In This edition

1. Talented Consultant-Facilitators Required
2. The 'Masculine' and 'Feminine' Sides of Leadership and Culture: Perception vs. Reality*
3. Critical Trends And Shifts In The Mentoring Experiences Of Professional Women
4. Can a Middle-Aged, White, Straight Guy Teach Diversity Classes?
5. HR Must Eliminate "Innovation Killers" Within Their Firm
6. Case-Law & Legislation Review: Collective Bargaining Organisational Rights 
7. Unsubscribe & Moving Soon

NB: If your Internet service provider (ISP) or server administrator filters incoming e-mail, please add Equity Skills News & Views to your list of approved senders to ensure you receive this e-journal to which you are subscribed.

Jeff Sacht: Publisher-editor
www.equityskillsweb.com
jeffs@worldonline.co.za
'A MUST TO PRINT & READ'
>25,000 & still growing!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

First Reminder: Southern Africa Launch Of The Human Capital Institute (HCI)

Sandton International Business School (SIBS) Teams Up With Human Capital Institute (HCI)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandton International Business School announces the official launch of its partnering with the Human Capital Institute (USA). You and your top level Line and Human Resources Executives are invited to attend the launch of HCI in November 2005.

# EXECUTIVE BREAKFAST BRIEFING: 01 NOVEMBER 2005.

# VENUE: The venue will be either the Hilton International Hotel, or SIBS. Both venues are in Sandown. Delegates will be notified of the venue 10 days prior to the event.

The purpose of the Executive Briefing session is twofold:

>> Provide Line and HR Executives with an overview of the critical and changing role of Human Resources highlighted by the McKinsey study about The War For Talent (2003), and its implications for shifting your company's people management practices to that of a Human Capital & Talent Management process and systems.

>> Introduce the role that The Human Capital Institute (SA) will play in the field of context relevant research and education for Human Resources professionals to facilitate this shift.

Download a flyer and registration form at: http://www.workinfo.com/newsletter/workshop/hci.htm

# 2-DAY WORKSHOP: HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES 02 -03 NOVEMBER 2005.

# VENUE: The venue will be either the Hilton International Hotel, or SIBS. Both venues are in Sandown. Delegates will be notified of the venue 10 days prior to the event.

The workshop is presented by Kevin Rutherford one of HCI's master facilitators from the USA. The workshop cuts across the traditional boundaries found in traditional Human Resources. The workshop provides a comprehensive overview of the talent management landscape. From planning, through acquisition, alignment, development and leadership, HCMP is designed to provide seasoned Human Capital practitioners, line managers and executives alike with the latest concepts, strategies and practices in the new business science of talent management.

Download a flyer and registration form at: http://www.workinfo.com/newsletter/workshop/hci.htm 

# What is HCI?

The Human Capital Institute (HCI) is an exciting new professional association dedicated to leadership in the business science of Talent Management. Our members are human capital professionals and executive leaders who share the conviction that TALENT is the most powerful competitive lever in the knowledge economy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Talented Consultant - Facilitators Required: Become A Trained Facilitator For

The Priciples Of Human Capital Management Workshop (02-03 November 2005)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

HCI (SA) invites talented Facilitators who have worked as consultants to be developed to lead The Principles Of Human Capital Management (PHCM) Workshop. You are invited to apply for the 3 seats available to aspiring facilitators for the PHCM workshop in Johannesburg on 02-03 November, 2005. Once accredited you will become an associate of the founding team of HCI as the leader in the field of Human Capital & Talent Management in Southern Africa. Attendance at the workshop will be subsidised for the 3 selected facilitators.

The Principles course can only be taught by someone with considerable Human Resources, consulting and/or Talent Management Experience (i.e., not simply a trainer). The current requirements are:

>> Be highly experienced in content relevant fields across the Human Capital & Talent Management Spectrum

>> Attendance at the workshop as a learner

>> Complete of 50 item knowledge assessment and a real-world practicum (post course project)

Download a flyer and registration form at: http://www.workinfo.com/newsletter/workshop/hci.htm

Contact Jeff Sacht on jeffs@worldonline.co.za to apply for your seat at the HCMP workshop.

------------------------------------

Survey Whether Your Company's Business & Cultural Practices

Blocks Creating Sound Employment Relationships & Equity Initiatives

------------------------------------

Renewal Resources provide a family of client proven instruments and change processes to assess organization effectiveness. Each is designed to develop the effectiveness of individuals, teams, sales professionals, the organisation and its performance management systems and processes. Contact jeffs@worldonline.co.za for a brochure of the survey assessment tools available.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The 'Masculine' and 'Feminine' Sides of Leadership and Culture: Perception vs. Reality*

From http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/ 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Workers' general notions about the effectiveness of male and female managers can be as important as their actual leadership abilities or business results, according to a session on gender and leadership at a recent Wharton Executive Development program entitled, "Women in Leadership: Legacies, Opportunities & Challenges." As a result, women executives need to be exceptionally aware of their own leadership styles and strengths -- as well as changes underway in their organizations -- in order to make an impact, noted program director Anne Cummings, a former Wharton management professor who is now a professor of business administration at the University of Minnesota at Duluth.

During another session, Wharton management professor Sigal Barsade looked at the critical role the development of a strong corporate culture has played in the success of such companies as Mary Kay Inc., the country's second biggest direct seller of beauty products.

Cummings began her session on gender perceptions by asking the women executives attending the program to brainstorm a list of words describing female leaders. Among the words that surfaced: multi-tasking, emotional, empathetic, strong, intuitive, compassionate, relationship building, verbal, consensus building, collaborative and gossipy.

Then Cummings asked for a list of words associated with being a male leader. Strong, arrogant, intelligent, ego-driven, bravado, powerful, dominant, assertive, single tasking, focused, competitive, stubborn, physical, self-righteous and direct made the list. One woman marveled at the way men are capable of having an argument at work, then go out for a beer together as if nothing had ever happened. "Women hold a grudge," she said. "Men are passive-aggressive," countered another. "They sit in the bushes and wait." "Men have a sense of entitlement," said yet another executive. "It's a given that they will be successful."

Cummings said that over the past five years, when she has asked for this list at similar seminars, the descriptions have become more gender-neutral. "The notion of what makes an effective leader is changing, and you will find both [traditionally defined] 'masculine' and 'feminine' components," she said.

Scholars approach the question of leadership differences between men and women through the social construct of gender, or traits associated with masculinity or femininity, Cummings noted, adding that biology does not entirely determine gender issues because there can be masculine women and feminine men. "Much of what we think about in terms of leadership usually falls in 'masculine' traits, whether it's a man or a woman," she said. As an example, Cummings pointed to Linda Alvarado, who formed her own company in the male-dominated construction industry and again broke gender stereotypes to become a part owner of the Colorado Rockies baseball team.

"I do think our culture has a huge influence on" how women develop as leaders, she said. "More and more we are seeing that women have some very masculine styles."

Role Congruity

But what exactly is a "masculine" style? According to Cummings, men tend to be more task-oriented while women take on a more interpersonal style of leadership. Therefore, a "masculine" style tends toward assertive and task-based behaviors, while a "feminine" style is more relationship oriented and "democratic." Additionally, Cummings noted, men tend to take greater intellectual risks and have higher self esteem, whereas "women are coping" and tend to be more efficient when it comes to solving problems.

Of course, all of this behavior operates on a continuum, she noted. "Most of us have a multitude of styles." Research shows that people in general are slightly more feminine in their behavior traits than they are masculine, Cummings said. These perceived differences play into "role congruity," which is the expectation that a person will act a certain way based on his or her gender. When someone does not meet that expectation, perceptions of leadership ability can wane, regardless of the leader's actual effectiveness.

"Men and women can do the same thing, but if they both act assertive, women are rated less effective because we expect men to do that," Cummings noted. Moreover, research shows that of the people who emerge as leaders in a laboratory setting -- where men and women come together without knowing one another -- male leaders are judged more effective than women leaders. "That's the scary part: Men and women can exhibit the same results and accomplishments and the perception of their effectiveness is different."

Within established organizations, however, there is less difference in the perceived effectiveness of men and women leaders, she said. "Some of these perceptions can be different when you are working in an organization where you have a track record as an effective producer.... In the real world we have systems of interaction. We have systems of power. We have systems of how departments interact -- who is promoted from what job -- and systems of experience that may also play a role that you don't see in the lab." Although the differences in real-world perceptions are smaller, she noted, "they are still there."

The culture of an organization, or even a part of the organization such as a division or other business unit, can determine the degree to which a woman's own feminine or masculine traits fit. "If your leadership style is more feminine and you are in a masculine culture, you have role incongruity, and you may not be that effective because people will perceive you as not fitting," said Cummings.

The differences between leadership styles are not necessarily positive or negative in building leadership, but executives need to be aware of their style and how they come across to others in their organization and outside. "All I'm saying to women is that you need to read your environment and build your skill set so you can lead a variety of different people," Cummings said. She noted that executives can use standard personality assessments to gauge their own individual leadership traits and those of the people they are managing. One commonly used assessment is the Bem Sex-Role Inventory which asks respondents to describe themselves using 60 adjectives identified as feminine, masculine or neutral. "Think about where there are strengths and where there are potential pitfalls," said Cummings. "There are leadership styles that are determinants of your behavior that are different from masculine and feminine."

Women also need to understand the culture of their organizations in order to set up negotiations with stakeholders to build a legacy. "To the extent that women want to leave a leadership impact, they need to be strategic and analytical about the domain they are working in and understand their strengths as well as areas [that need work]." It's important, Cummings added, to figure out how to lead people who have other styles and how to "build the competencies of other women around you."

The Power of Culture: Mary Kay

In another session, Wharton management professor Sigal Barsade focused on how understanding the power of corporate culture can help individuals and companies succeed. Like Cummings, Barsade noted that a good fit between employees and culture is important: "If you really want the kind of commitment and superior performance of going above and beyond what [your company needs], it comes down to the person-culture fit. You need to find people who are going to believe in the values of your organization."

When it comes to a strong corporate culture, Barsade noted, it's hard to beat Mary Kay Cosmetics, which rewards its top sales people with pink Cadillacs, diamonds and other gifts in an annual awards ceremony that rivals the crowning of Miss America. Once a year, thousands of Mary Kay sales consultants from around the world gather in Dallas, Tex., to honor their own. They sing Mary Kay songs. They give tearful testimonials about how the company changed their lives. They memorialize their founder, Mary Kay Ash, who died in 2001 at age 83.

All that translates to the bottom line. "What Mary Kay does very well is understand its employees and their needs and values," said Barsade. "It can orient the culture so the fit between the people and the organization is very tight and allows Mary Kay to get really superior performance."

Strong corporate cultures also view people as a critical resource and value them as individuals, said Barsade, who noted that Mary Kay Ash sent all her sales people hand-written birthday greetings. Ritual and ceremony, like the Mary Kay awards extravaganza, are also important, along with clear expectations about the direction of the company. "Ultimately, culture is the informal system that people put together to know what the company wants from them."

While the culture of a company is informal, Barsade said senior managers have the power to shape it. "Culture, strategy and structure all have to work together, and top management is absolutely critical because they are the ones who not only determine the culture they want, but help to define the strategy and decide whether the structure is going to support the culture."

The first clue to understanding an organization's culture is to look at what is rewarded -- not just monetarily, but also informally, said Barsade. "Ultimately that is what the culture will promote." Sometimes, the company touts one set of values but actually rewards another. For example, she pointed to Enron, which outwardly promoted the value of integrity. "You can have wonderful plaques in the lobby and cards with the values printed on them," she said, "but sometimes those things -- and what is truly rewarded -- are not in alignment."

Barsade said culture can be thought of like an iceberg with certain parts visible, but the bulk lying unseen beneath the surface. "The depth of culture is what's below the surface, and we sometimes don't know we are in a culture until there is a clash." At the bottom of the cultural iceberg are basic assumptions, said Barsade. "We don't even talk about them because they are so obvious." At a for-profit company the most basic assumption is that the organization's mission is to make money. For a non-profit, basic assumptions are trickier but typically center on a mission or providing a service.

Values and beliefs form the next layer of the iceberg. At this point corporate plaques and slogans promote values such as responsible citizenship, integrity or even fierce competition, said Barsade. "This is the level on which we usually talk about corporate culture." Rising above the surface of the iceberg are behaviors, which Barsade explained present themselves as artifacts and norms. Corporate norms become a shorthand way for managers to lead employees, and -- like the perceived gender-based leadership styles Cummings described during her session -- represent "a social expectation of what is appropriate or inappropriate."

Citing the research of Charles O'Reilly at Stanford University, Barsade said organizational culture can be plotted against two key dimensions. One is the intensity of values and the other is the crystallization of values, or how widely values are spread throughout an organization. A company with high intensity and high crystallization has a strong culture, like Mary Kay.

According to Barsade, research indicates managers have only about four to six months to socialize a new employee into the company's culture. She offered advice to the women executives in the program about promoting social integration and networks within their own companies' cultures. "Don't let [new hires] be isolated that first week. Make sure someone is going out to lunch with them every day -- someone senior. Get them linked in very fast." Also, companies should point to successful role models. "You need to say, 'this person is a success, and this is how they got there.'"

------------------------------------

THE IR PROTECTOR

------------------------------------

Is your company spending valuable time and resources handling disciplinary issues?

Does your business contribute to the 130 000 cases at the CCMA each year?

Is your share of the R14 000 000 000 in South African industrial relations costs affecting profitability? Take the next logical step in people management and protect your organisation.

To find out more about "The IR Protector" visit www.workinfo.com/sponsors/irprotect.thm 

Brought to you by Workinfo.com and Camargue, Hollard's labour dispute specialists.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Critical Trends And Shifts In The Mentoring Experiences Of Professional Women

By Stacy Blake-Beard, Research Faculty at the Center for Gender in Organizations and Associate Professor at Simmons School of Management.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Women have made great strides in terms of workforce participation. Recent statistics indicate that 47% of the total U.S. workforce is now female. The percentage of women in managerial positions in the United States has risen from 32% in 1983 to 49% as of 1997, with more gains by women expected in the years to come2. Yet in spite of the progress that women have made in advancing their careers in organizations, there are still barriers preventing them from reaching the upper echelons in significant numbers. A recent survey commissioned by the Committee of 200 (C200) provided a report card of how businesswomen are faring in relation to their male counterparts3. The C200 Business Leadership Index is composed of data from 10 key areas synthesized into an overall index; the index consists of 10 scores, each one based on a 10 point scale. On this scale of 1 to 10, with parity with men equaling 10, the overall index number was 3.95. C200 suggests that increased access to mentoring for women may be one step toward achieving gender equity. In this article, I explore the impact of informal mentoring on the career experiences of women in the corporate sector.

Historical Perspective on Mentoring

While early studies of mentoring focused on the career development of young men in relation to more seasoned male colleagues, a number of questions were raised about how women's experiences of mentoring may differ or mirror those of men4. Subsequently, two studies focused specifically on the career experiences of women were published in the early 1980s. More recent research has expanded the field by exploring dimensions, characteristics, and outcomes of mentoring relationships for women6. Results from the current literature on women's mentoring experiences suggest that mentoring continues to hold an important role in the lives of working women. For example, research from Catalyst suggests that corporate women feel that mentoring relationships are critical to their success. Indeed, in their study of 1,200 corporate women, they found that mentoring is significantly connected to career-related success. At the same time, lack of access to mentoring is one of the most widely reported barriers to career advancement8. Although the past two decades have seen an increase in the research on women's mentoring experiences, there are still a number of questions that remain.

Background: The Survey

The web-based survey, a collaboration between Simmons School of Management and Compaq Computer Corporation (now HP), explored these areas with women who attended Simmons's 2002 Annual Women's Leadership Conference9. We received responses from 427 women. Many of the women (82%) reported that they had been involved in an informal mentoring relationship-an indication of the prevalence and importance of this important developmental relationship. The women included in the survey work in a wide range of industries, including technology, finance, health care, and manufacturing. They are mostly middle to senior level managers with a mean age of 42 years; 60% earn more than $75,000 annually; 45% have a graduate or professional degree; 39% are working in organizations with 20,000 or more employees. They have an average of 20 years of work experience, and 62% are in a committed relationship (including marriage or committed relationship with same or opposite sex partner).

Changing Roles in the Provision of Mentoring

The question of "Who is acting as a mentor to professional women?" produced a number of interesting findings. When asked about the gender of their mentors, respondents indicated that 60% were female. In past studies of mentoring, women have reported that their mentors were primarily male. For example, in Thomas's research, white men predominated as mentors for study respondents. Men typically have had access to resources and positional power necessary to provide the support given in a mentoring relationship. Women are much more likely to be involved in cross-gender mentoring relationships than men are; in one study of three R&D organizations, 53% of mentored women had cross-gender mentors compared to 20% of mentored men. The implications of women being involved in more cross-gender mentoring relationships than men is noteworthy; the extant research clearly indicates that relationships that cross lines of gender require more effort to sustain than do same-gender relationships. What are the implications of more women being mentored by other women? Findings from this study provide an opportunity to address questions raised by this demographic shift.

Women Receiving Mentoring from Other Women.

The large number of women who reported other women acted as their mentors is a shift from prior studies and may signal that more women are in positions where they may act as mentors. Respondent demographics suggest that the women who participated in this survey are well prepared and positioned to make changes in organizations. Respondents were highly educated, members of affluent households, and key stakeholders in their organizations. That our respondents reported such a high level of participation in informal mentoring bodes well for the future; research suggests that those who have been mentored tend to go on to act as mentors. The fact that our respondents looked to other women for support and guidance through their various career paths is compelling and may be a tremor of the quake that is needed to crack the glass ceiling. While the glass ceiling is not yet broken-we know that there are still gender equity issues in organizational life-perhaps this sample of women provides a taste of what is yet to come.

Women Acting as Informal Mentors

Not only did the women participating in this sample receive informal mentoring from women, they also acted as informal mentors to their colleagues. Almost 77% of our respondents indicated that they act as an informal mentor in the workplace. This finding challenges findings of several studies from the early 1990s, which suggested that although more women were in positions to act as mentors, they were not taking on this role to the degree one would expect. These researchers point to a reluctance of women to take on the role of mentor for other women. The "queen bee" syndrome, which happens when women at the top are not willing to mentor those coming behind them, is offered as one cause. Another cause cited was more systemic in nature, indicating that the culture and structure of corporations inhibit female mentors from reaching out to potential female protégés. Our findings indicate that, indeed, women do seem to be taking up the role of mentor in greater numbers. This finding represents a shift over the past ten years. It is important to encourage and support women to continue this trend, as mentoring may be a process that helps break systemic barriers that women face in organizations.

Supervisors Mentoring Direct Reports.

A third interesting survey finding surfaced when we asked the question, "Who is your informal mentor?" Traditionally, mentors have been senior-level managers who have taken an interest in the careers of junior employees who are not their direct reports. Yet almost 40% of those who had informal mentors indicated that their supervisors are their mentors. This unexpectedly high percentage has multiple implications for women who are building their constellation of support.

This finding is especially significant because the mentoring literature generally has suggested that supervisors should not be informal mentors. There is an inherent conflict in having someone who evaluates your performance and has considerable control over your career options in your organization also acting as a mentor. This finding suggests a change in the traditional order, a paradigm shift in developmental relationships. It may be that, for a myriad of reasons, supervisors are now being pulled into the mentoring role more frequently.

As companies continue to constrict through downsizing, supervisors may be the people best positioned to offer critical mentoring support to women in their careers. As architects of their career journeys, women should consider the particular role that supervisors may hold in guiding that journey, while also being mindful of the challenge of multiple and potentially conflicting roles inherent in the supervisor position. The fact that supervisors may act as mentors also has implications for human resource specialists. Supervisors may need to develop or hone special competencies in preparation for employees who look to them as mentors. These are issues that merit further attention, in both research and applied efforts.

Shifting Importance in the Functions of Mentoring

Traditionally, mentoring has been said to occur along two dimensions: career and psychosocial. Career functions are aspects of the mentoring relationship that focus on navigating the environment and moving ahead within the organization. These functions include protection, promotion, access to challenging opportunities, and exposure. Psychosocial functions are aspects of the relationship focused on the development of clarity and competence in protégés. These functions include counseling, coaching, acting as a friend, and role modeling. In more recent research, the role modeling function has emerged as a separate entity. As was the case with Scandura's study on mentoring, a factor analysis of the mentoring items from our survey yielded the same three factors. I believe that the emergence of the role modeling aspect of mentoring as an entity separate from the career and psychosocial functions is significant for women. The importance of a role model-someone you respect who has achieved goals to which you are aspiring and is a source for strategies for both success and survival -is important in women's career development. As studies have indicated, women want to see examples of other women succeeding without sacrificing everything else in their lives. For example, Boyd discussed a survey of 20,000 female employees at Arthur Anderson; that survey was done to gain insight into why women were leaving. Results from the survey indicate that women wanted more guidance from senior managers on how to succeed, and they wanted to see proof that senior women could make it to senior posts in the company16. Ragins and McFarlin found that junior women were more likely to perceive role models among their female mentors than among their male mentors.

The presence and predominance of the role modeling function is particularly important if the sample demographics are taken into consideration. This sample represents a group of women who are well educated, well paid, and well positioned within their organizations. Given their position, they are uniquely poised to take advantage of (or benefit from) this particular dimension of mentoring relationships. For them, it is important to see examples of how to effectively navigate their careers.

Career Outcomes and Their Relationship to Mentoring

Several important career outcomes were positively associated with informal mentoring. Respondents with informal mentors reported a greater number of promotions and a higher promotion rate than those who did not have informal mentors. Respondents who reported higher levels of informal mentoring also reported that the relationship was helpful to them in reducing stress. Those with an informal mentor were more satisfied with their careers than those who did not have one, and 86% of respondents indicated that their informal mentoring relationships were professionally productive. These results, which have been found in other studies of mentoring, 18 confirm the importance of informal mentoring and its potential to contribute to the career advancement and satisfaction of women. But as I explored the effects of mentor gender on organizational outcomes, the study findings were not so straightforward. Women who had female mentors reported a greater number of promotions than those who had male mentors19. Yet, women who had female mentors also reported significantly lower personal income than those with male mentors. These findings raise an interesting point. Why is it that women who have female mentors are not earning the same personal income as those who have male mentors? A number of potential explanations compete for prominence in terms of explaining this finding. Are women not talking about money? Are male mentors better positioned hierarchically within their organizations such that their protégés gain access to more financial remuneration? Is there a built-in gender inequity around men's and women's salaries? Even if women are talking about money, are they starting from a lower figure than they would with their male mentors? O'Neill and her colleagues ask whether sex-balanced organizations would look the same as traditionally male-dominated ones in terms of gender, developmental relationships, and access to resources20. Our finding around the differential effect of mentor gender on outcomes (greater promotion rate but lower salary) suggests that their question is an apt one; as we have women advancing in organizations, we will need to consider how relationships may shift as a result.

Conclusion

Mentoring has been suggested as one powerful tool to assist women in breaking the glass ceiling. Findings from this research study support this proposition. For women in our sample, mentoring was associated with positive career outcomes, including higher promotion rates and greater career satisfaction. These research findings highlight the importance of the role model function for women. Finally, we confirm that women are also acting as mentors to others in their organizations. As these research findings indicate, mentoring remains an important developmental relationship from which women in contemporary organizations can benefit.

Copyright 2003, Stacy Blake-Beard. This document may be linked as long as the author is cited and the copyright notice is visibly displayed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Can a Middle-Aged, White, Straight Guy Teach Diversity Classes?*

By: David Nice

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of diversity are elusive. Some popular training materials that are used in businesses and organizations define diversity as "the differences that make each of us unique." That's kind of nice, but vague. In an attempt to not scare anyone, especially white males, some diversity materials are downright bland. In diversity matters, blandness won't do it. When trying to develop a definition of diversity with a large number of first-line supervisors in a Central Pennsylvania manufacturing company, a diversity trainer/facilitator came up with, or distilled, the following:

"It's about being open-minded, having many options. It's cultural, it's multi-cultural. It's about change, about continuous change. It's about ethnicity, different viewpoints. It can be divisive. It's about language. It's about knowledge and respect of religion, race, and origins. It's about thinking before you talk. It's about social classes. It's about a desire to work with others and understand them. It's about open, two-way communication. It's about tolerating others' points of view."

That's not bad work, really. It's a fair definition. Notice, however, that it doesn't specifically say it's about men and women, about old and young, or gay and straight or whether your first language is English. So, if the professional training publishers can't quite simplify it, and if some local supervisors can't quite capture it all, how is anyone supposed to teach it? Good question.

But, before we try to say who should teach it, there's more. Another barrier to diversity training is that people tend to confuse it with Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity legislation, and sexual harassment issues. So, there's the challenge of defining what diversity is and what it is not. On top of all that, much of the content in a diversity workshop cannot be said to be a clean "right" or "wrong." Most diversity issues are anything but absolute.

So, turning to the main question, what kind of person is capable and qualified to facilitate diversity sessions? Can a middle-aged, white, straight (MAWS) guy teach it? Speaking for the "yes" side, he definitely can provide one of the main ingredients by creating a safe learning environment where participants can engage in discussion and feel okay about asking "ignorant" or "dumb" questions. Like a skillful teacher, a MAWS guy can also explain that an honest exchange between workshop participants can be in itself a positive outcome for a session. Agreement does not have to be present for learning to occur nor does transformation have to be achieved to be successful. So, is the standard then just the usual criteria of being a good facilitator? Yes and no.

On the "No" side, most MAWS guys have only a tiny glimpse into the experiences of discrimination, stereotyping, sexism, or homophobia - at least from the receiving side. You can design experiential learning exercises for them to try. You can show them classic diversity videos. You can ask them to invest a few hours in watching a good film (like Lawrence Kasden's "Grand Canyon" or Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing") and come back to discuss it. Employ all those diversity class tools, but let's face it, a white male in the typical business environment will still be hard-pressed to see the impact of the everyday ease and acceptance - what some would call their "white privilege"-that comes from looking like most of the other folks you're working with everyday. There's an old line that says asking someone to be aware of their dominant culture is like asking a fish to describe the water that it breathes and swims through each and every moment of its life. It's hard to gain that perspective.

Back to the "yes" side, since most participants in these workshops are still likely to be white males, it might help to have an instructor who looks like them-someone they can listen to and identify with. If the instructor appears at ease talking about diversity and differences, then it helps reinforce the notion that this workshop is not just for women and minorities. White males can need help seeing that there is self-interest in promoting diversity or that there may indeed be some diversity "issues" that belong to white men. A MAWS guy as an facilitator can perhaps best make that link that diversity does not mean that white guys lose and women and minorities win-that diversity training is about examining everyone's assumptions whether by the numbers they are one of the many or one of the few. In business, there is increasing evidence that the values of diversity - inclusion, openness to innovation, superior problem solving abilities -- actually translate to bottom-line advantages for all stakeholders of the business, including MAWS guys.

Wise business organizations often answer this "yes and no" question by hiring or developing co-facilitators who work together to teach diversity - frequently pairing a male and a female trainer/facilitator, who may also have different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Is that more proof that there is strength and value in a diversity of opinions-two different heads are better than one? Perhaps the most fundamental requirement for a diversity teacher is that they are committed to inclusion, learning and trying. A final analogy might be this one: a great foreign language teacher does not have to be a native speaker to be effective, they just have to love learning, speaking, and sharing their language.

So, for white male diversity trainers and their organizations, here are 5 tips:

1 .Make sure everyone knows that diversity and inclusion is NOT the same as affirmative action.

2. Create a safe learning environment where people can speak their minds and be politically incorrect.

3. Explore the idea of "white privilege" - don't sidestep the issue.

4. Show the evidence that diversity and inclusion has bottom-line business benefits which increase opportunity for everyone, including white males.

5. Co-facilitate with female and minority trainers when possible. The interplay and modeling enhances the training.

*Reprinted by permission of Linkage Inc www.linkageinc.com 

------------------------------------

IN-COMPANY WORKSHOP: MANAGING FOR DIVERSITY (NOW UPDATED & ENLARGED)

------------------------------------

An Intensive and Practical 2- DAY MANAGEMENT/ SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP to develop insight and self-knowledge about intercultural competence and enhance your capacity to work with a diverse workforce. Contact Jeff Sacht to request a workshop flyer and to arrange an in-company workshop customised to your requirements. Facilitation is charged on a realistic daily rate and not a per person cost. Also available as a web download for self-delivery/in-house use under license agreement. Contact jeffs@worldonline.co.za

----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. HR Must Eliminate "Innovation Killers" Within Their Firm

By Dr. John Sullivan who can be contacted at www.drjohnsullivan.com 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's time for HR to take notice that the only sustainable competitive advantage for corporations in the 21st century is to constantly innovate so that you get products to market... first! Innovation is driven by "people," and HR is missing a golden opportunity to take the lead in driving innovation in large corporations, because for the most part they have no program or process to encourage or develop innovation among employees. Unfortunately, when leadership is needed HR isn't even "a player".

There are however a few corporate exceptions, firms which have developed management systems impacting innovation. These leading firms include Nokia, Apple, Intel, Dell, Wal-Mart, Toyota, GE and Cirque du Soleil. In fact, corporations like GE and Dell have made continuous innovation an integral goal of their culture and people practices.

HR leaders who have already recognized the key role that HR can play in driving innovation have learned that the first action needed wasn't to develop new HR programs but instead, to identify and attempt to minimize the things that can slow down or impede innovation. The remainder of this article will focus on highlighting those factors that can reduce innovation within a corporation.

Factors, Activities And Events That Can Harm Innovation

There are many "corporate events" or actions that can impact a company's culture, processes and ways of doing business. If HR is to help improve innovation in a corporation, it must identify the corporate events that are likely to have a negative impact on risk-taking and innovation driving activities. After identifying them, they must me monitored, and every attempt made to eliminate or mitigate the negative effects of them.

1. New hiring - when ever you hire people from other cultures, you always face the risk that they are coming from a corporation that doesn't encourage risk-taking or innovation as much as yours. As a result the hiring of these employees might "dilute" any culture which celebrates innovation

2. New managers - hiring managers from outside the corporation will have an even greater impact on the culture than hiring an individual contributor. Hiring key managers with a different "innovation quotient" might send a signal to employees that you want change i.e. less innovation and risk-taking

3. Orientation - any orientation program that fails to sufficiently emphasize the need for risk-taking and effective innovation will further exacerbate the already common problem of new hires not understanding or supporting the culture of innovation

4. Turnover -- the loss of internal "champions" of innovation (powerful or influential individuals that emphasize innovation) due to retirement or being lured away by another organization attempting to steel your innovative culture will weaken your culture of innovation

5. Size - very few organizations have been able to maintain innovation after growing beyond a size that requires the development of bureaucracy to administer the corporation. This is undoubtedly because systems developed to mitigate the impact of "size" actually dilute the culture and cause confusion about what the actual culture is. Communicating the importance of innovation is also much more difficult as the number of employees grows large

6. Geographic expansion - one of the most powerful forces diluting a focus on innovation is the hiring employees from other geographic regions. This dilutes your culture of innovation because employees in other regions and cultures are less likely to understand and appreciate the need for constant innovation. This is especially true in some countries like Switzerland, China, Japan, Australia etc. where rapid change or "tall poppies" (those that stand out) are not always considered heroes

7. Mergers and acquisitions - industry consolidation is increasing at a rapid rate so it's important to realize that large-scale mergers are detrimental to maintaining a culture of innovation because with them come literally thousands of individuals that might have a different emphasis on innovation. Many of the acquired individuals will actually resist integration into a culture of innovation so they must be made to see the right way or be eliminated early on. To make matters worse, in addition to acquiring people, the corporation is also likely to acquire "best practice" processes from the other firm. The selection and adoption of these different processes are likely to have a detrimental impact on risk-taking and innovation

8. Restructuring or layoffs - these catastrophic events tend to focus individuals on survival and security and as a result, there is often a dramatic decrease in risk taking right before and for at least a year after them. During these times of uncertainty, HR must increase its efforts to encourage innovation or it will likely fall dramatically

9. Outsourcing - the decision to outsource or offshore means that some parts of the "work" will be done by outsiders. It is important for HR to realize that it is highly unlikely that these "outsiders" will be as innovative as your current employees because most outsourcing services provide services at the "average" or "vanilla" level. It is also unlikely that these "outside" employees will not understand the need for innovation as much as regular employees do. It turns out that the integration of innovative and non-innovative teams and processes is also quite difficult to say the least

10.Success limits risk taking - strange as it might sound, success, just by itself will likely be a significant detriment to maintaining an innovation culture. The problem begins after a number of years of successful innovations and the strong brand that goes along with them. A string of successes can build up employee egos, drive groupthink and contribute to a sense of invincibility. The sense of invincibility in turn creates complacency because employees develop the perception that "innovations have always come along the past". HR has to work twice as hard in successful organizations to keep "egos" down and to "forget the successes of the past" because your customers and your competitors certainly will

Factors, Activities And Events That Can "Kill" Innovation

As the first part of tis article demonstrated, there are some corporate activities that can harm or reduce the amount of innovation and risk-taking that occurs in an organization. Unfortunately, many of the activities discuss give birth to secondary barriers to innovation. In fact, if not handled correctly these factors can actually eliminate innovation within a corporation. These secondary barriers tend to squash an individual or a teams innovative juices and willingness to take a risk. Some of these "innovation killer" factors that should be eliminated include:

1. Restrictive policies -- developing corporate rules and policies that manage to the lowest common denominator employee in the corporation can cripple innovation. For example, because some employees (usually less than 5%) would steal or misuse "open all the time" equipment rooms, most equipment rooms are kept locked during off hours. As a result, individuals that want to utilize equipment or information to work on an innovative idea after hours would be hampered in their efforts. Just as limiting Internet access or long-distance phone calls might save a few dollars from those that would "abuse the system" but these policies also limit information gathering by those seeking to benchmark new approaches from outside your industry. I recommend that if you want innovation, that you develop a healthy "disrespect" for policies and procedures. I recommend that you develop rules and policies utilizing the "mature adult" standard that was pioneered by Sun Microsystems. Utilizing this approach, you minimize rules and restrictions that hinder innovation. If someone cannot act like a mature adult, it's better to terminate the relationship or fix that one individual versus tying everyone down with onerous rules

2. Funding only "sure thing" ideas -- a budgeting and time allocation system that allocates resources almost exclusively to "sure things" (low risk ideas) will have the effect of killing risk-taking. For example, if the criteria for funding new project ideas includes requiring a high percentage success rate (over 75%) you, in effect ,are killing innovative projects before they get started by sending the message to innovators that you won't fund large risks. Such a policy has this negative impact because historically, the best innovations have almost invariably carried the greatest risk of failure. incidentally, rather than discouraging failure you might want to consider actually encouraging it because failure is the world's best teachers, as long as the risk is calculated and there is rapid learning from the failure. Remember, if you don't fund and celebrate failure, you miss your opportunity to make dramatic improvements and to learn from your failures

3. Punishing failure -- punishing "failure" is unfortunately quite common in organizations. For example, most forced ranking performance management and promotion systems have the net effect of "punishing" failures because invariably people with one win and no failure get a higher performance rating than someone with two wins and one failure. Managers seem to have "total recall" when it comes to remembering employee errors and failures. No matter how well planned out your innovation process is, if employees sense that poor results are career limiting, you will invariably develop a risk adverse culture. Incidentally, even though some corporations have found that individuals lose their innovativeness as their tenure at the company increases, that loss of innovativeness is not totally due to aging but instead the reduced innovation is caused by the fact that long-term employees have learn that the punishment for a failed innovation, program or idea is much greater than failing to produce a single innovation.

4. Voting on ideas - innovative ideas are, by definition, quite different from the status quo. As a result, it's not surprising that when new ideas that emanate from a group or team are put to a majority vote, they generally lose. If Columbus had asked a group of ship captains in 1491 to vote on whether he should take a voyage... he would have stayed in Spain. If fact, if you are going to take a vote... you can probably identify the most innovative ideas because they are the ones that are most likely to generate a heated debate and they are also the ones that are likely to lose! You can improve the process slightly by making the votes anonymous but given the strength of corporate politics, even speaking up on an unpopular issue prior to a vote makes it clear to your detractors how you voted. One last thing that you might find also is that teams in general and voting in teams in particular take away all "accountability" for decisions

5. Consensus decision making - even worse than majority voting is consensus decision making. Requiring a consensus almost guarantees that any truly innovative idea will be watered down so much that the "edge" will be taken off. And if the initiator of an innovative idea insists on keeping it in tact (rather than compromising), they are often labeled as not being a "team player"

6. Punishing critics - whenever anyone suggests a radical idea about a current process or product, the person that designed and currently runs the process frequently views that criticism as you saying directly to them ... "you are a failure" and you haven't done your job. As a result of this affront, it is quite common for the political mafia in corporations (generally the old school people) to verbally lash out at critics. Even though "criticism is the engine of change" ... those in power generally label innovators as "negative people", when in fact "people that don't like anything" are in fact the real heroes of innovation

7. Seniority - most organizations reward seniority, sometimes subtly but most of the time directly. The problem with seniority is that over time, people that have been at an organizational a longtime become defenders of the status quo. It is also generally true that, since these people helped build the existing systems and processes, that they are also the most likely to fight any innovative suggestions that would alter them. In addition, rewarding and promoting people based on the number of years they have worked sends the wrong message and does little to reward or recognize innovation

8. Unions -- in addition to encouraging seniority, most union contracts allow for no individual reward for performance or innovation. To make matters worse, the "us versus them" attitude of many union members makes them unwilling to make suggestions to "help management". One final issue with both union and nonunion shops is that some workers view innovation as a process that has the net effect of eliminating jobs

9. The corporate culture - an organization's culture has the net effect of maintaining the status quo. As Robert Eaton, the former chairman of Chrysler Corp once said, "any culture, by definition, exists primarily to prevent change, to set in stone the lessons of the past". Long-term or old school employees are the most likely to be staunch defenders of the existing "culture" because they are comfortable operating under it. It is often used as a "weapon" (i.e. that's not the way we do it here!) against critics and innovators. One of the worst aspects of some corporate cultures is the NIH attitude. This is where a "groupthink like" attitude develops so that ideas or practices from outside the company (or department) that were "not invented here" are automatically rejected because they don't "fit our culture" or because "we are different"

10. CFO's actions - CFO's and their notorious hiring freezes and budget cuts have the net effect of limiting resources which have the net effect of eliminating a department's or companies ability to "innovate out" of the doldrums. It turns out that often you have to spend money if you want the driving force behind a major turnaround effort to be innovation rather than the more traditional cost-cutting. In a similar manner, across-the-board IT cost-cutting also limits hardware and software purchases, which are often at the heart of any new innovation. Although many accountants don't grasp it, you increase revenue by spending money not by cutting costs

Common Problems That Can Occur After You Build A "Culture Of Innovation" And Risk-Taking

Instead of a piecemeal effort, strategic HR departments should try to develop an overall innovation plan with the ultimate goal to be the development of a companywide "culture of innovation". Even though the benefits of having an "innovation culture" are many, there are downsides. If you are going to be an innovative company like Apple Computer (a company that constantly innovates with new product features, and introduces category killers like the iPod), you are going to have to understand the common problems associated with having an innovation culture . Some of the potential problems you might encounter include:

1. Innovation builds resistance - innovation, almost by definition means continuous and significant change, and HR professionals are well aware that such change makes some employees uncomfortable. Constant change requires HR to develop new approaches and tools to help managers identify, understand and eventually overcome resistance to change

2. Innovation requires new skills -- because innovation requires processes, products and services to undergo quantum change, it also requires consistent evolution in the skill base needed by the organization. It is accepted that many new skills needed will not b present inside the company, dictating a need for external recruitment and new training program development. The recruiting function will need to identify individuals that are both innovative and that possess the skill sets that the innovation demands

3. Us vs them conflict -- when you make innovation a KPI and then recognize and make innovators "heroes," you can unfortunately develop an "us versus them" mentality between areas where innovation is easy and those business areas where it is more difficult. You might also find jealousies between highly innovative and non-innovative employees

4. Potential burnout -- although many individuals learn to thrive on and look forward to innovation, others find the constant pace of change frustrating and draining. The net result may be higher stress levels, more accidents and more employee turnover. The companies "external brand" may also be tarnished if the word gets out that you run a "mental sweatshop" driven by constant innovation

5. Becoming a target for recruiters -- there is one thing that you can be sure of, an innovative company will certainly get you "talked about" in the press and among all of your competitors. The net result of this is that your firm will no longer "fly under any recruiter's radar". If your firm wins best place to work and innovation awards, you can expect to be constantly targeted by recruiters from companies seeking to innovate as fast as your firm

Conclusion

Even though CEO's constantly rant about the need for innovation within their organizations, few HR leaders have accepted a role in driving innovation. Because no department or function actually "owns" corporate wide innovation, there is no one to fight with over who should run innovation initiatives. The time has come for HR to step up to the plate and to become the manager of innovation. As this article has highlighted, the best place to start is by minimizing or eliminating some of the existing barriers that discourage innovation and risk-taking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Case-Law & Legislation Review: Collective Bargaining organisational Rights

By Gary Watkins who can be contacted at www.caselaw.co.za  ; www.workinfo.com 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

GIWUSA OBO MEMBERS VS. SPECTRUM CERAMICS CC

Case No: GA36457-04

Award Date: 29 May 2005

Jurisdiction: CCMA: Johannesburg

Commissioner: DM Keith

# SUBJECT: Collective Bargaining organisational Rights

ISSUE: The union sought the organisational right of appointing a trade union representative in the employer's workplace. The union had a representivity of 31.5% of the employer's employees. For a trade union to be considered to be a "majority union" in a particular workplace, it is trite law that such union should have as its members, a representivity figure of 50%. The applicant trade union was not entitled to trade union representatives in terms of section 14 of the act.

SUMMARY OF FACTS: The Union, which is registered in terms of the LRA, approached the employer with a request for Section 12, 13 and 14 rights in terms of the LRA. The employer met with the union and it was established that the union represented 31.5% of the employees and the employer only agreed to conferring rights in terms of section 12 and 13 (Trade Union access to the workplace and deduction of Trade Union subscriptions or levies).

SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT: For a trade union to be considered to be a "majority union" in a particular workplace, it is trite law that such union should have as its members, a representivity figure of 50% of the employees employed in such workplace, plus an additional one member. Applicant trade union, in order to be entitled to the Section 14 right of appointing "trade union representatives" would have required 37 verified members (50.7%) plus one additional member; i.e. 38 verified members. In August 2004 it only had 23 verified members, on the date of this arbitration, appeared to have only 10 verified members. Accordingly it was held that the union was not entitled to trade union representatives in terms of section 14 of the LRA. No order was made as to costs.

------------------------------------

IN-COMPANY WORKSHOP: EMPLOYMENT EQUITY COMMITTEE TRAINING

------------------------------------

An Intensive 2-Day In-Company programme For ELECTED EMPLOYMENT EQUITY (EE) MEMBERS & CHAIRPERSON To Competently & Confidently Represent Co-Workers. Contact Jeff Sacht to request a workshop flyer and to arrange an in-company workshop customised to your requirements. Facilitation is charged on a realistic daily rate and not a per person cost.

Also available as a web download for self-delivery/in-house use under license agreement. Contact jeffs@worldonline.co.za

---------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Unsubscribe & Moving Soon

----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNSUBSCRIBE: Scroll to the end of the newsletter where you will find a code directly linked to your name. Click on the unsubscribe link. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS NEWSLETTER TO UNSUBSCRIBE. MOVING SOON: If you are changing your email address soon and would still like to continue receiving this newsletter, please email us your new or temporary email address to ensure that you do not miss out on the next edition.

------------------------------------

About the e-Journal/e-Newspaper

------------------------------------

Equity-Skills News & Views is a free bi-monthly newsletter for business owners, Line Managers, and Human Resource Practitioners (who support Line Managers) with the implementation of fair and developmental people management systems and practices. The style of this e-Newspaper fits between the traditional email newsletters and printed professional trade journals & magazines. Subscribers will be kept up to date with the latest developments in the world of people management, receive handy people management tips, and feedback about labour court rulings that relate to the implementation of the key Labour Acts. Please add equity skills news & views to your list of approved senders if your Internet provider or server administrator filters incoming e-mail, to make sure you receive periodic e-mail alerts and this newsletter to which you are subscribed.

------------------------------------

Opinions expressed by contributors DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT the standpoint of the publisher-editor of Equity-Skills News & Views. Information published here is for general information, and is not intended as legal advice. The authors, editors, and publishers do not accept responsibility for any act, omission, loss, or damage occasioned by any reliance upon the contents hereof.

This message is sent in compliance with the ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONS ACT. 2002, Act No. 25, 2002 [South Africa] passed on 20 May 2003.

Sender: Jeff Sacht

URL: www.equityskillsweb.com

E-mail: jeffs@worldonline.co.za

Telephone: +27 011 485 4943

Facsimile +27 011 485 4943

Publisher-Editor: Equity-Skills News & Views

'A MUST TO PRINT & READ'

------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 2004 Registered electronic newspaper: 1SSN 1684-5714