Diversity approach is also revealed by the language in use: through a country culture influence, till the in place practices. Some thoughts about a possible integrated approach to detect and make progresses on diversity and inclusion management are proposed, as a stimulus for further reflection/ action

1. Diversity Management:
some thoughts
Version 1
04.11.2008
D.Famà: open workshops – Rome 2008 (c/o ANL – www.nuovi-lavori.it - e CNEL)
1

2. Index
• Diversity Approach: from Language in use till Company Practices (slides 3-5 )
• Diversity: A Possible Integrated Path to Improve (slide 6 )
• Country Culture Exploration: Wide Community, Company Level, Conctrete Outcomes (slides 7-10)
• Then?.... (slide 11 )
• Backup: some outcome from a 2008 country survey (slides 13-15)
2

3. DIVERSITY Approach vs LANGUAGE In use
(1)
DIVERSITY
Dissonante, divergente, contrapposto,
Anti-discrimination contraddittorio, contrario, opposto
Distinto, altro, vario, disparato, ineguale,
Equal Opportunities differente, dissimile, eterogeneo
Nuovo, insolito, alternativo, discrepante
Difference Valorization (raro)
(1) Source: “Dizionario dei sinonimi e contrari”, Zanichelli
3

4. DIVERSITY Approach vs PRACTICE Levels
DIVERSITY
IDENTIFY/ SANCTIONING DISCRIMINATIONS
• Laws
• Code of Practice
Anti-discrimination • Training
• Communication & Control
ELIMINATE THE OBSTACLES
• Process review (HR in particular)
Equal Opportunities • Sensitize
• participation
• Promotion and Top mngt commitment & involvement
USE THE DIFFERENCE AS A DRIVER
Difference Valorization • Leadership model
• Element influencing the strategy process review
4

5. …till COUNTRY and COMPANY Practices
DIVERSITY Country Backdrop Company backdrop
(examples) (examples)
Anti discrimination laws, in every * Values
individual vs individual/“collective” * Organization & Responsibilities
Anti-discrimination relationship
Specific laws (active policies in * Approaches
particular) * Effective Social Responsibility
Equal Opportunities Effective Diversity Governance,
* Clear results like % of female
in Middle and Top mngt positions
at every level of Public Admin
and vs citizen/ non citizen
relationship
Concrete results in influencing Concrete results in leveraging
an Inclusion & Diversity country Diversity for Business benefit
culture consolidation, for example
Difference Valorization Impacting on key perforamances
like Female Employment Rate (1):
• Finland 65.4%
• Italy 42.1%
(1) EIRO
5

6. DIVERSITY: A Possible Integrated Path to Improve
Improve in every area & escalate in approach quality 3)
1)
APPROACH LANGUAGE/ COUNTRY COMPANY
MATURITY BASIC PRACTICES: CULTURE:
BACKDROP BACKDROP
(examples) (examples)
Continuous results measurement/
evaluation
Gaps’ Root cause analysis +
IDENTIFY/ SANCTIONING
Dissonante,
DISCRIMINATIONS
divergente, Anti discrimination laws, in every * Values
1) Anti • Laws contrapposto, individual vs individual/“collective” * Organization & Responsibilities
• Code of Practice opposto relationship
Discrimination contraddittorio,
• Training
contrario.
• Communication & Control
ELIMINATE THE OBSTACLES
Distinto, altro, Specific laws (active policies in * Approaches
• Process review (HR mainly) vario, disparato,
2) Equal particular) * Effective Social Responsibility
• Sensitize ineguale, * Clear results like % of female
Opportunities differente, Effective Diversity Governance, in Middle and Top mngt positions
• Participation
dissimile, at every level of Public Admin
• Promotion and Top mngt eterogeneo and vs citizen/ non citizen
commitment & involvement
relationship
USE THE DIFFERENCE AS A
3) Difference BUSINESS DRIVER Nuovo, insolito, Concrete results in influencing Concrete results in leveraging
alternativo, an Inclusion & Diversity country Diversity for business benefit
Valorization • Leadership model culture consolidation
discrepante (raro)
• Element influencing the strategy
process review
6

7. LET’S EXPLORE COUNTRY CULTURE DIMENSION
Let’s consider “Culture’s Consequences” by G.Hofstede.
It highlights there are in place country characteristics quite stable
that clearly map them along 5 dimensions.
This kind of analysis shows that there are “hard” (deep &
consolidated) cultural attitudes we have to face.
They are “stoney guests” producing effective impacts:
sometimes not expected at all (see next slide).
For example, let’s compare between
Finnish and Italian cultures. The main
gaps are:
20 points out of 112 = 18% of the scale
for “Individualism Vs Collettivism”
10 points out of 112 = 9% of the scale
for “”Uncertainty Avoidance”
15 points out of 110 = 14% of the scale
for “Power Distance”
50 out of 95 = 53% of the scale
“Masculinity vs Femininity”
(see at the top left page for Masculinity
Definition)
Source: “Culture’s Consequences”, Geert Hofstede (ed. 2001), SAGE Publications 7

8. COUNTRY CULTURE: influence at wide community level
Their possible interpretation in a specific “Fracture Lines” and
The Principles
cultural context “Institutional Impact”
The communities that contribute to a greater extent to the
No taxation without North vs South
State funding, have the right to proportionally
representation (Federalism)
benefit from / influence the State’s expenses decisions
The public intermediation must be reduced to a minimum Rich vs Poor
Less State more Market because the private intermediation is more efficient, (Social Inequalities,
using the same resources Economical Democracy)
The citizens, by definition the natural inheritors of the long term
Social services are a Citizens vs “others”
community building effort, have the right/ priority
citizenship rights (Citizenship Rights)
to benefit of the majority of community’s social expenses
The minorities have to comply with majority’s decisions.
Democracy is the The minorities have the right to exert opposition. “Majority” vs ‘Others’
majority’s government Good citizen is who maintain/ exert his/ her exceptions / values (language, religion,
habits, census…..)
in the private life, being publicly compliant to the majority’s decisions.
(Minorities’ Rights,
The democracy values like: freedom, individuality, equality, Model for Coexistence)
etc., so much we struggled for in our collective history,
Live for your values
they aren’t negotiable, nor subject to be discontinued
at discretion.
8

9. COUNTRY CULTURE at Company Level: influence vs company size
(Source: Adapted from Diverse Teams at Work (Gardenswarts and Rowe, 1994)
Country culture is highly relevant
for Italy due to its fragmented
economic structure
Predominant for little-medium
Cultural influencing factors: size or local organizations
(private or public sectors)
• ethnicity
• social environment
Predominant for multinational
• company culture organizations (in general)
9

10. COUNTRY CULTURE at Company level :
influence on some concrete outcome
South Europe country gender stereotypes generate, as a matter of fact:
- At lower contractual levels, the permanent assignment of female employees to Assistant-like roles;
- At middle mngt levels, and for subject matter expert roles, the recognition of female capabilities;
- At higher mngt levels, a sudden and unexpected drop of female assignments
Gender analysis: %Job Grade (JG) assigned to
Female (F)
100.0%
%JG assigned to F
80.0%
%of available JG
W/o Assistant role
assigned to F
60.0%
40.0%
20.0% %F on
total HC
0.0%
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
JG
Operative Individual Team supervisor / Expert Ind. Higher
contributors contributors management levels
10
Source: “Standard Job distribution per gender” in a specific Company, with sites in different countries (Analyzed Area: south EU)
Note: data controlled for possible biases due to education, age, seniority.

11. Then……?
Let’s promote the Courage to Change in 5 points
Excellent policies, robust process design and control…. aren’t sufficient without:
1) Results/ outcomes measurement and evaluation, to the purpose to search to understand the gaps’
root causes. Gaps continue to arouse, willingness notwithstanding.
2) Feel and assess how the cultural backdrop is acting, at all the relevant levels:
(country/ region, company’s history, top management “hidden leadership model” ….: if any, there it is
the Stoney Guest, notwithstanding the explicit intents and the willingness to be inclusive vs the
diversity)
3) Award the diversity champions
(during hiring, all along the career …. all things being equal: award them ! )
Hr Professionals in particular:
4) Be personally daily diversity champions at workplace
“zero tolerance” ….. also against less than respectful jargon 
5) As professional associations: promote public and private initiatives
Lobbying as change players for better laws, effective Corporate Social Responsibility, etc wherever
an inclusive attitude could be promoted, into the workplaces and in the overall society.
11

12. BACK UP
Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del prossimo futuro in Italia”, R.Mannheimer – ISPO, sett. 2008
Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere della Sera (Milano,
22 settembre 2008)
12

13. Cerchiamo altrove
delle conferme (vedi
Fonte)
Gli opinion leader
italiani, intervistati sulla
esistenza o meno di
specifiche capacità del
genere femminile, utili
per le aziende,
rispondono al 75% SI
Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del prossimo futuro in Italia”, R.Mannheimer – ISPO, sett. 2008
Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere della Sera (Milano, 22
settembre 2008)
Queste capacità distintive,
sembrano essere quelle di un profilo
manageriale moderno: attenzione
alla relazione, negoziazione,
sensibilità, capacità gestionale,
determinazione e flessibilità…..
Malgrado ciò, abbiamo visto che
proprio queste caratteristiche
sembra non vengono valorizzate,
almeno OGGI:
“Riconoscere” ≠ Valorizzare
13

14. E DOMANI ?
Intervistati sul trend futuro (a 5y) della
effettiva valorizzazione delle capacità del
genere femminile, la maggioranza assume
un atteggiamento da “champion della
diversita di genere”: personalmente/ la
propria azienda perseguirà questa
valorizzazione più di quanto farà il Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del prossimo futuro in Italia”, R.Mannheimer –
ISPO, sett. 2008
mercato in generale (79% vs 62%, un bel
gap di 12pp) della Sera (Milano, 22 settembre 2008) 14
Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere

15. Fonte: Indagine “Il lavoratore del
prossimo futuro in Italia”,
R.Mannheimer – ISPO, sett. 2008
Presentata al Convegno “Lavoro Oggi
e Domani” organizzato dal Corriere
della Sera (Milano, 22 settembre
2008)
E cosa attribuiscono di negativo
alla dimensione più collettiva?
-<<l’Italia è un paese maschilista>>
-<<Le leggi non sono adeguate>>
-<<Non c’e’ sostegno adeguato per
conciliare famiglia e lavoro>>
Vengono per l’appunto richiamati:
- il fattore culturale (fra l’altro
“oggettivo”: nella scala MAS, l’Italia è
classificabile come “mascolina”)
-Il contesto facilitante
ATTIVAMENTE la diversità (contesto
sia normativo sia “volontario
-aziendale”)
15