Discuss the specific challenges of managing a culturally diverse organisation with which you are familiar. Drawing upon ideas from Hofstede, Cox Jnr and other materials in this Unit, suggest some strategies of overcoming those challenges.

University Degree Education and Teaching

An assignment submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of

PDAS 591 – Cross-Cultural Management

University of New England

2007

INTRODUCTION

The survival of mankind will depend to a large extent on the ability of people who think differently to act together (Hofstede 2000:9)

In today’s workplace, the impact of organisational cultural diversity is at the highest point it has ever been. Historically viewed as an employment equity issue, organisational cultural diversity emerged as a management issue in the late 1980’s following the publication of Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty-First Century (Johnston 1987). Building upon the observations of the previous decade, the need to proactively manage organisational cultural diversity continued to gain acceptance, throughout the 1990’s, as forward-thinking organisations sought to create an environment that valued the differences and maximised the potential of all employees (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (U.S. MSPB), 1993). In recent years the management of organisational cultural diversity is no longer an attribute displayed by forward thinking organisations. Instead, managing organisational cultural diversity has become a business imperative capable of sustaining and improving an organisation’s economic performance (Kalh 2001) whilst meeting the expectations and aspirations of the society within which it operates (Orlando 2000).

As a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing corporation, Accenture is particularly exposed to the challenges of managing organisational cultural diversity as the demographics of their operating environment is in a constant state of flux due to skills shortages, economic growth and an aging workforce. These conditions see Accenture rely heavily on organisational cultural diversity programs to operate an environment that is ‘rich in diversity, acknowledges each individual's uniqueness and promotes respect, personal achievement and stewardship’ (Accenture: Diversity and Inclusion 2007:para. 1).

This paper seeks to examine three management challenges (generational heterogeneity, workforce dispersion, and gender equality) faced by Accenture as they manage their organisational cultural diversity.

In doing so, it will define and analyse each organisational cultural diversity challenge in the light of work undertaken by Hofstede, Cox and others, in order to suggest culturally-sensitive strategies that could be employed to over come them.

ACCENTURE IN CONTEXT

With a workforce now exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand people, organisational cultural diversity within Accenture’s is not merely a representation of different nationalities or ethnicities. Operating with a definition of organisational cultural diversity that encompasses age, gender, physical ability/disability, race, society, educational level, national/regional origins, language, religion, sexual orientation, family status and work experience (Accenture Global Inclusion Portal 2007:para. 3) Accenture, as do many organisations operating at global scale (Ghadar 1990:253), rely heavily on organisational cultural diversity programs to provide quick responses and flexibility to the cultural nuances of societies within which they operate.

Whilst it is apparent that merely acknowledging organisational cultural diversity does not ensure Accenture’s organisational success, the business benefits that Accenture can achieve through the effective management of its organisational cultural diversity is without question (Adler 1986:118). Yet, at the operational level, Accenture is plagued by stereotyping (ethnicity, age and gender) as a result of its assumption that organisational cultural sensitivity is a natural bi-product of unmediated interactions between individuals – an assumption common to organisations operating at global scale (Phillips 1992). This sees Accenture respond organisational cultural diversity issues through the implementation of policies rather than direct intervention – an approach observed by Chevrier (2003) that assumes a policy driven pre-defined culture is capable of transcending the issues associated with organisational cultural diversity.

KEY CHALLENGES

Generational Heterogeneity

Increasing generational heterogeneity has been an issue faced by Accenture for the past decade. Accenture, as have many organisations globally, struggled to accommodate the expectations and aspirations and needs of the four generations that have come to make up its workforce.

Understanding and appreciating differences in generations will enable our teams to better interact with one another and respect different working style and instincts (Accenture Corporate Function 2006:para 1)

Flatter management structures and a more egalitarian approach to advancement has seen age and experience no longer the obvious criterion for seniority. Consequently, Accenture experiences difficulty as self-directing work teams are resourced, and in some cases led, by individuals who do not relate to the experiences and values of the preceding or following generations. Such generational diversity presents an interesting challenge for Accenture as they seek to harness the skills and motivations of each generation, maintain cohesive teams, and promote alignment with its core values.

Workforce Dispersion

Advances in technology and changes in economic factors have resulted in a steady shift towards greater flexibility in work patterns and locations across Accenture’s global workforce. Whilst changing work patterns and locations themselves are not a new phenomenon to Accenture, the need to build robust cross-geographic structures to support a global delivery model is.

There are significant challenges to putting together a project team organisation and managing it when personnel come from different organizations, have different skill sets and cultural backgrounds, and work from different locations (Accenture Delivery Methods 2006:para 2)

Whilst Accenture has traditionally viewed its dispersed workforce as a natural response to the shortage of low-cost domestic resources, engagement has been limited to specialised roles delivering a unique capability. This sees Accenture, out of necessity, routinely assembling and deploying global workforces with little regard to finding leaders with the right mix of skills, temperament and other attributes necessary to direct, monitor and motivate remote workers – leaders who understand the business realities and cultural complexities of global projects whilst providing an effective interface between Accenture’s local and international teams, clients and vendors.

Accenture has, and continues to, consider and difficulties it experiences with its dispersed workforce as a ‘cost’ of doing business. Subsequently, in order to limit its financial exposure operating via its dispersed workforce, Accenture apply a risk premium on all remote services in preference to adjusting its operational vision, structures or policies. This approach reduces the impact to Accenture’s country controllable income indexes, effectively masking the business cost of its organisational cultural diversity issues, and allows Accenture to promote its ‘single model of a good employee’ despite the inequity and bias against those who may not prescribe to its organisational vision.

Gender Equality

The concept of the ‘glass ceiling’ has been used as a metaphor for twenty years to describe the attitudinal or organisational bias that prevents minorities and women from advancing to leadership positions. In the case of Accenture, the ‘glass ceiling’ specifically refers to less tangible hindrances, frequently anchored in cultural, societal and psychological factors, that impedes advancement to senior management and executive positions.

Following on from its own survey on the glass ceiling stopping women getting to the top, Accenture has launched an initiative to get more females in senior roles … the consultancy firm has set itself the target of increasing the proportion of female information technology specialists in the organisation (Thomas 2006:para 1)

This does not mean that women have been unable to successfully transverse Accenture’s ‘glass ceiling’ in order to join the male-dominated ranks of is executive leadership – empirically the reverse is the case. Yet breaking-through the ‘glass ceiling’ has had consequences not only for the women themselves, but also Accenture. This has forced acknowledgement, by Accenture, of the organisational limitations that its paternal culture invoked as it seeks to unlock the full potential of thirty percent of their workforce. Despite Accenture’s best efforts, the role of women is frequently unclear with legitimate successes frequently accompanied by ongoing struggles and painful backlash. Such behaviour, although mainly anecdotal due to a policy of zero litigation, is common within the executive ranks of Accenture and provides an indicator of the challenges faced by women in an organisation that is in effect controlled by men.

ANALYSIS

Whether viewed independently or collectively, the organisational cultural diversity challenges faced by Accenture provides a rich fabric upon which to apply philosophical and practical diversity management models and frameworks. Despite promoting a homogenous organisational character underpinned by its core values and code of business ethics, the very diversity Accenture seeks to exploit has led to an increased visibility of the diversity challenges it faces. Whether this is as a result of Accenture’s diversity programs or a natural consequence of its global expansion, it is the first time in Accenture’s history that it has been accountable for ensuring its response to generational heterogeneity, workforce dispersion and gender bias is relevant across its global business operations.

Generational Heterogeneity

A challenge faced by many organisations, generational heterogeneity has emerged as phenomena of increasing interest to human resources professionals, academics and researchers alike.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Generational Heterogeneity

A challenge faced by many organisations, generational heterogeneity has emerged as phenomena of increasing interest to human resources professionals, academics and researchers alike.

As each generation exudes and displays similar value sets as a result of their common formative experiences (Rokeach, 1973), the expectation that they will share an organisational affinity with those whom they interact is increasingly being called into question. According to Hofstede (1980), socially held views such as those demonstrated by each generation, emerge because value acquisition is a function not just of one's personality but of learning within a social context during one's formative period. People who are raised in the same social context, who are affected by a common set of social forces, would therefore be expected to share similar values. For example, Accenture’s career experience, when viewed through the eyes of Hofstede, assumes high power distance (acceptance of hierarchical boss-subordinate relationships), high uncertainty avoidance (acceptance of formal rules and procedures), low individualism (acceptance of group operation and decision making) and high masculinity (acceptance of the importance of achievement, control and power). Yet as Hofstede observes, assumed acceptance of a common career experience would be difficult as it is required to be country agnostic, accommodate multiple cultural dimensions, whilst taking heed of generational differentiation that is not readily attributed to a specific culture of country (e.g. technology, globalisation, economic reform etc.).

Accenture’s desire to drive a common career experience, when viewed in the light of Cox Jr. (1991), sees each generation become a ‘minority’ within Accenture’s broader organisational culture. This allows the examination of generational heterogeneity based upon the six key characteristics: creating pluralism, creating full structural integration, creating full integration of informal networks, creating a bias-free organisation, organisational identification and minimising inter group conflict (Cox, 1991:34). It is however, quickly apparent that Accenture’s common career experience fares poorly when viewed in the light of Cox Jr.’s model of a multi-cultural organisation. Accenture pay little regard to creating pluralism, with minority representation limited to published attrition statistics and the results of annual 360° feedback surveys. Similarly, heavy reliance on pace-based progression, work assignment is linked directly to career level and by default ones generational affiliation – analysts within Accenture are Millennials (1977-1998), managers are typically Generation X (1965-1976) with executives ranks dominated Baby Boomers (1946-1964).

This results in a common career experience that has little chance of creating full structural integration or creating full integration of informal networks as the interaction between each group limited to the task at hand with social interaction between career levels limited to ad hoc team events arranged solely at the discretion of the senior executive project sponsor.

Unlike Hofstede and Cox Jr., the application of Thomas’ (1995) model for managing diversity assumes the ‘manager and the organisation, as well as the individual, will be willing to engage in a mutual adaptation process to produce a productive relationship and the organisation (Thomas, 1995:p 328). Differing from Hofstede and Cox Jr.’ Thomas (1995) proposes a structure for bringing about organisational change in response to particular diversity issues. When applied to generational heterogeneity, and in particular Accenture’s common career experience, Thomas’ model highlights that the need to understand Accenture’s generational differences (e.g. age, values, gender issues etc,) as a means to identify long-term strategies to encourage intergenerational participation and increase employee engagement and participation. This is of particular relevance when applied to Accenture’s efforts to create a bias-free organisation. Application of Thomas’ model would see Accenture’s mentoring and career counselling program reinvigorated and reduce their use as forums for discipline, dispute resolution and administration of global policies and procedures – thus restoring their intent as a means of enhancing organisational identification, minimising inter group conflict, and providing a forum for discussion of a career experience that at times is at odds with the needs and aspirations of the generations they are intended to serve.

Workforce Dispersion

Whilst management theories in the 20th century focused on the power of co-location, as a means by which to enhance organisational and individual performance, they had at their foundation the premise that increased social interaction, shared focus and physical proximity would lead to an improved business outcome (Sharifi and Pawar 2002:para 1). Yet globalisation has seen Accenture move to an organisational model at odds with many of these theories in order to reap the economic benefits (e.g. wage arbitrage, lower operating costs etc.) associated with deploying a geographically dispersed workforce.

When viewed in the light of Hofstede’s (1980) framework, it becomes apparent the management challenges faced by Accenture are ‘not a phenomenon that can be isolated from other process taking place in a society’. (Hofstede 1993:para 49). Cultural differences across Accenture’s dispersed workforce, when examined using Hofstede’s dimensions of power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculine versus femininity and uncertainty avoidance, become clearly apparent when on overlays the American values dimensions (the basis of Accenture’s polices, procedures and corporate culture) across the value dimensions of the countries within which they operate. The impact of such a wide reaching disconnect, sees Accenture’s globally dispersed teams behave in ways counter to its preferred corporate culture, often citing differences in work ethics, communication styles, and levels of competency as reasons for cost overruns, quality exceptions and poor team engagement levels – attributable, according to Hofstede, to the presence of management practices that are not culturally sensitive to the countries in which the are deployed (Hofstede, 1996:p 157).

Cox Jr.’s model of a multi-cultural organisation, views Accenture’s challenges managing its dispersed workforce as being a leadership issue, citing that in order to achieve the cultural harmony it seeks, Accenture must embrace ‘six key characteristics, all requiring effective leadership to achieve’ (DuBrin, 1998:p 379). Of relevance in resolving the cultural clashes that plagues its global operations, Cox Jr.’s model emphasises the need for Accenture to achieve full structural integration whilst minimising intergroup conflict in order to reap the benefit of a dispersed service delivery model. Whilst difficult to achieve, this would see Accenture embrace Cox Jr.’s underpinning philosophy of full disclosure of the diversity issues it faces with its dispersed workforce – a bitter pill to swallow considering Accenture has a reputation as an organisation that has successfully created a diverse and inclusive culture through the promotion of fairness and equity.

In contrast to Hofstede and Cox Jr, Thomas’ model does not seek to attribute the challenges faced by Accenture to a particular organisational or cultural nuance. Instead Thomas’s model views Accenture, as a collective, responsible for the specific assumptions, perceptions and behaviours that are impacting organisational effectiveness. Thomas’s model asserts that Accenture should seeking relying on informal methods (e.g. coffee breaks, walking the floors etc.) as a means of fostering a bias-free environment. Instead Thomas’ proposes that leveraging of the diversity of its workforce in order to motivate cross-cultural social interactions, encourage discussion of cultural differences, and facilitate negotiation to minimise points of conflict. The resulting increased levels of collaboration, across Accenture’s dispersed community of teams, would see the very points of friction act as coaches in ways to operate more effectively across cultures and ultimately establish an environment that supports integration rather than conflict.

Gender Equality

The concept of the ‘glass ceiling’ has been used as a metaphor for twenty years now to describe the attitudinal or organisational bias that prevents minorities and women from advancing to leadership positions. Compared to formal barriers to career advancement such as education, the ‘glass ceiling’ refers to less tangible hindrances, frequently anchored in cultural, societal and psychological factors, which impede advancement to upper management or other senior positions. Despite the dramatic advanced made by the women who have chosen to champion the relevance of their gender within Accenture, radical protest, subtle attitude, and ultimately legislative shifts have not created a organisational culture that is free from gender bias against women. As a fraternal organisation, the social rules and value systems operating in Accenture are frequently un-stated and often denied, and yet they are an important indicator of marginality of women.

Interestingly, Hofstede’s framework provides a very clear rationale for gender bias experience within Accenture. Accenture’s corporate culture is closely aligned to that of its founding partnerships (Japan, Germany, United Kingdom and the United State of America) all of which score highly on Hofstede’s masculinity dimension. When viewed using the lens of Hofstede, the high masculine rating of the societies that are Accenture’s heritage could be asserted to have direct relevance to the difficulties women experience in transversing Accenture’s management and senior executive career levels. This observation is not intended to infer Accenture actively hinder the progression of women within its workforce. However, as an organisational that is unashamedly masculine by nature, and despite the creation of structures and programs to support the progression of women, few choose to be part of, or aspire to, Accenture’s senior executive career levels.

This has seen Accenture acknowledge its masculinity and undertake affirmative action programs to promote a more balanced representation of women at all career levels. At the country level, Accenture recognise there is a direct correlation between the countries masculinity rating and the representation of women at the senior executive level – a correlation that is unbalanced and needs to be addressed. Whilst due in part to Accenture’s pace-based career model, the number of women who whish to juggle the expectations of the societies they live, dramatically reduces in those countries with a high masculinity dimension – as women are generally expected to stay at home and raise a family (Deresky, 2000:p 116).

When viewed using Cox Jr.’s model, Accenture’s gender bias becomes takes on an interesting dimension. One would assume that achieving each of Cox Jr.’s characteristics of creating pluralism, creating full structural integration, creating full integration of informal networks, creating a bias-free organisation, organisational identification and minimising inter group conflict (Cox, 1991:34) would be relatively simple considering the existence of the networks and programs that exist for women. Yet Accenture repeatedly fail to create an environment where women ‘feel’ equal to their male counterparts. It is therefore apparent, that Accenture needs to widen the constructs and programs aimed at supporting women to include all personnel – at the moment men wishing to take extended family leave are denied the informal and formal support that their women counterparts receive. Availing such initiatives to encompass all of its employees, including widening the representation of both genders as sponsors of these programs would provide an equitable representation of Cox Jr.’s model that was not aligned with one gender or the other.

The application of Thomas’ model across Accenture’s gender inequality is of particular use in defining strategies to address the challenges faced by Accenture, although it provides little insight as to why gender bias exists. What is probably most apparent when applying Thomas’ model is the need for the utilisation of ‘all human resource resources’ (Thomas 1995:p 334) at all levels as agents of change in addressing gender bias. Thomas’ approach assumes that Accenture as a collective of individuals are accountable for resolving the gender bias that has organisationally become the norm.

STRATEGIES

Faced with rapid change within its operating environment, the need for Accenture to develop a focus and coherent approach to managing the challenges it faces due to generational heterogeneity, workforce dispersion and gender inequality. The following strategies represent an approach to addressing Accenture’s diversity challenges based on analysis of each through the lenses of Hofstede, Cox Jr., and Thomas, and are intended to be viewed as a starting point from which each may be addressed.

Readers of this paper should note that each strategy (see over) is presented in a tabular format that is aligned with Accenture’s broader HRMD framework. This approach has been taken as a means of examining the objectives, activities, organisational support requirements, and outcome measurements of each strategy, and allowing their rapid incorporation into regional operating plans and individual scorecards.

Generational Heterogeneity

Workforce Dispersion

Gender Equality

CONCLUSION

Upon commencement of this paper, whether the challenges faced by Accenture in managing its culturally diverse workforce could provide an engaging discourse upon which to examine the frameworks of Hofstede, Cox Jr. and Thomas was a genuine concern. Soon enough, however, further reading and reflection created a new challenge – how could the challenges faced my Accenture be adequately examined in a paper of only four thousand words. What has become apparent is that the application of differing models and frameworks provides an alternate lens to view the challenges faced by Accenture. Each lens may appear at odds with the others, yet they represent a confronting view of an organisation struggling to engage its diverse workforce.

Faced with operating on global scale, functional boundaries and complex regional constructs often stifles Accenture’s central diversity and inclusion programs – especially those that are considered discretionary or counter to the cultures they are being applied. What is apparent is that Accenture’s command-and-control approach of managing cultural diversity, via the imposition of a pre-defined culture, has diminishing relevance as its workforce diversity increases. This sees diversity, and its effective management, play an important role as Accenture’s agenda of global expansion continues. Programs and strategies will be deployed as a wider understanding of the positive contribution that diverse workforce can make in terms of creativity and innovation is achieved.

Whilst the key to effective diversity management is the fair and equal treatment of all staff, the true promise of diversity lies in the ability to bring new skills to the workplace (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004:p 18)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Accenture Annual Report (2005) Accessed from the World Wide Web 15th September from www.accenture.com/NR/rdonlyres/39BB7279-F62B-461F-A843-0490DE9E572A/0/AnnualRep05 Overview.pdf

Accenture Corporate Function (2006) Generational differences key to varied work, communication styles accessed from the World Wide Web on 15 October from https://portal.accenture.com/News/BusinessPractices/Finance/ClientFinancialManagement/GenerationaldifferencesCFM.htm

Accenture Deliver Methods (2006) Guideline: Organization and Resource Management Guidelines for Distributed Work. Accessed from https:// method ology.accenture.com/sap_core/adm_guidance_materials_plugin/guidances/guidelines/Organization%20and%20Resource%20Management%20Guidelines%20for%20Distributed%20Work,core_pkg_jobaid_16.html on 15 October.

Accenture Diversity and Inclusion (2007) Accessed from the World Wide Web 15th September from Diversity/

Accenture Global Inclusion Portal (2007) Accessed from the World Wide Web 15th September from https://publishing.accenture.com/GlobalInclusion/

Adler, N. (1986) International dimensions of organisational behaviour. Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Company.

Adler, N. and Ghadar, F. (1990) Strategic human resource management: a global perspective, in Human resource management: an international comparison. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp 235 - 260.

Allard, M. (2002) Theoretical underpinnings of diversity, in Harvey C. and Allard M (eds). Understanding and managing diversity: readings, cases and exercises. Harlow: Prentice Hall. pp 3-27.

Bergers N. (2001) An Experiential Exercise in Diversity Awareness. Journal of Management Education 25. pp 737-745.

Chevrier, S. (2003) Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups. Journal of World Business 38. pp 141-149.

Commonwealth of Australia (2004) Making Diversity Work, For Your Organisation and Australia’s Future, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

Cox, T. (1991) The Multicultural Organization, The Academy of Management Executive. pp 34-47

Hofstede, G (1993), Cultural constraints in management theories University of Limburg, Maastricht, the Netherlands, Academy of Management Executive, 1993. pp 81-94

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences, Sage, London.

Johnston W. (1987) Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty-First Century, US Labor Department, Employment and Training Administration

McSweeney, B. (2002) Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A triumph of faith - A failure of analysis, Human Relations Journal, January.

Orlando R. (2000) Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm performance: A Resource Based View. Academy of Management Journal. pp 164-177

Phillips, N. (1992) Managing international teams, London, Pitman.

Rosenbloom J. & DuPont B. (2004) Workforce Scope and Definition. Accessed from the World Wide Web 15th September from ITWorkforce/pubs/Workforce.shtml#auth

Sharifi, S. and Pawar K. (2002) Virtually co-located product design teams: Sharing teaming experiences after the event, International Journal of Operations and Production Management Year: 2002 Volume: 22. pp 656-679

Thomas (2006) Accenture aims to attract more women to top jobs, accessed from the World Wide Web from 2006/03/23/34608/accenture-aims-to-attract-more-women-to-top-jobs.html

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1993) The Changing Face of the Federal Workplace, A Symposium on Diversity, Proceedings Held at Washington, DC on 17 Feb 1993

Discuss the specific challenges of managing a culturally diverse organisation with which you are familiar. Drawing upon ideas from Hofstede, Cox Jnr and other materials in this Unit, suggest some strategies of overcoming those challenges.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

What challenges do young learners face with school mathematics?

Produce an analysis and evaluation of different teaching and learning strat...

The Challenges Faced by American Youth and Children

Life Is Full Of Challenges