The main purpose of this article is to address the issue of cultural diversity in the workplace and how management can strive to ensure everyone is assimilated into one common goal-oriented culture.
The main question that the author is addressing is: Is there a need for public personnel management to use diversity management and research on ways to mediate between the civil rights and civil liberty rights which are almost incompatible?
The most important information in this article is:
1. The article reflects on the struggle over civil rights and civil liberties and explains how the debate has gone through two phases and most recently through the third phase. The article uses various books to show this transition.
a. The first phase bases its argument on civil rights, specifically affirmative action and EEO. The phase is supported by a number of publications that stress the importance of diversity management by protecting civil liberties and cultural individuality in the work environment.
b. The second phase picks comfortably from the first and this phase appreciates diversity. Employers are to enact methods of dealing with the diversity as employees are called upon to celebrate their cultures
c. The third phase acknowledges that diversity will cause conflicts and thus focuses on the methods to be used to manage such conflict in the business environment.
The main inferences in this article are that cultural diversity will always exist even more because of the bill of rights. It is thus important for public personnel management to find the best ways to deal with this issue to avoid low output from employees Diversity conflict management and research on ways to mediate are thus vital for maximum output.
The key concepts that guide the authors reasoning in this article are: Racism at work, egoistic workers, social divides at work, nepotism. The resources used in this article have been there for over a decade. The sources range between the years 1997 to 2000 with the Los Angeles County Personnel Administration Handbook being among the latest, year 2000. However the data therein and the information is quite applicable today because the handbook is still in use as are the civil rights and civil liberties.
The author’s biggest strength in the article is he has built on respected theorists to achieve the goal. The theorists as seen from excerpts of their books are well respected in this field. Good examples are the author’s choice of R. Roosevelt Thomas to explain the latest phase in this field. Thomas is a well-known expert on diversity management hence basing the argument on his work is a massive boost. He is also the founder of the American Institute for Managing Diversity. The author also bases his arguments for the first and second phase using respected theorists: Bowen, Bok, Burkhart and Norma Carr-Ruffino who is a professor of management at San Francisco State University for the second phase argument. The first argument quotes the editor, Walter D. Broadnax, who is a dean of the School of Public Affairs at American University in the book “Diversity and Affirmative Action in the Public Service.”
It is very clear that the article has been built on solid research. The several citations and the attachment of an excerpt from Los Angeles County Personnel Administration show clearly how much research was done. The article represents the true situation on the ground. The article has a good flow of information, linking the three phases properly and showing how they exist in harmony.
It takes the reader a while to formulate the research question. This is because the reader has to read through the three phases to get the full image of what the question is. The article does not describe the research methods. It is however clear that research was solely done through reading scholarly works on this particular field.
Since research was solely done from books, results are not backed up with data but with important quotes and analysis of the theorists’ idea in an easy way.