholders see possibilities for an all-inclusive policy in which all organizational stakeholders
could recognize themselves, and if yes: what kind of approach would be most suitable as a platform for a joint
diversity policy (i.e. target group or generic)?
During the interviews, participants were presented a summary of the interests of the various stakeholders, the
issues experienced, and the management preferences. A majority of the participants indicated to have heard
similarities in the presented perspectives. However, two team managers also mentioned that the management
is not always aware of the things that are going on in the workspace, as they are usually not in the workspace
for the whole day. As a management staff member himself, one of the team managers argued that he is for
example surprised by how many importance ethnic minority workers attach to receiving compliments and
appreciation. The fact that this unawareness exists among management staff members, however, does not
mean that no action should be undertaken. On the contrary: this participant argued that it is important to take
account of the issues experienced by executive staff. Regarding the proposed management interventions, all
participants concluded that the interventions are a reflection of the things that DeliXL should work on. Except
from one participant, none of them indicated to miss something in order to let everyone’s interests become
recognized and the experienced issues become solved. The participant who did indicate that something is
missing argued that management participants should consider following an English language course to show
respect towards its workforce.
Not all of the proposed interventions were in line with the personal perceptions or opinions of the
stakeholders. For example, the location manager and the chief warehouse of DeliXL Helmond argued that they
have the impression that they do communicate openly about vacancies. They explained that this point had also
come up in internal employee satisfaction studies, and, as a result, already have been point of attention. In
their perception, this point has also improved. However, as the perception of several executive staff members
point at the opposite, the organization should do something with it, they argued. One of the ethnic minority
warehouse workers emphasized that a culture training goes too far; if people need to know something about
other cultures, they can watch Discovery Channel. In his opinion, ethnic minority workers should bring
knowledge about their cultures themselves, as the best way to learn about other cultures is to work together.
Finally, an ethnic majority warehouse worker showed his strong disapproval regarding the facilitation of a
prayer or silence room. In his opinion, it goes too far if an organization needs to facilitate that. “We are here to
work”, he argued, “We cannot give everyone his or her own room”. One of the chiefs warehouse pointed at a
difference between the presented perspectives of management staff participants and executive staff
participants regarding culture training:
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
49
We as the management argue that we have to gain a lot of knowledge about cultures and how to deal with cultural
conflicts etcetera. But actually the workers themselves, the ethnic minorities and also the ethnic majorities, …. they
do not seem to have a need for that. (Chief warehouse)
However, this participant also explained that management staff members sometimes feel quite insecure about
their actions, for example how to respond to the Ramadan; the fasting of ethnic minority workers. As executive
staff members also did not mention that training programs are not important, he still thinks that it is something
that should be implemented.
Despite the contradictions in perceptions, perspectives and opinions, participants made clear that for the
purpose of an inclusive policy they should look at the greater good and not so much at their own specific
opinions. In this respect, all participants argued that the proposed interventions would not harm anyone if
implemented. One of the team managers and a Dutch majority warehouse worker expected that there will
always be people – especially ethnic majority workers – who do not agree with an ethnic diversity policy, as it
for example might raise the impression that DeliXL engages in preferential treatment regarding ethnic
minorities. However, a majority of the participants argued that no DeliXL worker – ethnic majority and ethnic
minority – would be disadvantaged by the proposed management interventions. In other words, they thought
that the proposed management interventions are fair and equal for everyone. One of the ethnic majority
warehouse workers also mentioned in this respect that the interventions could all be explained and motivated
towards the workforce, which will make clear to them that none of them is disadvantaged. One of the team
managers did argue that ethnic minorities will benefit more from the interventions in practice than ethnic
majority workers: for the Dutch most of the things will stay the same, more or less. However, this was not
found troublesome. Especially management participants argued that the proposed interventions could be
implemented quite easily. One of the chiefs warehouse for example mentioned that all the proposed
interventions are something DeliXL could take account of; the interventions were not very shocking to him. The
other chief warehouse concluded on the basis of the proposed interventions that workers are very much open
to cooperate with the management and vice versa. As he thinks that this basis is present, he expects no
difficulties in implementing the proposed interventions. If people do not shut themselves off from others, you
can reach a lot, he argued.
Actually all participants concluded that the proposed management interventions complement each other quite
well and therefore could be joined in an inclusive policy, although several participants did mention ‘ifs’ and
‘buts’ regarding the implementation of such a policy. One of the team managers for example mentioned that
training costs a lot of time. He argued that especially knowledge about cultures is largely dependent on the
person; some people simply already know quite a lot. In this respect, there is no need to train every
management staff member. An ethnic minority warehouse worker expressed the concern that DeliXL selects
the wrong people for the training sessions. In his opinion, the organization cannot change people who are
against ethnic minorities. He finds it very important that DeliXL selects the right people for the trainings, that
means: people who are able to change their behavior. According to an ethnic majority team coordinator, it is
only possible to combine the proposed interventions as an inclusive policy in case there are not so many
changes in personnel and thus the kinds of ethnic groups DeliXL employs. Otherwise DeliXL will experience
changes in needs and demands too often, he argued. In this respect, an ethnic minority warehouse worker
stressed that DeliXL cannot agree with the needs and demands of every group for ever, as this will cost too
much time and money. Interestingly, several ethnic minority participants held striking opinions towards the
possibility of an inclusive policy, especially when taking into account that the expressed experiences with
ethnic diversity at work were quite positive. According to two ethnic minority team coordinators, an inclusive
policy is possible, but only when the organization really wants to take account of ethnic diversity, that means:
they should truly and sincerely believe in it in order to make it successful. This willingness of the organization is
something that they still doubt about. As one of them argued:
In principle, an inclusive diversity policy is possible. However, I have already suggested several things during the last
few years, but they (the management) did nothing with it. I personally think that they won’t implement a diversity
policy. (Ethnic minority team coordinator)
This participant believed that DeliXL should become under real pressure before it will take action regarding
ethnic diversity. In line with the quotation, he has the impression that the management participants only
introduced nice interventions during the interviews in order not to give a negative image of the organization.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
50
An ethnic minority warehouse worker agreed with the point that an inclusive policy is only possible when
everyone wants to cooperate. He does not know yet whether this is the case, as he is not sure how other
warehouse workers – especially ethnic majority members – think about an ethnic diversity policy.
Nevertheless, this participant happily concluded on the basis of the proposed interventions that management
and executive staff (both ethnic majority and ethnic minority) are willing to work with one another. However,
he also mentioned that for a successful inclusive policy the organization should determine the rules. DeliXL
should take account of the perspectives and needs of its workforce, but they should establish the eventual
policy, not the workers. Otherwise people will think that they can play their own boss and the situation will
easily become a mess, he argued.
The final question asked to the participants was whether the inclusive policy should take the form of a target
group or a generic management approach. This question was asked in rather general way, that means: it
focused on the inclusive policy in general, not on the individual management interventions. The results
appeared to be largely in line with the patterns discussed in section 5.4.2. None of the participants opted for a
target group approach, as this creates difference rather than unity among workers. Moreover, a target group
approach is thought to lead to more problems, as people may get the impression that others get the attention
at their expense and this was exactly what people did not want. An ethnic minority warehouse worker
explained that words like ‘prayer room’ and ‘halal’ frighten people. It is therefore better to keep interventions
more general, that means: they should target at all employees. Participants largely agreed that it would be the
best when the inclusive policy takes the form of an inclusionist generic approach as much as possible (the
‘recruitment and selection’ and ‘responding to ethnic minority client groups’ interventions excepted). In doing
so, DeliXL could create unity and cohesion among employees by giving them a feeling of belongingness, while
at the same time individual needs are not ignored. One of the ethnic minority team coordinators explained that
such an approach fits the needs of ethnic minority as well as ethnic majority workers. If people experience that
their organization wants to do something for them, it will also work the other way around: it will stimulate and
motivate people to work hard and prevent mutual jealousy to arise. As the inclusive policy does ask for cultural
differences to be taken account of (i.e. in line with the proposed management interventions), none of the
participants opted for a colorblind generic approach. According to the stakeholders, inclusion of individuals is
the perfect balance between a target group and a colorblind generic approach.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
51
6. Conclusions and discussion
Research on ethnic diversity management has shown that many ethnic diversity management interventions
tend to work out ineffectively in practice. The literature suggests that this tend to be the case because many
ethnic diversity management interventions are the result of top-down management processes. However, the
literature also suggests that different organizational stakeholders have different interests and preferences
regarding ethnic diversity management. Aim of this qualitative study was to give more insight into these
differences in order to make the development of a bottom up approach in ethnic diversity management
possible and to further develop the justice case. More specific, seven organizational stakeholder groups (a total
of 16 participants) within the Dutch organization of DeliXL were asked about their interests in and experiences
with ethnic diversity, and their ethnic diversity management preferences. The overarching question, in this
respect, was 1) whether the preferences of different organizational stakeholders could be combined in such a
way that an inclusive policy is formed in which all organizational stakeholders could recognize themselves, and
2) whether this policy should take the form of a target group or a generic approach. This chapter presents the
conclusions of the study regarding DeliXL (the micro context) and regarding a more general level by discussing
its theoretical and practical implications (the macro context). Moreover, suggestions for further research are
given and the study’s limitations are discussed.
6.1
Ethnic diversity management within DeliXL
‘How is ethnic diversity experienced by the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity in DeliXL, and what are
the diversity management consequences in terms of target group and generic policies according to the various
stakeholders involved?’. This was the central research question of this study. This section summarizes the
results in an attempt to answer this research question, keeping the structure of the sub-questions in mind.
6.1.1 Résumé
Apart from ethnic majority executive staff, it could be concluded that all stakeholders have an interest in
ethnic diversity (management). The interest of management stakeholders is mainly business-related: DeliXL
needs ethnic diversity in order to have enough personnel and to stay successful in the future. Moreover,
management stakeholders have an interest in ethnic diversity management regarding the guarding of the
quality of work outcomes and interrelations among workers in order to reach high organizational achievements
(i.e. making ethnic diversity ‘workable’ in the sense that obstacles are identified and its impacts are minimized
so that organizational processes and the positive work atmosphere are not harmed (cf. Cain, 2007)). Ethnic
minorities’ interest in ethnic diversity (management) is much more personal based. It appeared that this group
has a strong need for having the possibility to be oneself at work, including a management that guarantees
respect, shows an interest and understanding towards their situation, and is consistent towards its workers.
The data suggest, however, that this is not only a matter of simply ‘being yourself’; respect also gives ethnic
minority workers self-confidence and the feeling that they are an appreciated part of the workforce. It could be
concluded in this respect that ethnic minorities strongly tend to seek for confirmation. Despite these interests
in having the possibility to express oneself and receiving respect and confirmation, the data also suggest that
ethnic minorities are strongly aware of their socially weaker position in Dutch society. They usually do not want
to express their identity too strongly, as this may raise the impression that they are ‘different’ and/or
‘unassimilated’ to the culture of their ethnic majority colleagues, which in turn may fuel categorization events
among colleagues. In line with Siebers (2009b), it could be concluded that ethnic majorities set the standard of
what is ‘normal’ or ‘noticeable’ in an organization in terms of appearance or behavior; deviating from these
norms may trigger the risk of discrimination or categorization processes. While several ethnic minority
participants expressed to have an interest in an ethnically diverse workforce in the sense that it feels familiar to
them, some also acknowledged that they would not like it if their workforce becomes more ethnically diverse,
as they fear this to result in a more negative work atmosphere and – as a result – a position that becomes even
more weak than it already is.
The DeliXL stakeholders experience issues regarding ethnic diversity at work, but these are more often caused
by circumstances in the workspace than by organizational practices or policies. Most of the issues fall within
the category of communication and social norms. Management participants experience issues within both
fields, more specific: language barriers resulting in miscommunication and errors in the work process, ethnic
minorities showing a strong cultural temperament, group segregation in case it is on purpose, the use of native
languages in presence of linguistic others, the difficultly to judge whether jokes about cultural backgrounds are
really jokes or insults, and ethnic minorities who accuse others of discrimination. Strikingly, ethnic majority
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
52
executive staff participants did not indicate any issues at all, perhaps because they merely work on an
individual basis and, as a result, do not have to interfere with culturally different others on a regular basis. This
group only points at two hypothetical situations that they would indicate as issues: large-scale group
segregation and large-scale usage of native languages, mainly because they fear to experience negative
consequences for themselves (e.g. ethnic minorities excluding them and/or gossiping about them, resulting in a
negative work atmosphere (cf. Schaafsma, 2008; De Vries, 1995)). Ethnic minority executive staff participants,
on the other hand, mainly experience issues within the field of social norms, more specific: Dutch majority
workers being impolite and rude, the many jokes that are made by Dutch majority workers about cultural
backgrounds, the prejudices among – especially Dutch majority – colleagues and the racist remarks that are
made by co-workers. They also experience an issue within the field of work norms by arguing that they have
the feeling that the management does not always appreciate their hard work. It could be concluded that the
organizations’ reaction towards the issues is crucial, as the action the organization takes in some instances reinfluences how DeliXL participants experience ethnic diversity at work. For example: while ethnic minorities
mentioned numerous examples about reliance on prejudices and generalizations by ethnic majority workers,
they did not indicate this as something that negatively affects their work experience within DeliXL in general.
The data suggest that this is the case because the management responds to it in a delicate way, and, as a
result, is not to blame.
In line with the literature, the data have shown that differences in communication style, social norms and work
norms between ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers as such do not lead to issues, but rather the
importance that is laid on these differences. As suggested by Schaafsma (2008), differences between ethnic
majority and ethnic minority workers become an issue as soon as they affect the organization’s and/or people’s
sense of achievement (i.e. organizational goals are threatened), sense of belonging, (i.e. unity of the work
group) and/or sense of equality (i.e. unequal norms and treatment). In this respect, it could be concluded that
the issues experienced link up with the interests of the different stakeholder groups. Management participants
and ethnic majority executive staff are more business oriented; their communication and social norms issues
are thought to affect the organization’s sense of achievement and sense of belonging (which in turn is expected
to harm the organizational performance). The interests of and issues experienced by ethnic minority executive
staff are more focused on personal and social aspects. Their issues mainly relate to their sense of belonging
(i.e. being valued and appreciated, being part of the group) and sense of equality (i.e. receiving respect,
opposing against unequal norms such as prejudices, generalizations, and racist remarks).
A same sort of pattern could be seen regarding the proposed management interventions: the management
being business oriented, proposing interventions that do good to the organization’s sense of achievement, and
ethnic minority executive staff being personal oriented, proposing interventions that do good to their sense of
15
belonging and sense of equality . In this respect, the management stakeholders proposed interventions within
the fields of 1) training, and 2) investigating and processing complainants/issues. They also expressed
preferences within the fields of 3) recruitment and selection, 4) identity support, and 5) activities outside
working hours. Interventions 3 till 5 are in the first place meant to create more equality, respect and binding,
but are eventually meant for the greater good of improved organizational processes and positive interrelations
among colleagues (e.g. better able to solve culturally related issues, letting cultural habits not negatively affect
the work, make workers more motivated). Ethnic minority stakeholders proposed interventions regarding 1)
recruitment and selection (more open communication about new vacancies in order to increase equality), 2)
performance appraisal (to feel an appreciated part of the workforce), 3) identity support (each worker having
the possibility to express their cultural identity, a management that shows understanding and respect), and 4)
responding to ethnic minority client groups (while expressed that this is in the interest of the organization, it is
not unlikely that ethnic minorities expect to receive appreciation from their employer when recruited new
client groups).
Regarding the approach to be taken, it could be concluded that the stakeholders hold different views when
talking about management approaches in general and management preferences for their proposed
management interventions. While the former seems to be rather abstract and normative, the latter seems to
come more close to the participants’ impression of how it works in the real world. Regarding the first instance,
all stakeholders made clear to be strongly against a target group approach, as this goes against their ideas of
15
In line with the interests and issues experienced, ethnic majority executive staff saw no need to propose management
interventions. In this respect, no pattern regarding ethnic majority executive staff could be drawn.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
53
equal treatment. It may be the case that stakeholders may wanted to raise the impression that they are strong
proponents of equal treatment and therefore answered the questions relatively socially desirable. Another
explanation may be that they may have thought that a target group approach possibly disadvantages other
ethnic groups, such as the ethnic majority workers. Regarding ethnic minority stakeholders it could be
suggested that their position in Dutch society plays a role. This group indicated not to want to be seen as
‘different’ or ‘unassimilated’ in order to prevent categorization events. They might fear that a target group
approach fuels these kinds of events to happen. As a second aspect, this group tends to work hard in order to
prove themselves as good colleagues. A target group approach might raise the impression that they earned
their spot only because of their affirmative action status (cf. Op ‘t Hoog, Siebers, & Linde, 2010; Siebers 2009b).
This, in turn, might make it more difficult to prove themselves and to upgrade their status. However, when
talking about the management preferences for the individual interventions, the stakeholders (both ethnic
majority and ethnic minority) tended to contradict themselves. First of all, they opted for a target group
approach regarding two out of seven of their proposed interventions: recruitment and selection, and
responding to ethnic minority client groups. In both of the cases, a target group approach was exactly chosen
because it was thought to reduce workspace inequalities. While these may be socially desirable thoughts
either, it may also be the case that the stakeholders became aware that a target group approach is the only
one that fits their plans in practice. For the rest of the interventions, stakeholders opted for a generic
approach, aiming at reducing workspace inequalities by targeting or involving people in general and not only
specific ethnic groups. An inclusionist generic approach was the most preferred one among the stakeholders.
Taking all of the previous into account, the stakeholders concluded that an all-inclusive policy is possible. A
majority of the stakeholders indicated to have heard similarities in the presented perspectives. Moreover, in
their opinion, the proposed management interventions complement each other quite well. All stakeholders
concluded that the proposed interventions are a reflection of the things that DeliXL should work on. While not
all of the interventions were in line with the personal perceptions or opinions of the stakeholders involved, it
was argued that they should look at the greater good and not so much at their own specific opinions. It was
concluded that the proposed interventions do not disadvantage anyone in any way. Moreover, according to
the management stakeholders, the interventions could be implemented in practice quite easily. Although the
experiences with ethnic diversity within DeliXL were generally positive, especially ethnic minority executive
staff stakeholders mentioned several doubts regarding the success of an inclusive policy. In their opinion, an
inclusive policy is only possible when the organization really wants to take account of ethnic diversity; they
should truly and sincerely believe in it in order to make it a success. This willingness was something they still
doubt about. Possibly, ethnic minorities hold a rather skeptical view as a result of their ideas that their person
and hard work are not always valued, both in Dutch society as within organizations.
In line with the preferences regarding individual management interventions, stakeholders largely opted for an
inclusionist generic management approach as a platform for the joint ethnic diversity policy. By means of an
inclusionist approach, it was though that DeliXL could create unity and cohesion among its workforce by giving
workers (both ethnic majority and ethnic minority!) a feeling of belongingness, while at the same time
individual needs are not ignored. The data suggest that especially this second aspect of the inclusionist
approach allows stakeholders to take a target group approach where needed (e.g. the recruitment and
selection intervention) for the purpose of not ignoring individual needs and to prevent basic inequality issues
to become overlooked. In doing so, one of the major disadvantages of the individualist approach (i.e. loosing
sight of basic inequality issues, see section 2.4.2) seems to be overcome. In this respect, it could thus be
concluded that the DeliXL stakeholders of ethnic diversity interpret the inclusionist approach somewhat
different than the literature on ethnic diversity management. Ely and Thomas (2001) argue that one of the
major thoughts behind the inclusionist approach is that individual differences are recognized as useful values
and integrated in the work process as a catalyst for learning and adaptive change. In this respect, the
inclusionist approach is thought to offer opportunities for cross-cultural learning, allowing individuals within
the group to enhance their skills, eventually resulting in enhanced group performance. However, the data
suggest that the DeliXL stakeholders not so much take ‘learning’ but rather ‘equality’ as the driving force
behind the inclusionist approach, that means: giving workers the feeling that they belong to the organization,
have the possibility to be themselves at work, and being valued because of their individual contributions, all in
an organizational environment in which everyone’s ethnic, cultural or religious backgrounds are appreciated
and taken account of. In other words: an inclusionist generic management approach allows DeliXL workers to
maintain ethnic identities at work within the context of an overarching organizational identity. In this respect,
the way DeliXL stakeholders understand inclusionism shows more links with Stevens, Plaut and Sanchez-Burks’
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
54
(2008) understanding of inclusionism. In their opinion, an inclusionist management approach includes all
employees (thus ethnic majority and ethnic minority), promotes unity among workers, and recognizes and
acknowledges the importance of individual differences and needs, without giving ethnic majority employees
the feeling that they are overlooked.
6.1.2 Answer to the central research question
The central research question could be split in two parts. First of all, ‘How is ethnic diversity experienced
by the various stakeholders of ethnic diversity within DeliXL?’. It could be concluded that the stakeholders
perceive and experience ethnic diversity within DeliXL quite positive. The stakeholders do experience issues,
but these seem not as strong that the work and/or interrelations among colleagues are strongly negatively
affected. Nevertheless, the data suggest that it is especially in the management’s and ethnic minority workers’
interest to manage ethnic diversity, in their understanding: to make the work situation better adjusted to a
diverse workforce. In this respect, the management participants are more business oriented: assuring that
organizational processes and the positive work atmosphere are not harmed; ethnic minority workers are more
focused on personal and social aspects: assuring the positive work atmosphere by giving people a feeling of
belonging (i.e. being valued and appreciated, being part of the group) and equality (i.e. receiving respect,
opposing against unequal norms). It could be concluded that the proposed management interventions mainly
function to fine-tune and no so much to rigorously change the actual situation. The stakeholders already have
the feeling that organizational processes are quite fair and the organization reacts properly to ethnic diversity.
Moreover, not all the issues experienced are thought to be able to solve. Ethnic minority workers, for example,
generally think that prejudices are in the minds of people, and therefore difficult to change. In this respect,
fine-tuning of organizational practices simply means that the actual situation is made more positive for each of
the stakeholders involved and/or let their interests become recognized; the focus is not on solving issues only.
It could be concluded that the experiences management stakeholders have are influenced by business case
arguments (i.e. the organizational benefits of ensuring fairness), while the experiences ethnic minorities have
are mainly influenced by justice case arguments. It could also be concluded, however, that management
stakeholders do see the justice case as a basic requirement for the business case.
The second part of the central research question states: ‘What are the diversity management consequences in
terms of target group and generic policies according to the various stakeholders involved?’. In line with the
previous, management stakeholders proposed more business oriented interventions, while ethnic minorities
proposed interventions that are mainly beneficial for themselves. It could be concluded that the stakeholders
are strongly against a target group approach in ethnic diversity management. Equality is seen as a major
prerequisite for the success of an ethnic diversity policy, that means: to reach higher organizational
achievements and positive interrelations among workers. A target group approach undermines this success in
the eyes of the stakeholders. For the sake of an all-inclusive policy (i.e. a policy that takes account of the
perspectives of the various stakeholders), it could be concluded that a generic management approach is most
suitable. More specific, ethnic diversity management should focus on creating unity and cohesion among
workers (i.e. a feeling of belongingness) and giving workers a feeling that individual needs are recognized, both
for the sake of economic arguments and job satisfaction among workers. This fits with the description of an
inclusionist generic management approach. In line with the experiences with ethnic diversity, it could be
concluded that equality is the driving force behind the stakeholders’ arguments. This gives the stakeholders
reason to opt for a more specific (target group) approach within the overarching inclusionist approach if
necessary.
6.1.3 Additional conclusions regarding stakeholder perspectives
While not explicitly mentioned in the central research question, four topics deserve some extra attention
here in order to give a more deepened insight into the differences in perspectives of different organizational
stakeholders. First of all, to what extent differ the seven DeliXL stakeholder groups in perspectives? Apart from
the fact that management stakeholders are more business oriented and ethnic minority stakeholders are more
personal or social oriented regarding their interests, issues and management preferences, the data highlight
four patterns. First of all, ethnic majority executive staff brought relatively little interests, issues, and
management preferences to the fore. They do not seem to take account of ethnic diversity, be it as a result of a
lack of interest or as a result of their relatively individual tasks. For them, the most important thing is that
ethnic diversity (management) does not harm the organization or themselves. Secondly, management
stakeholders seem not always aware of what happens in the workforce, such as instances of ethnic jokes,
prejudices and racist remarks. In this respect, location managers seem to be the least aware, followed by the
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
55
chiefs warehouse and team managers. This pattern is not very surprising, as team managers are more often
present in the workspace than the chiefs warehouse and location managers. The question remains, however,
whether these stakeholder groups are really not aware of practices such as ethnic jokes and prejudices or do
not want to see it (i.e. colorblindness), or even whether they did not want to highlight them during the
interviews. The data do not provide a decisive answer in this respect. Thirdly, ethnic minority stakeholders
presented the most complex interests in and issues with ethnic diversity at work. The data suggest that this is
strongly related to public and political discourses about ethnic minorities and their integration in Dutch society.
Ethnic minorities seem for example highly aware of the fact that they are expected to adapt as closely as
possible to Dutch norms and values, and that societal problems are often thought to be caused by ethnic
minorities who preserve their own cultures. Ethnic majority stakeholders, in turn, did not seem very aware of
the influence public and political discourses have on ethnic minorities interests, experiences and management
preferences regarding the work. Finally, management participants tended to propose management
interventions that are meant to solve issues, while ethnic minority stakeholders merely proposed interventions
to make the work situation more positive (i.e. to increase job satisfaction). The data suggest that management
participants are more business oriented and therefore have an interest in decreasing possible risks. Moreover,
the data suggest that ethnic minority workers think that several issues, such as prejudices and racist remarks,
are difficult to solve. However, as ethnic minorities experienced difficulties to give concrete examples of these
issues, it might also be the case that the problems are less big as they appear and that there is no need for an
intervention (notwithstanding that concrete instances might also be suppressed).
Secondly, are the perspectives of the different organizational stakeholders complementary or contradictory?
Generally stated, it could be concluded that stakeholders do not strongly contradict each other regarding their
interests, experiences and management preferences. If they do so, this rather seems to have something to do
with experience (e.g. working on an individual basis, not communicating very often with other ethnic groups)
or unawareness (e.g. management staff who are not in the workspace all the time). However, as mentioned
before, especially regarding this second point it is not totally clear whether this is really the result of
unawareness or not wanting to see and/or mention it. During the second round of interviews, stakeholders
generally expressed that they were happy to hear that perspectives are – in their opinion – quite similar and
that different stakeholder groups are willing to work with one other. Others’ perspectives were generally not
strongly opposed. The stakeholders themselves concluded that the perspectives are complementary. This is
also suggested by the data, to give an illustration: management stakeholders expressed to have an interest in a
positive work atmosphere, as this may positively influence organizational performance. Ethnic minorities, on
the other hand, expressed a strong interest in receiving respect; something that is also connected with a
positive work atmosphere. While the starting points (e.g. the reasoning, arguments, intermediate goals) of
different organizational stakeholders usually differ, the end goals usually fit with one another.
Thirdly, could differences in perspectives between ethnic majority and ethnic minority stakeholders be
explained by culture or position? This was generally not something the stakeholders explicitly mentioned when
explaining their viewpoints. Management stakeholders only explained issues regarding ‘dealing with critique’
with a cultural factor, namely: cultural temperament. Based on the data it could be suggested that differences
in perspectives could be mainly explained by the different positions ethnic majority and ethnic minority
stakeholders have. As previously argued, ethnic minorities are pretty aware of their weaker social position,
both in Dutch society and within organizations. As a result, they strongly tend to ask for the confirmation that
they are not like the ethnic minorities presented in the widespread public and political discourses, and also
show a strong disagreement towards ethnic jokes, prejudices and racist remarks. In the case of dealing with
critique, for example, the data suggest that it is more likely that ethnic minorities are attentive and try to
oppose discrimination, than that culture plays an explicit role in their behavior. Even in the case of the identity
support intervention (which is in principle based on cultural values and needs), the data suggest that social
position largely determined ethnic minority stakeholders’ perspectives: they opted for a generic management
approach in order not to let their weaker position become even more disadvantaged (i.e. raising the
impression that DeliXL only implements such an intervention for them and/or that they do not want to adapt
to the Dutch majority culture). Nevertheless, a nuance has to be made here. In some instances ethnic minority
stakeholders did mention that culture plays a role, more specific: issues regarding the direct and sometimes
rude communication style of Dutch majority stakeholders, being respectful towards the management, and
receiving compliments. However, the data suggest that in these instances the presented perspectives are not
based on culture as such, but rather on the awareness of cultural differences between their own and the Dutch
majority group. These differences, in turn, could be difficult sometimes.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
56
Finally, do demographic characteristics of the research site affect the perceptions and experiences of the
stakeholders? In general, when looking at the kinds of issues organizational stakeholders experience, the
answer is ‘no’. However, the data do reveal several trends. The first trend that the data reveals is that ethnic
diversity seem to be more deeply woven in the organizational structure of DeliXL Schiedam, probably because
of the fact that DeliXL Schiedam is located in a region that historically seen harbors the most ethnic minority
people. In this respect, it is likely that DeliXL Schiedam is more used to and experienced with ethnic diversity,
and as a result takes account of it. This was reflected in three things. As a first aspect, stakeholders from DeliXL
Schiedam more strongly expressed the willingness and necessity to adjust their recruitment and selection
procedures. DeliXL Schiedam is more focused on a labour market that becomes increasingly ethnically diverse.
It is thought that DeliXL Schiedam needs these people – both in their management and warehouse – in order to
reach their organizational goals in the future. DeliXL Schiedam is also more focused on recruiting ethnic
majority people who are not against ethnic diversity. As a second aspect, DeliXL Schiedam more strongly
involves ethnic minorities in all kinds of organizational practices than DeliXL Helmond. Within DeliXL Helmond,
people seemed less aware of the fact that ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers may hold different
views towards all kinds of issues. This was for example reflected in the fact that the employee satisfaction team
was composed of ethnic majority employees only. As a third aspect, DeliXL Schiedam encounters that the head
quarter and other DeliXL sites not always understand their focus points and/or issues, simply because these
sites are not used to ethnic diversity. A second trend that the data reveals concerns the attitude of ethnic
minority workers. Within DeliXL Helmond ethnic minority workers tend to hold a more assimilationist view, as
opposed to the multiculturalist view the ethnic minority workers of DeliXL Schiedam generally hold. Within
DeliXL Helmond, ethnic minority workers not only suggested that assimilation is needed to look ‘professional’
at work, they also get annoyed more easily by other ethnic minorities who strongly express their cultural
identities and wished that their workforce does not become more ethnically diverse. In doing so, the ethnic
minorities from DeliXL Helmond contradict existing research: not only ethnic majority, but also ethnic minority
employees feel more satisfied in a relatively homogeneous workgroup (cf. DiTomaso, Parks-Yancy, & Post,
2011; Riordan & Shore, 1997). However, the data from DeliXL Schiedam suggest that the results shown by
earlier research could be confirmed; making it difficult to draw valid conclusions regarding this topic. Within
this research site, ethnic minorities largely shared the opinion that they have the right to express their ethnic
identity at work and that a heterogeneous workforce feels familiar. It may be the case that ethnic minorities
from DeliXL Schiedam feel more certain to make such expressions because they make up such a large part of
both the regional population and the workforce within DeliXL. Within DeliXL Helmond, on the other hand,
ethnic minorities may be less experienced to work in such a diverse composition and therefore may not know
that it can also work out positive for them. On the other hand, it may also be the case that regional public
discourses play a role. If the discourses in the DeliXL Helmond region are more assimilationist in nature than in
the DeliXL Schiedam region, it is not unlikely that these discourses are brought to work, which in turn can make
ethnic minorities feel uncertain.
6.2
Theoretical implications of the findings
Now that the conclusions regarding ethnic diversity within DeliXL are presented (the micro context), it is
time to bring to them at a broader, more general level (the macro context). Several contributions to the
literature can be made. First of all, in line with Zanoni (2011), this research has shown that different
organizational stakeholders indeed differ in their interests in ethnic diversity (management), and, as a result,
also have different experiences and hold different attitudes and preferences towards it. More specific, this
research contributed to the literature by giving more insight into the exact patterns, which is something
existing research highly overlooked. In sum: 1) management staff are more business case oriented, 2) ethnic
majority executive staff are not really interested; the most important thing is that the organization as well as
themselves are not harmed, and 3) ethnic minority executive staff are more justice case oriented regarding
ethnic diversity at work. The results also shed light on a reason why organizational stakeholders differ in their
views. It is strongly suggested that differences in perspectives could be largely explained by the different social
positions stakeholders have: not only in terms of profession and education/class, but even more in terms of the
superior ‘ethnic us’ and the inferior ‘ethnic them’; a classification that is largely based on the negative public
and political discourses on ethnic minorities and their supposed level of integration. Culture, on the other
hand, was found to play a rather small role in defining perspectives regarding ethnic diversity (management).
Nevertheless, future research could try to gain more insight into the roles social position and culture play. By
gaining insight when and why social position and culture exactly play a role in defining perspectives,
organizations will be better able to adjust their diversity management practices to the needs of its stakeholder
groups (e.g. diversity management practices that particularly focus on the upgrading of ethnic minorities’ social
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
57
status and/or practices that particularly focus on gaining cultural knowledge in order to be better able to
recognize and acknowledge cultural needs).
Secondly, in the Theoretic Chapter it was mentioned that Apfelbaum, Norton and Sommers (in press) ask
themselves whether there is an approach in ethnic diversity management that accommodates to the divergent
preferences and concerns of both ethnic majority and ethnic minority people. This research suggests that there
is one. As this research provides evidence for the suggestion (cf. Zanoni, 2011) that different organizational
stakeholders hold different views, it could be concluded that a bottom up approach is indeed the preferred
strategy in defining ethnic diversity management. The literature proposes that the success of ethnic diversity
management depends largely on whether employees could recognize themselves in the practices deployed, or,
as Zanoni and Janssens (2005) argue: “their success is … contingent upon employees’ active identification with
them” (p. 6). This is something that is often overlooked in both scientific research and organizational processes
of defining and implementing ethnic diversity policies. This research has shown that although the
organizational stakeholders’ perspectives are different, it is still possible that the perspectives complement
each other. In the end, all organizational stakeholders were found to have the same end goal: a positive work
environment for everyone in the broadest sense of the word (i.e. be it in terms of organizational achievements
or the atmosphere). The data suggest that especially management stakeholders are pretty aware of the fact
that business case arguments (i.e. economic benefits of ensuring fairness) can only be made meaningful if
justice case arguments (i.e. ensuring workspace equality) are implemented. Also, contradicting to the feeling
organizational stakeholders may have, this research suggest that the ideas stakeholders have about ‘justice’ or
‘equality’ are in fact very much the same. In this respect, the data indicate that this awareness makes especially
management stakeholders willing to give their initial top down management ideas up for the greater good of
an all-inclusive policy. Taking all of the former in mind, it could be concluded that it is possible to formulate an
all-inclusive policy in which all organizational stakeholders could recognize themselves. In this respect, the
justice case is brought to a higher level; a level in which all employees feel that there is equality at work and
their needs are equally recognized and acknowledged. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this research
focused on the possibilities of formulating an inclusive bottom up policy in order to further develop the justice
case. While the results point at a possible success factor in ethnic diversity management, the effectiveness of
such a policy in practice is on the basis of this research not clear. This is something future research should take
into account.
Third, most of the research on diversity management focuses on one aspect of diversity: most often ethnic
diversity. However, Cummings and Worley (2009 argue that such an definition is too narrow and focuses the
attention away from the broad range of issues a diverse workforce brings above. Research suggests that
people’s ethnic identity intersects with other identities, such as gender, age, and class (Siebers, 2009b). While
not particularly the focus of this study, the data suggest that intersectionality plays a role in defining the
interests, experiences and preferences people have, especially regarding ethnic majority stakeholders:
management ethnic majority participants clearly had different views than executive staff ethnic majority
participants. It would be interesting to know whether intersectionality also plays a role regarding ethnic
minority participants, and how different identities exactly intersect with and influence each another. This will
help both scientists and diversity management practitioners to define more specific what is needed in and
expected from ethnic diversity management and what its success factors are. Nevertheless, more extended,
large-scale research is needed to accomplish this.
Fourth, the findings of this research point at the power of contextual factors, more specific: the rather
essentialist public and political discourses on ethnic minorities and integration that fuel the construction of
boundaries between ethnic majorities and ethnic minorities. In a rather normative sense, the ethnic minority
participants in this research stressed the need to escape from these essentialist ethnic categorizations and the
disadvantaged position they occupy in Dutch society. The data suggest that ethnic minorities believe that their
relatively disadvantaged socio-economic position is for a large extent based on the widespread negative
discourses. In this respect, this stakeholder group did not want to raise the impression that they are ‘not
adapted’ or ‘unassimilated’ to Dutch culture and tried prevent this by proving themselves as good and
professional colleagues. More specific: in line with Op ‘t Hoog, Siebers and Linde (2010), it was found that
ethnic minorities pinned their hope on the principles of individual ability, loyalty, hard work, and merit to
disrupt categorization events to happen and to ‘upgrade’ their social status. Especially ethnic minority
participants emphasized in this respect that a future ethnic diversity policy should not take the form of a target
group approach. A target group approach to ethnic diversity addresses ethnic minorities in ethnic terms, just
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
58
like the public and political discourses do. In doing so, a target group approach would recall the categorization
events in society, doing no good to their already disadvantaged position. This is exactly what the ethnic
minority participants want to prevent.
In line with the former, the findings of this research support the literature on justice case initiatives in ethnic
diversity management (i.e. affirmative action). In line with Bobocel et al. (1998), this research has shown that
justice case initiatives can cause dissatisfaction because they are seen as ‘unfair’ and/or ‘creating difference’,
especially initiatives with a high degree of prescriptiveness (i.e. strong target group or preferential treatment
programs). The participants in this study strongly embrace merit-based justice norms. In this respect, less
strong differential treatment or so-called tie-break programs were more accepted, as these are thought to
actually reduce workspace inequalities instead of fuelling them. In line with the literature, it could thus be
concluded that relatively strong opposition is expressed towards management initiatives in which substantial
positive weight is given to someone’s minority’s status. However, contradicting to the literature, this research
did not show that non-target group members stronger object to justice case management initiatives than
target group members (cf. Bobocel et al., 1998; Harrison et al., 2006; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Levi & Fried,
2008). In fact, both groups appeared to oppose because a target group approach goes against their ideas of
equal treatment, but for different underlying reasons. For ethnic majority stakeholders it is suggested that a
target group initiative is threatening to others (i.e. as a result of experiencing possible disadvantages),
management participants arguing that this is not ‘manageable’ in the sense that jealousy and a negative work
atmosphere may be the result; for ethnic minority stakeholders, on the other hand it is a matter of preventing
categorization events to occur. In this respect, the results of this study have shown that self-interest does not
overrule merit-based justice considerations (cf. Op ‘t Hoog, Siebers, & Linde, 2010). While ethnic minorities
may benefit from strong preferential treatment programs regarding, for example, career advancement, none
of the ethnic minorities expressed a preference for such an approach. Ethnic minority stakeholders are highly
aware of the fact that such an approach may fuel categorization events to occur, such as ethnic majority
colleagues who accuse them of earning their spot only because of an affirmative actions status. This
stakeholder group made clear that they want to improve their position in Dutch society. A target group
approach is thought to more strongly obstruct than facilitate such an improvement. Meritocratic beliefs, on the
other hand, help ethnic minorities to build a positive professional identity, creating opportunities for
emancipation (i.e. improving their social position) and resisting the negative public and political discourses (cf.
Zanoni & Janssens, 2005). However, seen the context (both in Dutch society and the organization (e.g.
dominant prejudices, ethnic jokes, racist remarks by colleagues)), this might be particularly difficult for ethnic
minorities. In the words of Zanoni and Janssens (2005): “They have to fit in a context in which their cultural
[and] religious … differences become particularly relevant and meaningful, often in negative ways” (p. 28).
6.3
Practical implications and recommendations for management purposes
In addition to the theoretical implications, several practical implications and recommendations for
management purposes can be identified. It has become clear that organizational stakeholders differ in their
interests, experiences and management preferences. In order to make ethnic diversity management within a
certain organization successful, it is important that these different positions are recognized and acknowledged.
A bottom up approach in defining and implementing ethnic diversity management leads to management
practices that fit the needs of a diverse workforce. This will make that employees could stronger identify with
the management practices, which in turn may make them more willing to work with the practices in the way
they are meant to. Moreover, by giving employees a say in the policy formation process, they will have the
feeling that they are valued and respected. This, in turn, may have a positive influence on job satisfaction and
retention. The study has shown that a bottom up approach is especially of interest for ethnic minority
employees. This stakeholder group has a strong need to know that they are appreciated. By engaging them in
the policy formation process, this need may be satisfied. In line with the former, this study showed that ethnic
minorities usually want to prove themselves in order to get rid of the negative stereotypes that prevail in Dutch
public and political debates. In this respect, a target group approach in ethnic diversity management is strongly
rejected, as this may lead to more negative stereotypes, especially among ethnic majority colleagues.
Nevertheless, what future management should take into account is that in some instances a target group
approach may be necessary. For example, the DeliXL stakeholders argued that more attention should be paid
to recruitment and selection procedures, more specific: the recruitment of ethnic minorities in management
functions. This is in fact only possible when (small) positive weight is given to someone’s ethnic minority status.
However, as it was concluded that ethnic minorities do not want to raise the impression that they are
‘unqualified’ as this may do no good to their efforts to increase their social status, it is important that
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
59
organizations take meritocracy as the guiding principle. It could be expected that meritocracy also leads to less
feelings of unfair treatment among non-target group employees. In both of the cases, however, it is important
that the organization communicates well to its workforce that meritocracy is the guiding principle, first of all
because ethnic minorities who think that they are only chosen because of their ethnic minority status are
found to perform worse (Brown et al., 2000; Heilman, Simon & Repper, 1987), secondly because it feels less
threatening to ethnic majority workers (‘They are taking our jobs’, cf. Schaafsma, 2006).
The DeliXL stakeholders opted largely for an inclusionist approach as a platform for a joint ethnic diversity
policy. The general philosophy behind this choice is for an important extent based on principles of equality and
fairness. In this respect, DeliXL in particular and organizations in general should be careful not to end up in
colorblindness. When attempting to treat everyone the same as possible, colorblindness is a danger that may
come up. Colorblindness insists that everyone is treated the same, but at the same time puts pressure on
management staff as well as employees to make sure that important ethnic and cultural differences do not
count (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Thomas & Ely, 1996). This, in turn, makes it difficult to recognize instances of
discrimination, for example. Moreover, in order to make the preferred inclusionist approach successful, the
organization should ensure that this approach is also positively promoted among the workforce. The results of
this study indicated that several ethnic minorities feel a strong need to assimilate to prevailing Dutch norms
and values in order to look ‘professional’ and to combat the negative anti-immigrant public and political
discourses. However, the participants in this study also indicated to long for respect and the possibility to
express their identities; something that fits the idea of an inclusionist generic approach. In line with Thomas
(1990), it could be argued that ethnic minorities’ and perhaps also (implicitly) the organizational processes that
focus on assimilationism should disappear before an inclusionist approach could be made successful. As long as
ethnic minorities feel a pressure that they need to assimilate in order to become recognized as a professional
employee, they will not feel that the organization strives for belongingness and valuing uniqueness; the values
inclusionism strives for. While the organization is – of course – not able to change public and political
discourses, it can make a nice start by convincing its workforce, and especially ethnic minorities, of their
willingness to implement and maintain an inclusionist ethnic diversity policy. According to Brassé and Sikking
(ac cited in Schaafsma, 2006), showing such a positive attitude of the organization towards its workforce also
makes interethnic issues less likely to occur. Besides the fact that the organization should show its willingness
by positive attitudes, the management should also guarantee that equal emphasis is laid on business and social
goals regarding the implementation of an ethnic diversity policy. A too strong focus on for example
organizational productivity may raise the impression that ethnic minorities are more or less forced to
assimilate to the dominant organizational culture (cf. Gevers et al., 2005).
Finally, several additional management recommendations can be made. First of all, it is understandable that a
management experiences difficulties regarding the implementation of an inclusionist approach. On the one
hand, it may be difficult to understand, recognize and manage a large amount of individual needs. However, on
the other hand, organizations should also prevent not to engage in essentialist thinking, that means: seeing
ethnic groups as homogenous entities, showing the same cultural expressions and having the same needs. It
cannot be assumed that ethnic minorities employees are ‘representatives’ of their culture. If organizations
would assume so, one looses sight over the individual differences and needs. This point is particularly
important regarding interventions within the fields of training on cultural knowledge, identity support, and
activities outside working hours. Secondly, what (future) diversity management should take in mind, is that
ethnic diversity management is not complete when implementing only one or a few interventions. To give an
example: Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly (2006) have shown that training practices alone are not effective in reducing
stereotypes and bias; in they show virtually no effect. Pitts (2006) argues in this respect that ethnic diversity
management is most successful if its contains a combination of three components: 1) recruitment and
outreach (such as the intervention focusing on getting more ethnic minorities in the higher management), 2)
cultural awareness building (such as the intervention focusing on training), and 3) pragmatic management
policies which seek to enhance job satisfaction and retention (such as the interventions focusing on identity
support and performance appraisal). Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly (2006) add that the best ethnic diversity
management practices include a component that focuses on establishing responsibility for diversity, such as
the proposed intervention by DeliXL stakeholders on an ethnically diverse employee satisfaction team. In this
respect, it could be concluded that the interventions proposed by the DeliXL stakeholders work out most
effectively if they are implemented together. This is something DeliXL, but also other organizations, should take
in mind when designing an ethnic diversity policy.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
60
6.4
Limitations of the research
Although several measures were taken to enhance the quality of this research, still some limitations
could be mentioned. In this respect, it is important to interpret the conclusions presented in this chapter with
some caution. Broadly speaking, these limitations fall within two categories: methodological issues and
interviewer effects.
From a methodological point of view, a remark has to be made regarding the data instruments. The presented
results are based on interviews only. It appeared that participants sometimes answered the interview
questions in a rather normative (as opposed to concrete) and/or socially desirable way. Taking this into
account, it is difficult to decide whether the participants have presented an honest picture; a picture that
corresponds with reality. Using interviews only makes it difficult to verify the data. The reliability of the results
would have been enhanced when use was made of a second or even third data instrument. Especially
observations seem necessary in order to verify the interview results in this respect. For example: observations
may provide information about how ethnic diversity is experienced (e.g. by viewing how people interact, how
groups are formulated, the kinds of issues that come up) and how the organization acts upon ethnic diversity
(e.g. how the management responds to workplace issues, rules regarding expressions of cultural values).
Another possibility may be the keeping of diaries: participants keeping a logbook on experiences in order to
have a more concrete set of real life examples. Within the scope of this research it was unfortunately not
possible to include a second data instrument, however, future research could take this into account.
As a second methodological aspect, several remarks regarding the participant group have to be made.
Unfortunately, it was not possible for the researcher to choose all the warehouse participants herself. In this
respect, it is not clear whether the organization only chose for those participants who could not ‘harm’ the
organization. Moreover, it is not totally clear to what extent only the best or most motivated employees were
willing or invited to take part in the research and how many employees refused to join. However, as the
management staff made clear that they really wanted to gain more insight into the issues experienced in the
workspace, the impression was raised that they were not biased in appointing interview participants.
Additionally, the participant group missed a crucial stakeholder group: someone from the HR-department; the
department that is usually responsible for issues such as recruitment and selection procedures, and that might
become responsible for ethnic diversity management within DeliXL in the future. However, this was
unfortunately not possible due to practical issues (i.e. non-availability of a HR-representative who has
experience with ethnic diversity within the both research sites). Moreover, the participant group included only
one second generation ethnic minority. As a result, it is not clear to what extent first and second generation
ethnic minorities differ in their experiences. The same conclusion could be drawn regarding men and women.
Finally, this research included only a rather limited amount of participants within only one organization. When
having included more participants (including the missing stakeholder groups mentioned) and more
organizations (perhaps also in other countries), the results could have been totally different. Also, two rounds
of relatively short interviews allowed taking only ‘snapshots’ of participants’ experiences. In order to enhance
generalizability and to draw more solid and trustworthy conclusions regarding the development of a bottom up
approach in ethnic diversity management, more large-scale research that takes all of the former into account is
desirable.
The second category of limitations relates to the researcher. As this research is about ethnic diversity, the
ethnic background of the researcher may have affected the results. As a Dutch majority member, it appeared
sometimes that quite some time was needed to build trust, especially regarding ethnic minority participants.
Ethnic minority participants may have had the feeling that an ethnic majority interviewer does not understand
their situation. Moreover, Meloen and Veenman (as cited in Schaafsma, 2008) warned for a ‘racial difference
bias’: when the researcher is an ethnic majority member, ethnic minority participants may fear negative
consequences in the work setting and as a result give more socially desirable responses. However, it cannot be
assumed that an ethnic minority interviewer would have received more reliable results. De Vries (as cited in
Schaafsma, 2008) for example suggested that ethnic minority participants may fear the evaluation of ethnic ingroup members, which may also result in social desirable responses. It should also be taken into account that
ethnic majority participants might have felt reluctant as well. During the interviews it appeared that some
ethnic majority participants had the tendency to mention that they ‘did not mean anything negative’ with their
viewpoints, that means: they did not want to appear against the multicultural society, a proponent of the
negative public and political discourses, racist, etcetera. Especially in these times of assimilationist-natured
public and political discourses, ethnic diversity may be a sensitive topic of discussion. People may have had the
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
61
feeling that they had to defend themselves. It can therefore not be ruled out that social desirable responses
are given. As indicated several times in this thesis, stakeholders sometimes tended to give rather normative
answers to the interview questions. In line with this, one should also not forget the organizational interest. It
might have been the case that especially management participants did not want to portray DeliXL in a negative
light. Another aspect that might have played a role is that participants did not know the researcher before the
interviews. As a result, there was relatively little time to build trust. This appeared to be especially problematic
regarding several ethnic minority participants. Nevertheless, after explaining the researchers’ own affiliation
with ethnic diversity, this often seemed to disappear. Both ethnic majority and ethnic minority participants
generally seemed to felt at ease during the interviews and spoke quite openly, also about more sensitive
issues.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
62
References
Aberson, C.L. (2003). Support for race-based affirmative action: self-interest and procedural justice. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1212-1225.
Ahmed, S. (2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235-256.
Apfelbaum, E.P., Norton, M.I., & Sommers, S.R. (in press). Racial colorblindness: Emergence, practice, and
implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Apfelbaum E.P., Pauker, K., Sommers, S.R., & Ambady, N. (2010). In blind pursuit of racial equality?
Psychological Science, 21(11), 1587-1592.
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory Resource with Examples.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bergmans, A. (2004). De diversiteit van intercultureel management: Een inventariserend onderzoek naar
trainingen intercultureel management in Nederland. Bachelor Thesis, Tilburg University, the
Netherlands.
Bleijenbergh, I., Peters, P., & Poutsma, E. (2010). Diversity management beyond the business case. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(5), 413-421.
Bobocel, D.R., Son Hing, S., Davey, L.M., Stanley, D.J., & Zanna, M.P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social
policies: is it genuine? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 653-659.
Brown, R.P., Charnsangavej, T., Keough, K.A., Newman, M.L., & Rentfrow, P.J. (2000). Putting the ‘affirm’ into
affirmative action: preferential selection and academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79(5), 736-747.
Cain, A.C. (2007). Social mobility of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: The peculiarities of social class and
ethnicity. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.
CBS (2011a). Statline. Retrieved May 23, 2011 from http://statline.cbs.nl/
CBS (2012b). Begrippen. Retrieved January 25, 2012 from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/methoden/begrippe
n/default.htm?ConceptID=37
Chavez, C.I., & Weisinger, J.I. (2008). Beyond diversity training: A social infusion for cultural inclusion. Human
Resource Management, 47(2), 331-350.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria.
Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2009). Organization development and change (9th ed.). Mason, OH: SouthWestern Cengage Learning
Derveld, F.E.R. (1995). De transformatie naar een multiculturele arbeidsorganisatie. In G.W.M. van Vugt (Ed.),
Werken in multiculturele organisaties: Theorie en praktijk van intercultureel management.
Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
DiTomaso, N., Parks-Yancy, R., & Post, C. (2011). White attitudes toward equal opportunity and affirmative
action. Critical Sociology, 37(5), 615-629.
Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group
processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.
Entzinger, H. (2006). Changing the rules while the game is on: From multiculturalism to assimilation in the
Netherlands. In Y.M. Bodemann & G. Yurdakul (Eds.), Migration, citizenship, ethnos: Incorporation
regimes in Germany, Western Europe and North America (pp. 121-144). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Fleishman, J. (2004). Tolerance and fear collide in the Netherlands. Refugees Magazine, 135(2), 18-19.
Gevers, A., Devisscher, S., Pelt, A. van, Janssens, M., & Zanoni, P. (2005). Autochtonen en allochtonen samen
op de werkvloer: Uitdagingen en oplossingen. Over Werk, 15(1), 117-121.
Harrison, D.A., Kravitz, D.A., Mayer, D.M., Leslie, L.M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes
toward affirmative action programs in employment: summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1013-1036.
Hart, H. ‘t., Boeije, H., & Hox, J. (2005). Onderzoeksmethoden. Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs.
Havinga, T. (2002). The effects and limits of anti-discrimination law in the Netherlands. International Journal of
Sociology of Law, 30(2002), 75-90.
Hayes, B.C., Bartle, S.A., & Major, D.A. (2002). Climate for opportunity: A conceptual model. Human Resource
Management Review, 12(2002), 445-468.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J., & Stathatos, P. (1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: effects of
performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 603-625.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
63
Heilman, M., Simon, M., & Repper, D. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sexbased preferential selection self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology 72(1):
62-68.
Henderikse, W., Doorne-Huiskes, A., & Schippers, J. (2007). Diversiteit geinventariseerd: Een onderzoek naar
nieuwe bevindingen op het gebied van diversiteitsbeleid. Utrecht: VanDoorneHuiskes en partners.
Holvino, E., Kamp, A. (2009). Diversity management: Are we moving in the right direction? Reflections from
both sides of the North Atlantic. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2009), 395-403.
Hornikx, J., & Joskin, F. (2002). Intercultureel management: Waarom willen we er niet aan? M&O, Tijdschrift
voor Management en Organisatie, 56(4), 61-68.
Huijnk, W. (2012). De arbeidsmarktpositie vergeleken. In M. Gijsberts, W. Huijnk, & J. Dagevos (Eds.),
Jaarrapport Integratie 2011 (pp. 127-156). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
International Organization for Migration (2010). The Netherlands-Indonesia remittances corridor: A study of the
Indonesian Diaspora in the Netherlands and their engagement in development work in Indonesia.
Retrieved April 29, 2012 from http://www.ercof.com/images/ercof_docs/NED-INA-RemittanceCorridor.pdf
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2001). Meerstemmigheid: Organiseren met Verschil. Leuven: Universitaire Pers
Leuven.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate
affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589-617.
Knippenberg, D. van, Dreu, C.K.W. de, & Homan, A.C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An
integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008-1022.
Kravitz, D.A., & Klineberg, S.L. (2000). Reactions to two versions of affirmative action among Whites, Blacks,
and Hispanics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 597-611.
Laar, A. van de (2011). Everyday perceptions about the Dutch multicultural society: An investigation of the role
of national identity and perceived cultural threat in attitude-formation. Master Thesis, Tilburg University,
the Netherlands.
Levi, A.S., & Fried, Y. (2008). Differences between African Americans and Whites in reactions to affirmative
action programs in hiring, promotion, training, and layoffs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 11181129,
Lorbiecki, A., & Jack, G. (2000). Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of
Management, 11, S17-S31.
Maxwell, G.A. (2004). Minority report: Taking the initiative in managing diversity at BBC Scotland. Employee
Relations, 26(2), 182-202.
Nieuwkerk, K. van (2004). ‘Veils and wooden clogs don’t go together’. Ethnos, 69(2), 229-246.
Noon, M. (2007). The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities. Work,
Employment and Society, 21(4), 773-784.
Op ’t Hoog, C., Siebers, H., & Linde, B. (2010). Affirmed identities? The experience of black middle managers
dealing with affirmative action and equal opportunity policies at a South African mine. South African
Journal of Labour Relations, 34(2), 60-83.
Peery, D. (2010). The Colorblind Ideal in a Race-Conscious Reality: The Case for a New Legal Ideal for Race
Relations. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 6, 473-495.
Penninx, R. (2006). Dutch immigrant policies before and after the Van Gogh murder. Journal of International
Migration and Integration, 7(2), 241-254.
Pierce, J.L. (2003). ‘Racing for innocence’: whiteness, corporate culture, and the backlash against affirmative
action. Qualitative sociology, 26(1), 53-70.
Pitts, D.W. (2006). Modeling the impact of diversity management. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
26(3), 245-258.
Plaut, V.C., Thomas, K.A., & Goren, M.J. (2009). Short report: is multiculturalism or color blindness better for
minorities? Psychological Science, 20(4), 444-446.
Riordan, C.M., & Shore, L.M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination
of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 342-358.
Schaafsma, J. (2006). Ethnic diversity at work: Diversity attitudes and experiences in Dutch organisations.
Aksant Academic Publishers: Amsterdam.
Schaafsma, J. (2008). Interethnic relations at work: Examining ethnic minority and majority members’
experiences in The Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(2008), 453-465.
Schaafsma, J. (2011). Management of Cultural Diversity. Block 2: lecture 3 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
December 20, 2011 from http://www.uvt.nl/dlo
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
64
Scheffer, P. (2000). Het multiculturele drama. NRC Handelsblad, January 29.
Schnabel, P. (2008). Immigration and the question of Dutch identity. Retrieved January 29, 2012 from
http://dutchstudies.ucla.edu/schnabel.pdf
Shadid, W.A. (2007). Grondslagen van interculturele communicatie: Studieveld en werkterrein. Alphen aan de
Rijn: Kluwer.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, A. D., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and
Diversity in Work Groups: A review and Model for Future Research. Journal of Management, 37, 12621289.
Siebers, H. (2009a). (Post)bureaucratic organizational practices and the production of racioethnic inequality at
work. Journal of Management and Organization, 2009(15), 62-81.
Siebers, H. (2009b). Struggles for recognition: The politics of racioethnic identity among Dutch national tax
administrators. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2009(25), 73-84.
Stevens, F.G., Plaut, V.C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity: All-inclusive
multiculturalism and positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116133.
Stichting Opportunity in Bedrijf (n.d.). Expertisecentrum Div na zes jaar gesloten. Retrieved March 15, 2012
from http://www.opportunity.nl/div-management-2/wat-doet-div/
Thomas, D.A., & Ely, R.J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity.
Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79-90.
Thomas, R.R. jr. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, March-April,
107-117.
Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to
assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713-740.
Verkuyten, M. (2004). Everyday ways of thinking about multiculturalism. Ethnicities 4(1), 53-74.
Vliet, R. van der, Ooijevaar, J., & Boerdam, A. (red.) (2010). Jaarrapport Integratie 2010. Den Haag/Heerlen:
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Vries, S. de (1995). Werken in multiculturele groepen: Ervaringen van allochtonen en autochtonen. In G.W.M.
van Vugt (Ed.), Werken in multiculturele organisaties: Theorie en praktijk van intercultureel management.
Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
WRR (2007). Identificatie met Nederland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Yang, Y., & Konrad, A.M. (2011). Understanding diversity management practices: Implications of institutional
theory and resource-based theory. Group & Organization Management, 36(1), 6-38.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2005). Engaging with (diversity) management: An analysis of minority employees’
agency. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=870227
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: rethinking
difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17(1), 9-29.
Zanoni, P., & Mampaey, J. (2011). Achieving ethnic minority students’ inclusion: a Flemish school’s discursive
practices countering the quasi-market pressure to exclude. British Educational Research Journal, 2011, 121.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
65
Appendix A: Information leaflet
Informatie leaflet onderzoek DeliXL
Waar gaat het onderzoek over?
In dit onderzoek zal een bottom up benadering met betrekking tot culturele diversiteit centraal staan. Concreet
gezien houdt dit in dat bekeken zal worden wat de ervaringen zijn van medewerkers met culturele diversiteit
op de werkvloer en wat zij van hun management verwachten ten aanzien van dit onderwerp. Het onderzoek
tracht van praktijk naar beleid te werken: op basis van de onderzoeksresultaten zullen concrete aanbevelingen
worden gedaan op beleidsgebied en zal bekeken worden hoe DeliXL kan inspelen op de voorkeuren van hun
medewerkers.
De volgende aspecten zullen in kaart worden gebracht:
1) Wat voor belangen hebben werknemers bij culturele diversiteit en diversiteitsmanagement: ‘What to win
from it’?
2) Hoe wordt culturele diversiteit op de werkvloer ervaren: wat levert het mensen op, wat vinden mensen
lastig?
3) In het licht van het voorgaande, welke management interventies stellen mensen zelf voor: hoe zouden
mensen zelf graag benaderd willen worden door het management van DeliXL om hun belangen te
behartigen en eventuele problemen te verhelpen?
Waarom?
DeliXL heeft tot op heden nog geen beleid over culturele diversiteit op de werkvloer. Om te bekijken of dit
onderwerp speelt onder de werknemers en in hoeverre werknemers een interventie wenselijk achten wordt dit
onderzoek uitgevoerd. Op basis van de resultaten van dit onderzoek zal DeliXL bepalen of er in de toekomst
iets dient te gebeuren op dit vlak. Door uw medewerking te verlenen draagt u bij aan de ontwikkeling van
effectief beleid, afgestemd op uw eigen belangen en voorkeuren.
Hoe wordt het onderzoek uitgevoerd?
In het onderzoek zullen twee vestigingen van DeliXL worden meegenomen: een vestiging met relatief veel
culturele diversiteit in het personeelsbestand (Schiedam) en een vestiging met minder culturele diversiteit in
het personeelsbestand (Helmond). Binnen iedere vestiging zullen enkele interviews worden afgenomen met
verschillende key actoren, zowel hoog als laag in de hiërarchie en zowel van autochtone als allochtone afkomst.
Op deze manier trachten we een zo compleet mogelijk beeld te krijgen van het onderwerp en zoveel mogelijk
perspectieven in kaart te kunnen brengen. Iedere respondent zal twee keer geïnterviewd worden. In het eerste
interview zullen persoonlijke ervaringen aan bod komen (ongeveer 60 minuten); in het tweede interview zullen
de resultaten van de eerste ronde interviews worden teruggekoppeld naar de respondenten en kort worden
besproken (ongeveer 45 minuten).
Wie zijn erbij betrokken?
Binnen iedere vestiging worden bij voorkeur acht personen geïnterviewd: de vestigingsmanager, het hoofd
magazijn, een teamleider magazijn, twee of drie team coördinatoren magazijn (ten minste een autochtoon en
een allochtoon), en twee of drie magazijn medewerkers (ten minste een autochtoon en een allochtoon). Er
dienen ten minste drie allochtone medewerkers betrokken te worden bij het onderzoek. Met ‘allochtoon’
wordt in dit geval bedoeld: iemand met een niet-Europese achtergrond, dus bijvoorbeeld Marokkaans,
Antilliaans, Turks, Chinees, etcetera.
Wanneer wordt het onderzoek uitgevoerd?
De interviews zullen bij voorkeur worden afgenomen in de maanden maart, april en mei. Het
onderzoeksrapport zal eind augustus 2012 zijn afgerond.
Wat gebeurt er met mijn gegevens?
Interviews zullen slechts voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden worden gebruikt en in het bezit blijven van de
onderzoeker. In het verslag zullen geen (functie)namen gebruikt worden, zodat anonimiteit gegarandeerd kan
worden.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
66
Appendix B: Interview guide round 1
Mijn naam is Anouk van de Laar. Ik studeer aan de Universiteit van Tilburg voor de opleiding Communicatie- en
Informatiewetenschappen. Ik bevind me op dit moment in de eindfase van mijn opleiding en voer daarom de
komende tijd een onderzoek uit binnen DeliXL; dit onderzoek is bedoeld als mijn afstudeeronderzoek. Ik heb
zelf het onderwerp van het onderzoek bedacht en daarbij een organisatie gezocht. Dat is uiteindelijk DeliXL
geworden!
Mijn onderzoek zal gaan over culturele diversiteit op de werkvloer. Met ‘culturele diversiteit’ bedoel ik
verschillen in culturele achtergronden. In Nederland worden meestal de termen ‘autochtoon’ en ‘allochtoon’
gebruikt om deze verschillen te benadrukken. Ik hou zelf niet zo van deze tweedeling, omdat de termen een
negatieve bijklank hebben door onder andere allerlei berichten in de media, maar ze worden nou eenmaal
gebruikt in Nederland. Welke termen gebruikt u?
Ik voer dit onderzoek uit namens de Universiteit van Tilburg. De interviewvragen zijn gemaakt door mij en niet
door DeliXL. Ik ben niet gestuurd door het management van DeliXL, maar bekleed als het ware een neutrale
positie. Ik heb u geselecteerd voor dit onderzoek omdat u hoogstwaarschijnlijk ervaring heeft met culturele
diversiteit op het werk. Ik denk dat u daarom interessante dingen kunt vertellen.
Ik verzeker u dat uw gegevens met zorg zullen worden behandeld. Ik gebruik deze interviews slechts om mijn
onderzoeksverslag mee te schrijven; niemand anders zal de data verder zien. In mijn verslag zal ik geen namen
gebruiken en ook uw functienaam niet vermelden zodat u volledig anoniem kunt blijven.
In dit interview zullen uw ervaringen met culturele diversiteit op het werk centraal staan. Het interview zal
ongeveer een uur duren. Geeft u er toestemming voor dat ik het interview opneem? De opnames zullen alleen
gebruikt worden voor de verslaglegging van dit onderzoek.
Achtergrondinformatie participant
1) Wat is uw leeftijd?
2) Welke opleiding heeft u gevolgd?
3) Hoe zou u uw culturele achtergrond omschrijven?
4) Waar bestaat uw werk uit?
5) Hoelang doet u dit werk al?
6) Hoelang werkt u al binnen DeliXL?
Culturele diversiteit op de werkvloer (algemeen)
7) Werken er veel mensen met verschillende culturele achtergronden binnen deze vestiging / uw afdeling?
8) Hoeveel van uw collega’s hebben een buitenlandse achtergrond en hoeveel van uw collega’s hebben een
Nederlandse achtergrond?
Wat zijn de culturele achtergronden van uw allochtone collega’s?
Zijn er, naar uw weten, ook teamleiders met een andere culturele achtergrond?
En als we kijken naar de hogere lagen van het management: heeft u ook te maken met managers met
een andere culturele achtergrond?
9) Denkt u dat culturele diversiteit belangrijk is voor DeliXL? Waarom (niet)?
10) Denkt u dat uw teamleider zich bezig houdt / rekening houdt met culturele diversiteit? Waarom (niet)?
11) Denkt u dat het management van DeliXL zicht bezig houdt / rekening houdt met culturele diversiteit?
Waarom (niet)?
Belangen bij culturele diversiteit op het werk
12) Vindt u het belangrijk om uw eigen culturele identiteit (daarmee bedoel ik: je achtergrond) te kunnen
uiten op het werk?
Indien ja: waarom?
Indien ja: kunt u voorbeelden noemen van situaties waarin dit belangrijk voor u was? Waarom was
dit belangrijk voor u?
Indien ja: heeft u ook daadwerkelijk de mogelijkheid om uw culturele identiteit te uiten?
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
67
13)
14)
15)
16)
Indien nee: waarom niet?
Indien nee: kunt u hier een voorbeeld van geven?
Wat vindt u ervan als collega’s hun culturele identiteit benadrukken op het werk?
Waarom vindt u dat?
Kunt u voorbeelden noemen om dit toe te lichten?
Wanneer de participant een allochtoon is: Heeft u er problemen mee wanneer u door autochtone
collega’s wordt gezien als een ‘allochtone collega’?
Waarom (niet)?
Kunt u voorbeelden noemen die dit verder toelichten?
Maar heeft u dan ook situaties meegemaakt waarin dit [positief/negatief] uitwerkte?
Vindt u het zelf belangrijk dat er culturele diversiteit op de werkvloer is? Waarom (niet)?
Vindt u het belangrijk dat het management / teamleiders rekening houdt met de verschillende culturele
achtergronden van medewerkers? Waarom (niet)?
Ervaringen met culturele diversiteit
Eerder in dit gesprek heeft u mij verteld hoeveel autochtone en allochtone collega’s werkzaam zijn binnen uw
vestiging / team, even daarop terugkomend:
17) Hoe verloopt de communicatie tussen collega’s onderling?
Komt het voor dat medewerkers elkaar niet goed kunnen verstaan? Zo ja: hoe vaak, hoe komt dit dan,
vooral allochtone medewerkers onderling of ook tussen allochtone en autochtone collega’s? Kunt u
hier voorbeelden van geven? Heeft u hier zelf last van? Waarom (niet)? Hoe probeert u hiermee om
te gaan? Doet u dit ook daadwerkelijk? Kunt u ook voorbeelden noemen van situaties waarin het wat
[minder / positiever] was? Wat voor problemen heeft u hierbij ervaren? Wat stond hierbij voor u op
het spel? Heeft dit invloed op de samenwerking tussen u en uw collega’s? Zeggen de gegeven
voorbeelden iets over de communicatie met uw collega’s in het algemeen? Denkt u dat uw
teamleider / het management deze ervaringen herkent?
Merkt u wel eens verschillen tussen de manieren waarop mensen communiceren met elkaar, zoals
humor, non-verbale communicatie, de manier waarop mensen praten? Zo ja: waarin verschillen
autochtone en allochtone medewerkers dan? Kunt u hier voorbeelden van geven? Heeft u hier zelf
last van? Waarom (niet)? Hoe probeert u hiermee om te gaan? Doet u dit ook daadwerkelijk? Kunt u
ook voorbeelden noemen van situaties waarin het wat [minder / positiever] was? Wat voor
problemen heeft u hierbij ervaren? Wat stond hierbij voor u op het spel? Heeft dit invloed op de
samenwerking tussen u en uw collega’s? Zeggen de gegeven voorbeelden iets over de communicatie
met uw collega’s in het algemeen? Denkt u dat uw teamleider / het management deze ervaringen
herkent?
18) Hoe verloopt de omgang tussen collega’s onderling?
Merkt u wel eens dat mensen botsen in hun culturele achtergronden, bijvoorbeeld religieuze
feestdagen, voedsel voorkeur en het verrichten van het gebed? Zo ja, waarin verschillen autochtone
en allochtone medewerkers dan? Kunt u hier voorbeelden van geven? Komt dit vaak voor? Heeft u
hier zelf last van? Waarom (niet)? Hoe probeert u hiermee om te gaan? Doet u dit ook daadwerkelijk?
Kunt u ook voorbeelden noemen van situaties waarin het wat [minder / positiever] was? Wat voor
problemen heeft u hierbij ervaren? Wat stond hierbij voor u op het spel? Heeft dit invloed op de
samenwerking tussen u en uw collega’s? Zeggen de gegeven voorbeelden iets over de omgang met
uw collega’s in het algemeen? Denkt u dat uw teamleider / het management deze ervaringen herkent?
Is er wel eens sprake van spanningen tussen autochtone en allochtone medewerkers? Zo ja, hoe
wordt dit veroorzaakt? Kunt u voorbeelden noemen van situaties waarin dit het geval was?
In het geval de participant weinig kan opnoemen de volgende voorbeelden aanhalen: autochtone
medewerkers die vooral met autochtone collega’s omgaan / allochtone medewerkers die vooral met
allochtone collega’s omgaan, allochtone medewerkers die onderling in hun eigen taal spreken,
vooroordelen onder medewerkers, vervelende grapjes en / of opmerkingen, collega’s die een
voorkeursbehandeling krijgen.
Kunt u dit uitleggen / toelichten? Komt dit vaak voor? Heeft u hier zelf last van? Waarom (niet)? Hoe
probeert u hiermee om te gaan? Doet u dit ook daadwerkelijk? Kunt u ook voorbeelden noemen van
situaties waarin het wat [minder / positiever] was? Wat voor problemen heeft u hierbij ervaren? Wat
stond hierbij voor u op het spel? Heeft dit invloed op de samenwerking tussen u en uw collega’s?
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
68
Zeggen de gegeven voorbeelden iets over de omgang met uw collega’s in het algemeen? Denkt u dat
uw teamleider / het management deze ervaringen herkent?
19) Merkt u verschillen tussen de manier waarop autochtone en allochtone collega’s het werk uitvoeren?
Zo ja, hoe?
Tempo, manier van werken, op tijd komen, afspraken nakomen, mentaliteit?
Kunt u dit illustreren? Komt dit vaak voor? Heeft u hier zelf last van? Waarom (niet)? Hoe probeert u
hiermee om te gaan? Doet u dit ook daadwerkelijk? Kunt u ook voorbeelden noemen van situaties
waarin het wat [minder / positiever] was? Wat voor problemen heeft u hierbij ervaren? Wat stond
hierbij voor u op het spel? Heeft dit invloed op de samenwerking tussen u en uw collega’s? Zeggen de
gegeven voorbeelden iets over de manier waarop autochtone / allochtone collega’s in het algemeen
werken? Denkt u dat uw teamleider / het management deze ervaringen herkent?
20) Algemeen gezien, vindt u dat culturele diversiteit een positieve of negatieve invloed heeft op uw werk?
Waarom wel / niet?
Kunt u voorbeelden noemen van uitdagingen / kansen?
Kunt u voorbeelden noemen van dingen die u lastig vindt?
Kunt u voorbeelden noemen van waar u tegen aan loopt?
Zeggen de gegeven voorbeelden iets over uw ervaringen met diverse collega’s in het algemeen?
Denkt u dat uw management deze ervaringen herkent?
Wenselijk diversiteitbeleid
De onderzoekster zal dit stuk inleiden met een korte samenvatting van de vorige twee stukken (belangen en
ervaringen). Ze zal hierbij vragen om bevestiging van de respondent en om eventuele aanvullingen.
21) Terugkijkend op wat u zojuist allemaal verteld heeft: wat voor soort maatregelen zou u willen nemen om
culturele diversiteit meer ‘werkbaar’ te maken? (daarmee bedoel ik: uw ervaringen te verbeteren)
Waarom? Kunt u dit verder toelichten?
Wat is hierbij dan het doel?
Wie zou de teamleider / het management daarbij moeten betrekken?
Welke kansen zou het de teamleider / het management kunnen benutten? (terugkijkend op de
kansen besproken in de vorige sectie)
Welke knelpunten zou de teamleider/het management kunnen aanpakken? (terugkijkend op
knelpunten besproken in de vorige sectie)
Hoe zou de teamleider / het management hun werkwijze kunnen communiceren naar het personeel?
Hoe zou de teamleider / het management kunnen omgaan met klachten en / of negatieve ervaringen
van het personeel?
Doelgroepen benadering versus algemene benadering
Kijkend naar de maatregelen / wensen die u zojuist heeft gepresenteerd:
22) Zou deze maatregel [terug refererend naar maatregel genoemd door respondent] voor iedereen moeten
gelden of alleen voor collega’s met een [vergelijkbare en / of …] culturele achtergrond?
Waarom?
In het geval van een specifieke genoemde doelgroep: hoe zou u het zelf vinden als u tot deze
doelgroep behoorde?
In het geval van een generieke benadering: zou u zich met deze maatregel vooral willen richten op
wat mensen gemeen hebben of hoe mensen van elkaar verschillen? Waarom? Waarop zou u zich
willen richten?
In het geval van een generieke benadering: vindt u het belangrijker om u met deze maatregel
voornamelijk te richten op de kwaliteiten en prestaties van ieder persoon apart of op de kwaliteiten
en prestaties van het team in zijn algemeenheid?
Ik wil u hartelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking aan mijn onderzoek! Zou ik in april / mei nog eens contact
met u op mogen nemen voor een vervolggesprek? Ik wil u tijdens dit tweede gesprek laten weten wat de
uitkomsten zijn van de interviews en u vragen wat u hier van vindt. Dit tweede gesprek zal een half uur tot
maximaal een uur duren.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
69
Appendix C: Interview guide round 2
In dit interview zullen de resultaten uit het vorige interview kort besproken worden. Ik wil graag bekijken wat
jullie van de resultaten vinden; of jullie je hierin kunnen vinden. Bovendien wil ik jullie vragen een soort van
helikopterview te nemen (dus niet zo zeer je eigen mening), om van daaruit te beoordelen of de meningen van
verschillende personen bij elkaar gebracht kunnen worden.
Ik zal steeds spreken in termen van ‘management’ en ‘uitvoerend personeel’ om anonimiteit van mensen te
kunnen garanderen. Met management bedoel ik in dit geval de vestigingsmanagers, hoofden magazijn en
teamleiders. Met uitvoerend personeel bedoel ik de team coördinatoren en de mensen op de vloer.
Het interview zal ongeveer een half uur duren. Zoals ik de vorige keer al heb benadrukt: ik verzeker u dat uw
gegevens met zorg zullen worden behandeld en dat u volledig anoniem zult blijven. In mijn verslag zal ik geen
namen gebruiken en ook uw functienaam niet vermelden.
Geeft u er toestemming voor dat ik het interview opneem? De opnames zullen alleen gebruikt worden voor de
verslaglegging van dit onderzoek.
Belangen en problemen met betrekking tot culturele diversiteit
Belang culturele diversiteit voor organisatie DeliXL
Binnen de managementlaag erkennen de meesten wel dat, gezien de ontwikkelingen in de maatschappij, het
haast onmogelijk is om culturele diversiteit te negeren. Dit wordt met name gedacht omdat in de toekomst
meer en meer personeel van allochtone afkomst zal zijn. Deze mensen heeft DeliXL nodig om haar doelen te
kunnen bereiken. Een aantal mensen noemt bovendien dat het belangrijk is om het personeelsbestand een
afspiegeling te laten zijn van de maatschappij. Eerlijkheid en rechtvaardigheid staat echter wel bij de meeste
mensen voorop. Dit houdt in dat bijvoorbeeld bij werving en selectie van personeel de kwaliteiten voorop
staan en niet de achtergrond van een persoon.
Teamleiders benadrukken vooral dat het belangrijk is om genoeg mankracht op de vloer te hebben; zij zien
geen specifiek belang bij culturele diversiteit. Een aantal van hun benadrukt echter wel dat culturele diversiteit
belangrijk kan zijn voor DeliXL om in te spelen op de wensen van de klant.
Van het personeel op de vloer is het opvallend dat voornamelijk de allochtone medewerkers benoemen dat
culturele diversiteit in de toekomst meer en meer belangrijk zal worden voor DeliXL, omdat volgens hen
autochtonen dit werk op den duur niet meer willen doen. Opvallend genoeg benoemen een aantal allochtone
medewerkers in Helmond dat ze niet willen dat er meer diversiteit op de vloer komt. Zij zijn bang dat er
problemen ontstaan wanneer er meer allochtone medewerkers werken (o.a. groepen die naar elkaar
toetrekken, conflicten/spanningen, meer vooroordelen en / of voorkeursbehandelingen).
Autochtone medewerkers denken over het algemeen dat culturele diversiteit niet zo belangrijk is voor DeliXL.
1)
2)
3)
Bent u het eens met wat ik zojuist hebt verteld / Kunt u zich er in vinden?
Waarom (niet)?
Ziet u overeenkomsten tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Ziet u tegenstellingen tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Kunt u tegengestelde perspectief / perspectieven begrijpen? Waarom (niet)?
Wat mist u in de gepresenteerde perspectieven? Waarom?
Waarom denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel van elkaar
verschillen?
Kunt u dit verklaren?
Denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel verenigd kunnen
worden? Waarom (niet)?
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
70
Belang culturele diversiteit voor medewerkers
Vrijwel alle respondenten benadrukken dat het belangrijk is om jezelf te kunnen zijn op het werk. Respect ten
opzichte van elkaar en professionaliteit worden hierbij echter wel heel belangrijk gevonden. Dit houdt in dat
zowel de kwaliteit van het werk als goede relaties tussen medewerkers voorop moet blijven staan en dat
culturele diversiteit niet leidt tot extreme uitingen op het werk (d.w.z.: het werk leidt eronder, onderlinge
relaties worden minder positief, of culturele achtergrond wordt misbruikt om dingen voor elkaar te krijgen).
Het merendeel van de allochtone medewerkers benadrukt dat zij hun achtergrond niet al te sterk op het werk
naar voren willen laten komen. Werk wordt vooral gezien als werk, culturele identiteit meer als een privé
aangelegenheid. Op het werk moet er gewerkt worden; zodra identiteiten teveel benadrukt worden zijn
allochtone medewerkers bang dat dit negatieve gevolgen kan hebben voor henzelf, onderlinge relaties en het
werk dat gedaan moet worden. Allochtone medewerkers willen vooral als medewerker gezien worden, niet als
allochtoon. Voor hen is het vooral van belang dat zij gerespecteerd worden op het werk (d.w.z. de werkgever
voorkomt discriminatie en / of gaat er tegenin wanneer dit gebeurt) en dat zij de belangrijkste waarden en
verplichtingen vanuit hun geloof / cultuur kunnen uiten, met name feestdagen, vasten, mogelijkheid tot
verrichten gebed in pauzes.
In beide vestigingen zijn mensen het er over eens dat DeliXL de mogelijkheid biedt om je achtergrond te
kunnen uiten op het werk. In beide vestigingen wordt aangegeven dat problemen eigenlijk alleen ontstaan bij
uitzonderlijk situaties, bijvoorbeeld wanneer iemand terug moet naar het herkomstland vanwege een
overlijden binnen de familie en aanvraag voor langere zomervakanties (hoe hiermee om te gaan als
organisatie?).
4)
5)
6)
Bent u het eens met wat ik zojuist hebt verteld / Kunt u zich er in vinden?
Waarom (niet)?
Ziet u overeenkomsten tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Ziet u tegenstellingen tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Kunt u tegengestelde perspectief / perspectieven begrijpen? Waarom (niet)?
Wat mist u in de gepresenteerde perspectieven? Waarom?
Waarom denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel van elkaar
verschillen?
Kunt u dit verklaren?
Denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel verenigd kunnen
worden? Waarom (niet)?
Ervaringen met diversiteit op het werk
Ik heb heel veel informatie gekregen over ervaringen met culturele diversiteit op het werk. Overal het
algemeen zijn de mensen die ik heb geïnterviewd vrij positief over DeliXL als organisatie. De problemen die
ontstaan zijn vaker het gevolg van de omstandigheden op de werkvloer, dan dat het echt aan DeliXL als
organisatie ligt. Ik zal me nu me vooral richten op de negatieve ervaringen om te bekijken of u zich hierin kunt
vinden.
Communicatie
Op de hoogste laag van het management na noemt vrijwel iedereen in beide vestigingen problemen met de
Nederlandse taal. Het zijn vooral medewerkers in de leidinggevende functies die hier last van ervaren,
bijvoorbeeld wanneer zij cursussen moeten geven of het werk uit dienen te leggen. Het gebeurt regelmatig dat
dingen meerdere malen moeten worden uitgelegd in simpele bewoordingen. In beide vestigingen gebeurt het
wel eens dat dingen verkeerd gaan, omdat medewerkers het niet goed hebben begrepen door hun
taalachterstand en niet durfden aan te geven dat ze iets niet begrepen hadden. Uitvoerend personeel ervaart
een taalbarrière over het algemeen niet als een last. Zij geven aan dat de communicatie onderling op zich
prima verloopt.
Wat betreft humor: vooral autochtone medewerkers vinden het soms lastig om te pijlen hoe ver ze kunnen
gaan met grapjes; wanneer is iets een belediging en wanneer is het een grap? Allochtone medewerkers, aan de
andere kant, vinden het soms lastig om te pijlen wanneer iets als een grap is bedoeld en wanneer iets meer
een steek onder water is.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
71
7)
8)
9)
Bent u het eens met wat ik zojuist hebt verteld / Kunt u zich er in vinden?
Waarom (niet)?
Ziet u overeenkomsten tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Ziet u tegenstellingen tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Kunt u tegengestelde perspectief / perspectieven begrijpen? Waarom (niet)?
Wat mist u in de gepresenteerde perspectieven? Waarom?
Waarom denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel van elkaar
verschillen?
Kunt u dit verklaren?
Denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel verenigd kunnen
worden? Waarom (niet)?
Omgang
Het management in Schiedam geeft meerdere malen aan dat de allochtone medewerkers temperamentvoller
zijn dan autochtone medewerkers. Dit houdt in: een korter lontje hebben, zich sneller aangesproken voelen bij
feedback en / of zichzelf geraakt voelen, ervaringen niet snel vergeten/relativeren. De leiding heeft daarom
soms wel eens het idee dat ze goed op hun woorden moeten passen.
In Schiedam valt het het management op dat allochtone medewerkers anders met kritiek omgaan. Men ervaart
dat allochtone medewerkers zich eerder beledigd voelen / in hun eer aangetast. Managementleden vinden dit
ooit lastig bij het overbrengen van kritiek bij bijvoorbeeld beoordelingen. Twee allochtone medewerkers in
Helmond geven aan dat sommige allochtone medewerkers kritiek heel gauw als discriminatie kunnen opvatten
terwijl in de praktijk vaak helemaal geen sprake is van discriminatie.
In beide vestigingen worden niet echt conflicten ervaren tussen groepen door culturele waarden en normen.
Conflicten zijn eerder persoonlijke frustraties die gauw weer worden opgelost. In beide vestigingen valt het het
management op dat allochtone medewerkers – en in het bijzonder Marokkanen - veel respect hebben voor
hiërarchie.
In Helmond geeft vrijwel iedereen aan dat groepen niet echt naar elkaar toetrekken. Mensen zitten eigenlijk
altijd redelijk gemixt door elkaar (behalve bij personeelsfeestjes!). In Schiedam wordt door het management
aangegeven dat groepen echter wel eens naar elkaar toetrekken, voornamelijk tijdens pauze. Dit wordt echter
niet als vervelend ervaren. Opvallend genoeg geven allochtone medewerkers zelf aan dat het allemaal redelijk
gemixt is.
In beide vestigingen wordt door iedereen aangegeven dat allochtonen wel eens in de eigen taal spreken,
bijvoorbeeld tijdens pauzes. Dit wordt voornamelijk door autochtonen als vervelend en respectloos ervaren,
omdat dit de indruk wekt dat er over andere collega’s wordt gesproken. Zij spreken collega’s er doorgaans op
aan als ze zij in de moedertaal spreken. Vooral in Helmond wordt door zowel de leiding als autochtone en
allochtone medewerkers aangegeven dat zij vinden dat je in Nederland Nederlands moet praten. In deze
vestiging geven allochtone medewerkers aan het spreken in de eigen taal tot een minimum te beperken,
omdat zij er zelf ook last van hebben als ze een ander niet kunnen verstaan en / of niet respectloos over willen
komen. In Schiedam geven allochtone medewerkers aan dat de moedertaal vooral wordt gebruikt wanneer
iemand de Nederlandse taal niet helemaal machtig is, ze een grapje willen maken of schelden. Als er over het
werk wordt gesproken in de moedertaal (bijvoorbeeld om iets te verduidelijken) wordt het overigens niet als
vervelend ervaren door andere medewerkers.
In beide vestigingen wordt aangegeven dat er wel eens grapjes / opmerkingen worden gemaakt over elkaars
cultuur. Dit gebeurt met name onder medewerkers onderling, niet tussen de leiding en medewerkers. Over het
algemeen kunnen medewerkers dit goed hebben en kan men ermee lachen; alleen wanneer men herhaaldelijk
grappen maakt over iemands geloof / cultuur wordt dit echt als vervelend ervaren door allochtone
medewerkers. In Schiedam komt dit vaker voor dan in Helmond. Als de leiding hiervan op de hoogte is wordt
dit echter wel snel de kop ingedrukt.
In beide vestigingen is het management zich niet zo bewust van onderlinge discriminatie en / of vooroordelen
onder medewerkers. Voornamelijk allochtone medewerkers geven echter aan regelmatig te maken te hebben
met vooroordelen bij andere medewerkers. Ze ervaren het als vervelend wanneer hun culturele groep over
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
72
een kam wordt geschoren. Ze proberen dit zoveel mogelijk te negeren of een opmerking terug te maken. In
beide vestigingen wordt overigens aangegeven dat de leiding dit soort gedrag niet tolereert.
In Schiedam werd aangegeven dat er vroeger wel eens sprake is geweest van voorkeursbehandelingen, maar
dit lijkt nu niet meer plaats te vinden (na reorganisatie, nieuwe teamleiders, etcetera). Ook in Helmond wordt
door iedereen aangegeven dat er geen sprake is van voorkeursbehandelingen. Medewerkers hebben het
gevoel dat iedereen evenveel kansen heeft. Zowel autochtone als allochtone teamleiders geven wel aan dat zij
het gevoel hebben dat allochtone teamleiders wel meer in de gaten worden gehouden dat zij allochtone
medewerkers niet voortrekken.
10) Bent u het eens met wat ik zojuist hebt verteld / Kunt u zich er in vinden?
Waarom (niet)?
Ziet u overeenkomsten tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Ziet u tegenstellingen tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Kunt u tegengestelde perspectief / perspectieven begrijpen? Waarom (niet)?
Wat mist u in de gepresenteerde perspectieven? Waarom?
11) Waarom denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel van elkaar
verschillen?
Kunt u dit verklaren?
12) Denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel verenigd kunnen
worden? Waarom (niet)?
Uitvoer van de werkzaamheden
In zowel Schiedam als Helmond wordt door het management opgemerkt dat allochtone medewerker vaak een
directe en duidelijke manier van aansturing (‘wat verwachten we van je?’); iets wat samenhangt met het
taalniveau. Geïnterviewden geven niet aan dat ze ergens tegenaan lopen op het gebied van werk uitvoeren.
Zowel autochtone als allochtone collega’s voeren het werk goed uit. De enige verschillen die naar voren komen
liggen op het gebied van mentaliteit. In Schiedam wordt door een aantal managementleden gezien dat
autochtonen soms een voorbeeld kunnen nemen aan allochtonen omdat het harde werkers zijn. Allochtoon
uitvoerend personeel in Schiedam en Helmond vinden dat zij harder werken dan autochtone medewerkers. Zij
vinden dat zij meer een drive hebben om hard te werken en zichzelf te bewijzen. Dit is mede het gevolg door
het beeld wat er heerst in de maatschappij over allochtonen (heeft niet zozeer met DeliXL te maken!).
Sommigen hebben het gevoel dat zij altijd 200% moet werken en een autochtoon maar 100%, omdat een
autochtoon minder te vrezen heeft. Opvallend genoeg geven zij wel aan dat men over het algemeen gelijke
kansen heeft om door te groeien. Het management in Schiedam en Helmond geeft aan dat allochtone
medewerkers gevoeliger zijn voor complimentjes (d.w.z. graag willen horen dat ze het goed doen).
13) Bent u het eens met wat ik zojuist hebt verteld / Kunt u zich er in vinden?
Waarom (niet)?
Ziet u overeenkomsten tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Ziet u tegenstellingen tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Kunt u tegengestelde perspectief / perspectieven begrijpen? Waarom (niet)?
Wat mist u in de gepresenteerde perspectieven? Waarom?
14) Waarom denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel van elkaar
verschillen?
Kunt u dit verklaren?
15) Denkt u dat de perspectieven van het management en het uitvoerend personeel verenigd kunnen
worden? Waarom (niet)?
Wenselijk diversiteitsbeleid
Interventies (zie bijlage)
Training en cursus
Verschillende managementleden geven aan dat ze het goed zouden vinden als er training zou plaatsvinden
onder hun leden, bijvoorbeeld in de training tot teamleider. Het gaat dan voornamelijk om trainingen op het
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
73
gebied van culturele waarden en normen (meer informatie over culturele achtergronden), conflictbeheersing /
onderhandeling en leiding geven aan mensen die minder goed de Nederlandse taal beheersen.
Facilitaire zaken
Onder met name de managementleden in Schiedam wordt voorgesteld een ruimte in te richten als
gebedsruimte. Dit zou een teken van respect zijn naar de allochtone medewerkers toe. Een allochtone
medewerker geeft dit ook aan, omdat hij weet dat Moslims nu veelal in ‘onreine’ ruimtes moeten bidden (zoals
kleedkamers, vergaderzaal (die niet altijd beschikbaar is) of buiten). In beide vestigingen geven allochtone
medewerkers aan wel eens vragen te krijgen van andere medewerkers waar ze kunnen bidden. Een
gebedsruimte zien zij over het algemeen niet als een eerste prioriteit, maar het zou wel fijn zijn. Met het oog
op de toekomst, wanneer er wellicht meer allochtonen zouden kunnen werken binnen DeliXL, wordt het wel
als iets gezien wat belangrijker kan worden.
In beide vestigingen wordt aangegeven (door verschillende geïnterviewden, niet echt een lijn in te trekken) dat
er meer aandacht kan worden besteed aan het voedsel in de kantine. In Schiedam zou er te weinig halalvoedsel
zijn (slechts een aantal keer in de maand). In Helmond wordt het niet echt als een issue gezien voor tijdens de
pauzes, maar meer als een aandachtspunt bij speciale gelegenheden (bijvoorbeeld niet-halal worstenbroodjes
uitdelen tijdens feestdagen terwijl er op dat moment vaak veel Moslims werken).
Werving en selectie
In Schiedam wordt op managementniveau aangegeven dat ze meer allochtonen in de hogere lagen zouden
willen zien als voorbeeldfunctie voor de rest. Dit zou nog meer een aandachtspunt kunnen zijn bij werving en
selectie (hoewel dit nu al wel gedaan wordt). Kandidaten moeten echter wel de juiste kwaliteiten hebben. Een
van de geïnterviewden geeft aan dat men intern beter zou kunnen toetsen of mensen de juiste kwaliteiten
hebben in plaats van zomaar uit te gaan van veronderstellingen (bijvoorbeeld: deze allochtone medewerker
kan het niet worden want hij heeft waarschijnlijk te weinig kennis van het computersysteem door zijn
taalniveau). Ook zouden bijvoorbeeld teamleiders functies aantrekkelijker kunnen worden gemaakt (nu zijn de
verschillen tussen teamleider en team coördinator niet zo groot, terwijl er natuurlijk wel meer
verantwoordelijkheden aan vast zitten). In Helmond geven twee medewerkers aan meer allochtonen in de
hogere lagen te willen zien of in ieder geval meer kansen te creëren om mensen hier te krijgen. Ze zouden
graag zien dat er opener gecommuniceerd wordt over vrijgekomen functies (volgens hen heeft het
management vaak zelf al iemand benaderd), zodat medewerkers meer kans hebben om hierop te solliciteren.
Beoordeling van functioneren
Een geïnterviewde onder het uitvoerend personeel geeft aan dat managementleden meer aandacht zouden
kunnen besteden aan het complimenteren van medewerkers. Met name allochtone medewerkers zijn hier
gevoelig voor. Wanneer hier meer aandacht naar uit zou gaan, zouden deze medewerkers nog meer
gemotiveerd raken om hard te werken.
Klachtafhandeling
In beide vestigingen zijn medewerkers zich er niet altijd bewust van dat bijvoorbeeld pesterijtjes anoniem
gemeld kunnen worden bij vertrouwenspersonen en / of de anonieme tiplijn. Met name dit laatste is vrij
onbekend. Een managementlid in Helmond geeft aan dat het in de toekomst goed zou kunnen zijn om
allochtone medewerkers meer te betrekken bij het medewerkerstevredenheidsteam.
Activiteiten buiten werktijd
In zowel Schiedam als Helmond wordt aangegeven onder het management dat allochtone medewerkers
wellicht meer betrokken kunnen worden bij het organiseren van activiteiten buiten werktijd. Tot op heden valt
op dat allochtone medewerkers minder vaak bij dit soort activiteiten op komen dagen.
Inspelen op allochtone klanten
Een autochtone medewerker in Schiedam geeft aan meer in te zouden willen spelen op culturele
gemeenschappen, omdat zij een belangrijke klant zouden kunnen zijn voor DeliXL. Volgens hem kopen
allochtone klantgroepen nu nog vaak hun spullen in bij andere groothandels.
16) Bent u het eens met wat ik zojuist hebt verteld / Kunt u zich er in vinden?
Waarom (niet)?
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
74
Ziet u overeenkomsten tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Ziet u tegenstellingen tussen wat ik net verteld heb en uw eigen perspectief?
Kunt u tegengestelde perspectief / perspectieven begrijpen? Waarom (niet)?
Wat mist u in de gepresenteerde perspectieven? Waarom?
17) Waarom denkt u dat de voorgestelde maatregelen van het management en het uitvoerend personeel van
elkaar verschillen?
Kunt u dit verklaren?
Allesomvattend beleid
18) Denkt u dat de voorgestelde maatregelen van het management en het uitvoerend personeel verenigd
kunnen worden? Waarom (niet)?
19) Welke mogelijkheden ziet u voor een beleid waarin alle perspectieven terugkomen?
20) Welke onmogelijkheden ziet u voor een beleid waarin alle perspectieven terugkomen?
21) Rekening houdend met de ideeën en wensen van zowel het management als de medewerkers, hoe zou
het toekomstig beleid op het gebied van culturele diversiteit er dan uit moeten zien? Wat zou uw advies
zijn aan DeliXL?
Doelgroepen benadering versus algemene benadering
Over het algemeen geeft iedereen aan niet zo’n voorstander te zijn van beleid dat gericht is op een doelgroep.
Bij de maatregelen die mensen voorgesteld hebben, geven ze eigenlijk aan dat iedereen evenveel kansen moet
hebben of met andere woorden: wat voor de een geldt, zou ook voor de ander moeten gelden. Vrijwel
iedereen is het erover eens dat groepen niet benadeeld moeten worden, zowel allochtone medewerkers als
autochtone medewerkers niet. Een meerderheid van de mensen die geïnterviewd is, geeft aan dat een beleid
op het gebied van culturele diversiteit zich vooral zou moeten richten op wat mensen gemeen hebben met
elkaar. Dat houdt in: de verschillen tussen mensen niet te sterk benadrukken, maar ook niet doen alsof ze er
niet zijn. Zowel autochtone als allochtone geïnterviewden uit beide vestigingen geven echter wel aan dat men
ook tot zekere hoogte rekening moet blijven houden met het individu, zodat men de vrijheid heeft voor hem /
haar belangrijke waarden en normen na te kunnen streven. Dit hangt vooral samen met de voorgestelde
maatregelen als cursussen voor de leiding, het maken van een gebedsruimte en het zorgen voor halalvoedsel.
Zojuist hebben we het gehad over de (on)mogelijkheden voor een beleid op het gebied van culturele diversiteit.
Je hebt zelf voorgesteld hoe DeliXL dit aan zou kunnen pakken.
16) Wanneer pakt dit beleid het meest succesvol uit volgens u: wanneer het zich richt op bepaalde
doelgroepen of wanneer het zich richt op alle werknemers binnen DeliXL?
Waarom denkt u dat?
Eventueel (target group approach): op welke doelgroepen zou de organisatie zich moeten richten en
waarom?
Eventueel (generic approaches): Wat denkt u dat het meest geschikt is: een benadering die zich richt
op wat werknemers met elkaar gemeen hebben of op hoe werknemers van elkaar verschillen?
Waarom denkt u dat?
Eventueel (generic approaches): Wat denkt u dat het meest geschikt is: een benadering die zich richt
op de kwaliteiten en prestaties van individuen of op de kwaliteiten en prestaties van teams?
Ik wil u hartelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking aan mijn onderzoek! De komende maanden zal ik mijn
onderzoeksverslag schrijven. In september 2012 zullen de resultaten bekend worden gemaakt aan het
hoofdkantoor van DeliXL en natuurlijk ook de beide vestigingen: Helmond en Schiedam.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
75
Bijlage interview guide

Training en cursus
Management in Helmond en Schiedam:
- kennis over culturen
- omgaan met conflicten
- leiding geven aan mensen die minder goed Nederlands kunnen

Activiteiten buiten werktijd
Management in Helmond en Schiedam:
allochtone medewerkers meer betrekken bij personeelsfeestjes/uitjes.

Afhandelen van klachten
Lid management Helmond:
allochtone medewerkers meer betrekken bij tevredenheidsteam

Facilitaire zaken
Management en allochtone medewerkers in Helmond en Schiedam:
- Gebed/stilteruimte
- meer of vaker halalvoedsel

Werving en selectie
Management Schiedam:
meer allochtonen in management
functie van teamleider aantrekkelijker maken
Allochtone medewerkers Helmond:
meer allochtonen in management:
1) kansen vergroten voor promotie
2) open communicatie over vacatures

Beoordeling van functioneren
Allochtone medewerkers, met name in Schiedam:
- medewerkers vaker complimenteren

Inspelen op allochtone klanten
Autochtone medewerker Schiedam/allochtone medewerker Helmond:
Meer allochtone klanten werven voor DeliXL.
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
76
Appendix D: Coding scheme
Ronde 1
1. Culturele diversiteit op de werkvloer
A. Samenstelling personeelsbestand
i. Werkvloer
ii. Leiding
iii. Hoger management
B. Belang culturele diversiteit DeliXL
C. Impressie houding teamleiders / team coördinatoren
D. Impressie houding management
2. Individuele belangen bij culturele diversiteit op het werk
A. Uiten culturele identiteit
i. Eigen individuele identiteit op het werk
ii. Mening t.o.v. identiteit anderen
iii. Mogelijkheid tot uiten identiteit bij DeliXL
B. Categorisering allochtonen
C. Belang van een divers personeelsbestand
D. Belang houding management / teamleiders t.o.v. culturele diversiteit
3. Ervaringen met culturele diversiteit op het werk
A. Communicatie
i. Taalbarrière
ii. Humor
iii. Non-verbale communicatie
iv. Directheid
v. Beleefdheid
B. Omgang
i. Temperament
ii. Conflicterende waarden en normen (discussies)
iii. Respect t.o.v. andere medewerkers
iv. Hartelijkheid / gastvrijheid
v. Omgaan met kritiek
vi. Segregatie van groepen
vii. Gebruik moedertalen
viii. Grappen / opmerkingen over culturele achtergrond
ix. Discriminatie / vooroordelen
x. Voorkeursbehandelingen
C. Normen m.b.t. het werk
i. Werktempo
ii. Aansturing
iii. Afspraken nakomen
iv. Werk mentaliteit
v. Personeelsfeestjes
D. Algemeen beeld
i. Uitdagingen
ii. Kansen
iii. Lastigheden
iv. Omgaan met lastige situaties / problemen
v. Erkenning ervaringen door management
4. Wenselijk diversiteitsbeleid
A. Maatregelen
i. Training en cursus
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
77
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
Facilitaire zaken
Anti-discriminatie
Werving en selectie
Beoordeling van functioneren
Communicatie
Activiteiten buiten werktijd
Inspelen op ALL klant
Klachtenafhandeling
Overig
5. Doelgroepen versus generieke benadering
A. Doelgroepenbeleid
i. Houding t.o.v. doelgroepenbeleid
B. Generiek
i. Colorblind
ii. Multiculturalist
iii. Teambenadering
iv. Individuele benadering
6. Concluderende opmerkingen (opmerkingen na afloop interview)
A. Onderlinge relaties AUT/ALL
B. Oordeel organisatie DeliXL
C. Persoonlijke houding ten opzichte van culturele diversiteit
Ronde 2
7. Belangen culturele diversiteit voor DeliXL
A. Perspectief managementlaag
B. Perspectief teamleiders
C. Perspectief allochtone medewerkers
D. Perspectief autochtone medewerkers
E. Conclusie
i. Houding ten opzichte van gepresenteerde tekst
ii. Verklaring verschil perspectief management/personeel
iii. Verenigbaarheid perspectief management/personeel
8. Belangen culturele diversiteit voor medewerkers
A. Algemeen perspectief
B. Perspectief allochtone medewerkers
C. Mogelijkheid tot uiten culturele identiteit
D. Conclusie
i. Houding ten opzichte van gepresenteerde tekst
ii. Verklaring verschil perspectief management/personeel
iii. Verenigbaarheid perspectief management/personeel
9. Ervaringen met culturele diversiteit op het werk
A. Algemeen beeld
B. Communicatie
i. Taalproblemen
ii. Humor
C. Omgang
i. Temperament
ii. Omgang met kritiek
iii. Conflicten
iv. Respect voor hiërarchie/beleefdheid
v. Segregatie van groepen
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
78
D.
E.
vi. Spreken van moedertalen
vii. Grapjes/opmerkingen over cultuur
viii. Discriminatie/vooroordelen
ix. Voorkeursbehandelingen
Uitvoer van werkzaamheden
i. Aansturing ALL medewerkers
ii. Mentaliteit ALL medewerkers – beeld management
iii. Mentaliteit ALL medewerkers – beeld uitvoerend personeel
Conclusie
i. Houding ten opzichte van gepresenteerde tekst
ii. Verklaring verschil perspectief management/personeel
iii. Verenigbaarheid perspectief management/personeel
10. Voorgestelde interventies
A. Training en cursus
B. Activiteiten buiten werktijd
C. Afhandelen van klachten
D. Facilitaire zaken
E. Werving en selectie
F. Beoordeling van functioneren
G. Inspelen op ALL klanten
H. Conclusie
i. Houding ten opzichte van gepresenteerde interventies
ii. Verklaring verschil interventies management/personeel
11. Allesomvattend beleid
A. Verenigbaarheid interventies management/personeel
B. Mogelijkheden voor beleid
C. Eigen advies
D. Doelgroepenbenadering
E. Generieke benadering
F. Concluderende opmerkingen
Moving towards the next level: Ethnic diversity management from a bottom-up perspective
79