Abstract
The study investigated administrators’ perceived workforce diversity management on quality education delivery in universities in South East, Nigeria. Five research questions and five null hypotheses guided the study. Descriptive research design was adopted for the study. The population of the study was 5,218 male and female administrators in the five federal universities in South East, Nigeria. Employing proportionate stratified random sampling technique, a sample size of 522 administrators representing ten percent of the population was selected. The instrument for data collection was a 40-item researcher’s structured questionnaire titled, ‘Perceived Influence of Workforce Diversity Management Questionnaire’ (PIWDMQ) on a 4-point scale. The instrument was validated by three research experts and the reliability test conducted using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient yielded an index value of 0.92. Administration of the instrument was on face to face basis and the data were analysed using mean and standard deviation to answer the research questions while the z-test was adopted in testing the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Some of the findings of the study were that prevention in ethnic discrimination to a positive high extent influences quality education delivery. Also, inclusion in management of age diverse employees as well as accommodation of religious diversity of employees have positive high influence in quality education delivery in the universities. It was therefore recommended among others that educational administrators should seek, develop and support workforce diversity management strategies that would promote quality education delivery. Educational administrators should ensure fair treatment of every member of their work force irrespective of their ethnic origin in other to give them a sense of belonging for enhanced job performance.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements
v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables x
Abstract
xi
CHAPTER
1: INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Background
to the Study 1
1.2 Statement
of the Problem 18
1.3 Purpose
of the Study
19
1.4 Research
Questions 20
1.5 Hypotheses
20
1.6 Significance
of the Study
21
1.7 Scope
of the Study
23
CHAPTER
2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 24
2.1 Conceptual
Framework 24
2.1.1 Concept
of Diversity 24
2.1.2 Workforce
Diversity 28
2.1.3 Workforce
diversity management
30
2.1.4 Management
of workforce diversity dimensions 39
2.1.4.1 Age diversity management 39
2.1.4.2 Disability diversity management 42
2.1.4.3 Ethnic diversity management
51
2.1.4.4 Gender diversity management 59
2.1.4.5 Religious diversity management 69
2.1.5 Impact of workforce diversity on organisational
performance 76
2.1.7 Quality education delivery 87
2.2 Theoretical Framework
91
2.2.1 Resource based theory of diversity management 91
2.2.2 Institutional based theory of diversity management 94
2.2 3 Human relations management theory
9
2.3 Empirical Studies
97
2.4 Summary of Related Literature Reviewed 104
CHAPTER 3:
METHODOLOGY
106
3.1 Design of the
Study
106
3.2 Area of the
Study
107
3.3 Population of the
Study 108
3.4 Sample and Sampling Techniques
109
3.5 Instrument for Data
Collection
110
3.6 Validation of the
Instrument
110
3.7 Reliability of the
Instrument
111
3.8 Method of Data
Collection 111
3.9 Method of Data
Analysis 111
CHAPTER
4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 113
4.1 Results 113
4.2 Major Findings of the
Study 124
4.3 Discussion of
Findings 125
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 130
5.1 Summary 130
5.2 Conclusion 131
5.3 Educational
Implications of the Study 132
5.4 Recommendations 134
5.5 Limitations of the
Study 135
5.6 Suggestions for
Further Study
135
References
Appendices
LIST
OF TABLES
Page
4.1.1:
Mean and Standard deviation of the
influence of prevention of
discrimination
in ethnic diversity on quality education delivery 115
4.1.2:
Z-test Analysis of the influence of
prevention of discrimination
in
ethnic diversity on quality education delivery 116
4.1.3:
Mean and Standard deviation of the
influence of inclusion in
management
of age diverse employees on quality education delivery 117
4.1.4: Z-test Analysis of the influence of inclusion
in management of age
diverse
employees on quality education delivery 118
4.1.5: Mean and Standard deviation of the influence
of accommodating
religious
diversity of employees on quality education delivery 119
4.1.6:
Z-test Analysis of the influence of
accommodating religious
diversity
of employees on quality education delivery 120
4.1.7:
Mean and Standard deviation of the
influence of flexibility in
management
of disability diversity of employees on quality
education
delivery 121
4.1.8:
Z-test Analysis of the influence of
flexibility in management of
disability
diversity of employees on quality education delivery 122
4.1.9: Mean and Standard deviation of the influence
of equal opportunity in
gender
diversity of employees on quality education delivery 123
4.1.10: Z-test
Analysis of the influence of equal opportunity in gender
diversity
of employees on quality education delivery 124
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
TO THE STUDY
Education
is recognized as a veritable tool for the development of any nation. It draws
out and nurtures skills and consciousness of individuals to make them
functional in their society. Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2013) stated
that education has to be geared towards self-realisation, better human
relationship, individual and national effective citizenship, national consciousness,
national unity as well as towards social, cultural, economic, political,
scientific and technological progress. Moreover, among other goals of Nigerian
education is the acquisition of appropriate skills and the development of
mental, physical and social abilities and competences as equipment for the
individual to live in and contribute to the development of the society. University
education is one of the tertiary forms of education which marks the terminal
stage of formal education, and as an institution of higher learning, it
provides facilities for teaching and research and awards academic degrees. As
enunciated by Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) university education shall make
optimum contribution to national development by;
a. Intensifying
and diversifying its programmes for the development of high level manpower
within the context of the needs of the nation;
b. Making
professional courses to reflect our national requirement;
c. Making
all students, as part of a general programme of all-round improvement in
university education, to offer general study courses such as history of ideas,
philosophy of knowledge and nationalism (p.28).
The summary of the
goal of university education is therefore value addition to the education of
the individual to enable him/her contribute to national growth and development.
Hence, Peretomode (2008a) observed that education that can transform lives is
the one that has meaning; the one that is functional; the one that is well
equipped and the one that has the capacity to add value to human lives by
making students better and more sophisticated at the exit point than at the
entrance level. This type of education is definitely quality driven.
In defining
quality, Ifeanacho, Onwubuya and Okeke (2017) stated that it is the ability or
degree with which a product, service or phenomenon conforms to an established
standard, and which makes it to be relatively superior to others while Fasasi (2016)
defined quality as the totality of features and characteristics of products or
service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Relating
quality to education, Nnah (2017) defined quality education as the worth of
education with reference to its input, the teaching-learning process, the
output and the outcome. It can then be said that quality education is one that
satisfies basic learning needs and enriches the lives of learners and their
overall experience of learning. Quality in higher education is the scale of stated
inputs and to the fact that the transactions and the outputs of the
institutions in the form of their products are acceptable, desirable,
beneficial, efficient or effective from the point of view of the school stakeholders
(Nwana, 2000).
Furthermore, quality
education delivery is the process or means used to deliver educational
programmes, activities and services within the institutional environment (Burke
in Chalmers, 2008). According to Chike-Okoli (2013) quality education delivery
is a well-planned systematic programme that enables man function effectively in
his society. It implies all effective and efficient processes or means
exploited by education administrators to ensure that stakeholders in education
derive maximum satisfaction. Quality education delivery is undoubtedly the goal
of Nigerian university education as presented earlier but the extent this has
been achieved may still be in question. In his studies on how to determine
quality higher education delivery, Chalmers (2008) stated that there are
performance indicators which provide information on the degree to which
teaching and learning objectives are being met within the higher education
sector and they are; input, process, output and outcome. These are components
which define education and its quality delivery. They are seen as interrelated
and interlinked.
In describing the
current state of education, Federal Republic of Nigeria (2009) observed a drop
in the quality of graduates and that only ten percent of the 130,000 students
that graduated from Nigerian universities annually are able to secure paid
employment. In addition, many scholars such as Uzoechina, Obunadike and Onu
(2016); Okeke (2016) and Adesina (2002) in their separate works decried the
poor quality of Nigerian graduates leading to high level of unemployment. In
particular, Okoli, Okafor and Nwenyi (2017) stated that complaints about the
low quality of education have continued in recent times to the extent that more
concerned people have come out openly to lament the rot in the system. If the
quality of university education is unacceptable to stakeholders, then the
assumption is that management of university human resources (workforce) for
quality production may be lacking, ineffective, inefficient or unsatisfactory.
Quality
education cannot happen by chance without effective management which as defined
by Nwachukwu (2014) is the coordination of all the resources of an organisation
through the process of planning, organising, directing and controlling in order
to attain organisational objectives. It is the function of university
administrators to manage the available resources (man, money and materials) to
attain the university goals of quality education delivery. In line with this
function, Ezeugbor (2014) defined the school administrator as the person
responsible for coordinating and controlling all the scarce resources of the school
in order to achieve set objectives. University administrators are both male and
female genders who are either in academic or pure administrative cadres and
take decisions and implement policies and programmes of the institution.
According to Yegon, Kahara and Okibo (2014), a resultant effect of poor
university management of workforce diversity may be ethnicization which
ultimately leads to ‘half baked’ graduates who are not adequately prepared for
the job market. Universities as organisations are systems of interdependent
human beings that are set up to achieve purposes that individuals cannot
achieve on their own through effective management. Management of people who are
most valued assets of the organisation cannot be overstressed hence the managerial
function of getting individuals working with others to achieve goals has gained
current prominence leading to studies on relationship between management of
workforce diversity and organisational goal attainment.
Diversity
as defined by Longman (2009) is the fact of including many different types of
people or things; a range of different people, things or ideas which is
synonymous with variety. Engaging people with multiplicity of beliefs, values,
orientations and opinions implies diversity in the workplace. Diversity at
workplace includes but not limited to acceptance and respect. It means
understanding and accepting that each individual is unique and recognizing
their individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political
beliefs or other ideologies.
In the opinion of DeNisi
and Griffin (2005) diversity
exists in a group or organisation when its members differ from one another in one
or more important dimensions. If everyone in the group or organisation is
exactly like everyone else, no diversity exists. But if everyone is different
along every conceivable dimension, total diversity exists. Diversity Officer
Magazine (2015) posited that workplace diversity refers to the variety of
differences between people in an organisation. It includes race, gender, ethnic
group, age personality, cognitive style, tenure, organisational function, education,
background and more. Diversity not only involves how people perceive themselves,
but how they perceive others. For Loden and Rosener in Chauzal-Larguier and Murer-
Duboisset (2005), defining diversity is not easy and its different elements are
fuzzy, numerous and heterogeneous.
Furthermore, University of California
in San Francisco (UCSF, 2011) perceived diversity as those human qualities that
are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, yet
present in other individuals and groups. Diversity is therefore the variety of
experiences and perceptions which arise from differences in race, culture,
religion, mental or physical abilities, heritage, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity, and other characteristics. Diversity can be seen all around us. This is
because human beings are inherently unique.
‘Identical’ twins may on close analysis differ in invisible capacities
such as mental abilities, sexual orientation, dietary preferences and others. Illustrating
diversity in a workplace, Karatas-Ozkan, Nicolopoulou and Ozbilgin (2014) noted
thus;
A
group comprising five middle-aged white male U.S executives has relatively
little diversity. If one member leaves and is replaced by a young white female
executive, the group becomes a bit more diverse. If another member is replaced
by an older African-American executive, diversity increases a bit more. And
when a third member is replaced by a Japanese executive, the group becomes even
more diverse (p.509).
Difference is not
always visibly obvious. Employee diversity therefore has been categorized
variously as visible and non-visible; cognitive and group based, or primary and
secondary (Mazur, 2010; Kandola & Fullerton in Karatas-Ozkan et al, 2014; Oyetakin,
2014). According to Kandola and Fullerton
in Karatas-Ozkan, et al. (2014), diversity consists of visible and non-visible
differences. Visible dimensions are those unchanging personal physical
characteristics such as race, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, age,
health (physical handicap, mental handicap, disease). On the other hand, non-visible
dimensions are those variable characteristics that are acquired through life
experience such as family situation (marital, parental) income, military
experience, religion, education and work experience.
Furthermore, Oyetakin
(2004) presented the dimensions of diversity as primary and secondary. Primary
dimensions are core elements through which people shape their self-image and
world view. Secondary dimensions can be acquired or changed throughout one’s
life time. The secondary dimensions tend to have less import than those of the
core but nevertheless affect a personal self-definition and world view and have
significance on how the person is viewed by others. He further opined that
diversity is no longer just the right thing to do, it has become a business
imperative and perhaps the single most important factor of the 21st century for
organizational performance. The emergence of
workforce diversity is traceable to several different factors such as
globalization, changing workforce, economic environment and customer base. DeNisi
and Griffin (2005) observed that one factor that has contributed to the
increased diversity is the changing demographics in the labour force. As more
women and minorities entered the labour force, for example, the available pool
of talent from which organizations hired employees changed in both size and
composition. Minorities in this case refer to individuals who differed from the
dominant group. Citing America as example, Shelton (2010) included the
emergence of immigrants into the work place as a contributing factor to diversity.
Men from different European background, languages, behaviour and customs were
imported into the American way of life and business. In several cases,
employers were mandated to put in place affirmative action plans that ensure
numerical goals for women and minorities in the work place. This means that at
that point in time, compliance with the law was the motivation for workforce
diversity.
As more women and minorities were hired, a
competition to attract and hire the most qualified diverse talent who would
help attract the new diverse market ensued. DeNisi and Griffin (2005) noted
that increased awareness by organizations that they can improve the overall
quality of their workforce by hiring and promoting the most talented people available,
regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristics contributed to the
emergence of diversity. By casting a wider net in job recruitment and going
beyond traditional sources, organizations could source more broadly and engage
better qualified employees from many different segments of society. Thus, these
organizations came to the realization that diversity can be a source of
competitive advantage. Diversity in the work place has generally been deemed as
positive for innovation, cooperation, efficiency and ultimately competitive advantage
and is now escalating in the academic and business enterprises (Shen, Chanda, D’Netto & Monga, 2009; The Economist, 2011).
Another
reason for increase in diversity as posited by DeNisi and Griffin (2005) has
been legislation and legal action that have forced organizations to hire more
broadly. For instance, discrimination against women, blacks, and other
minorities was rampant. But over the years, various laws and policies outlawed
discrimination against these and other groups. Nowadays, organizations are
compelled to hire and promote people solely on the basis of their
qualifications.
The
adoption and domestication of United Nation’s Conventions on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, Human Right Charter and other affirmative
conventions and charters are typical examples of legal framework that have
given rise to increased workplace diversity. Nigeria being a multicultural
ethnic society has endeavoured to institute some inclusive policies and
programs that address subject of marginalization and discrimination. The
Federal Character Commission regulates employment and admission into federal
government establishments through quota system and the federal character
principle. There is also the bill on discrimination against people living with
HIV/AIDS (Ugwuzor, 2011). In addition, Nigeria as a member of the United
Nations and some other international treaties and conventions has ratified and
domesticated some charters on human rights, discrimination and equal opportunity.
A
very important contributing factor to increased diversity in organisations has
been the globalization movement. Many organisations that have their business
conerns in other countries have had to learn to deal with customs, social norms
and mores of such countries. As employees and managers move from assignment to
assignment across national boundaries, organizations and their subsidiaries
within each country thus become more diverse (Adeleye, Aja-Nwachukwu & Fawehinmi,
2012). Closely related to this is increase in immigration and communication.
Contemporary socio-economic challenges experienced globally have brought about
changes in jobs, consumptions, education and social relationships. Also,
increased immigration and new technologies have reduced stereotypes and
ethnocentrism. Business organisations in the developed and developing countries
are all caught up in the globalization web, which has heralded increased
demographic diversity in the workforce (Omankhanlen & Joshua, 2011).
Ethics
has been included in recent literature as adding increase in diversity. In
trying to differentiate between diversity and equal employment opportunity,
some people see diversity as an ethical issue, that is, the right thing to do,
while equal opportunity is the law. As the right thing to do, diversity has
some social benefits attached to it. This is why Harvey (2012) observed that
diversity across the workplace is slowly rising in its profile though there are
large leaps to make in terms of fairness and equality. Also, Jamali and Dirani
(2014) stated that the voluntary or discretionary aspects of diversity
management are therefore a distinct element of differentiation and constitute
an important interface with the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda,
in the sense that they entail going beyond what is mandated by law and
regulations to attend to the needs of employees and foster a healthier
workplace environment.
Workforce
Diversity Management is the ability of a manager to achieve success for an
organization by making the best use of the similarities and differences among
employees in terms of age, cultural background, physical abilities and
disabilities, race, ethnicity, religion, sex and sexual orientation, as well as
in terms of personality, values, attitude, perception and cognitive style
(Ugwuzor, 2014). In their own
definition, Yang and Konrad (2011) defined diversity management as a set of
formalized practices developed and implemented by organisations to manage
diversity effectively. Researchers and practitioners of diversity management
have proposed some strategies and principles for effectively managing a diverse
workforce. The strategic approach to diversity management assures that the
different potentials of all employees is a useful resource that contributes to
the achievement of organisational goals. According to UCSF (2010), it is
natural to desire a cookbook approach to diversity when faced with challenges
of diverse workforce but unfortunately, considering the many dimensions of
diversity, there is no easy recipe to follow. Advice and strategies given for
one situation may not work given the same situation elsewhere (Adler, 2001;
Gaunya, 2015; SHRM, 2004). In the
Nigerian context, Akobo (2016) noted that there are some diversity constructs
such as gender, ethnicity, religion, class, age and political affiliation which
vary from state to state or between regions and may intersect diversity
management strategies. For Alder (2001), what differentiates teams is how they
manage their diversity, not, as is commonly believed, in the presence or
absence of diversity. In addition, Yang and Konrad (2011); Kochan, et al (2003)
and Abdel (2012) argued that firms with more diversity management practices in
place experienced lower levels of turnover and that diversity management
practices interacted positively with an innovation strategy, resulting in
higher productivity and better market performance.
Writing on diversity management
strategies Shaban (2016) observed that there was need for managers to take
different steps to change employees’ values and attitudes and promote the
effective management of diversity. The first of these steps is leadership
commitment to diversity. Leadership commitment is very important because it
involves many other diversity management practices such as flexibility,
prevention of discrimination, inclusion, accommodation, communication,
diversity education and training, institutionalized policies that support and
promote correct ethical values and attitudes (Aghazadeh, 2004). Hence, Adeleye,
Aja – Nwachukwu and Fawehinmi (2012) posited that leadership commitment and
support is critical for successful diversity initiatives. Ideally, diversity and inclusion management
should be a category in year-end performance evaluation for leaders (Adeleye et
al., 2012). Some other researchers such as DeNsis and Griffin (2005); Thomas
and Ely in Brazzel (2003); Brazzel (2003); Miller and Katz (2002); Villum (2007)
suggested managing workforce diversity from organizational (macro) and
individual (micro) levels.
Three
types of perspectives were proposed by Thomas and Ely cited in Brazzel (2003)
for managing diversity at the organizational level which are discrimination and
fairness, access and legitimacy and integration and learning. The individual
employee level, is based on understanding and managing stereotypes, prejudices
and discrimination (Dietz & Peterson, 2006). They further argued that in
order to control discriminatory behaviour and intergroup conflict, management
should focus mainly on practices to eliminate the prejudices, negative
stereotypes and justification factors in the work environment. In support of
the importance of leadership commitment to effective diversity management,
DeNisi and Griffin (2005) noted that managing diversity starts with
organisational policy thrust since policies directly or indirectly affect how
people are treated, and therefore they advocated that organizational strategies
for dealing with diversity should include organizational policies,
organizational practices, diversity training and organizational culture. Citing
Chevron (Nig.) practice as an example, Adeleye et al. (2012) outlined some
local and flexible diversity management strategies due to cultural complexities
and differences. These initiatives are; customized diversity training,
diversity councils, employee network groups, community outreach, learn –a-
language, recognition and award for diversity, diversity day celebrations and
diversity metrics (corporate and individuals).
Literature on workforce diversity
management strategies is as diverse as the topic and the organizations that
practice diversity. Based on this versatility (DeNisi & Griffin, 2005) the
researcher limited the study to leadership commitment to inclusion,
flexibility, accommodation, prevention of discrimination, and equal opportunity
diversity management strategies.
Age
is one key dimension of diversity in any organization that affects the
distribution of the workforce. Age diversity management is the ability to
accept all different types of ages within a business environment (Lombardo, n.d).
Today’s workplaces exhibit the largest diversity of generations with distinct
work ethics, deep-rooted attitudes, opposing views and diverse motivators and such
differences have led to emergence of various management challenges of age diversity
at work (Owoyemi, Elegbede & Gbajumo-Sheriff, 2011). Generational
differences among employees can be advantageous to any organisation. Age diversity
encourages creativity and enhances organisational approach to problem solving
if effectively managed. An age diverse workforce can also help to ensure that a
firm’s talent pool is optimized. But as observed by Walters (2009) these can
also come with challenges It is assumed that employees who grew up in different
time or periods have different world views, expectations, values and preferred
modes of communications and interacting with one another (Fajana, 2009; Glass
in Owoyemi et al, 2011). This then demands a management practice that is
all-age inclusive and supportive. Inclusion is involvement and empowerment,
where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized. According to
Ferris State University (2008) an inclusive university promotes, and sustains a
sense of belonging; it values and practises respect for the talents, beliefs,
backgrounds and ways of living of its members. Gender
workforce diversity refers to the distribution of male and female in an organisation.
Similarly, Search Wikipedia (2011) defined it as how different genders are
represented in a relevant setting. Primarily, this term is often used to refer
to females and males though in some context and research the term may also
refer to those who fall into non binary categories of gender. Lombardo (n.d)
opined that gender diversity management in the work place is the equal
treatment and acceptance of both males and females in an organisation. It is
when an organisation is represented by an equal proportion of men and women and
when this is the case, more value is added to the organisation’s bottom line
due to the different viewpoints and backgrounds of the diverse individuals.
This is termed gender equality which is when people are able to access and
enjoy the same rewards, resources, and opportunities regardless of whether they
are male or female.
There
are biological features that distinguish males from females. Alhassan (2015)
asserted that gender has often been a yardstick for discrimination in many
relationships, homes, families, and even offices. She further observed that
gender discrimination has been on the increase in recent times. In as much as more
women are entering the workforce, there is still gap in gender workforce
diversity which organisations can improve through equal opportunity for all
genders. Equal opportunity ensuring that everyone has equal access to available
employment by making sure that workplaces are free from discrimination, and
harassment and by providing programmes to assist people to overcome
disadvantages (University of Wollongong Australia, 2013). This means having
workplace rules, policies, practices and behaviours that are fair and do not
disadvantage people.
With
regards to religious diversity management, most research works have remained
relatively silent. Religion as observed by SHRM (2001) is not limited to
traditionally organised religions, but also includes religious beliefs that are
practised by small groups of people who are not part of a formal church or sect.
Religious observances or practices include; attending worship services, prayer,
wearing religious garbs or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to
certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression or
refraining from certain activities (SHRM, 2001). Each religious group has its
own traditions, sacred calendars, religious sanctioned customs and practices,
including food, dress and behavioural codes. In workplaces where religious
differences are accommodated, workplaces are more satisfied, stable and
productive. Spiller, Erakovic, Henare and Pio (2011) stated that in an
environment of respect for cultural differences and where work practices and
timetables accommodate religious beliefs and activities, there can be discernible
benefits for employers and employees. Accommodation is advocated as significant
diversity management strategy. Diversity management practice of accommodating
diverse workforce refers to the obligation of an employer, service provider or
union to take steps to eliminate disadvantage to employees, prospective
employees or clients resulting from a rule, practice of physical barrier that
may leave an adverse impact on individuals or groups (University of Wollongong
Australia, 2013).
Ethnicity
refers to the ethnic composition of a group or organization (DeNisi &
Griffin, 2005) while ethnic diversity management is organisational ability to
employ and translate these different groups to attain organisational goals. When
people with different ethnic differences work in an organization they make up a
diverse workforce. People from diverse ethnic backgrounds have different
orientations, values, belief systems, identities and sometimes languages. These
may inherently influence people’s perceptions and behaviour especially outside
their environment with social benefits or social cost. Ethnicity may also lead
to social perception such as ethnocentrism, prejudice and bias which have
potential to cause infractions and disaffection at the workplace. This
ultimately affects interpersonal relationships or creates strain relations
which eventually affect performance and productivity (Joshua & Taylor-Abdulai,
2014). Nigeria as a country is made up of many ethnic nationalities. The
recruitment and management of this multiplicity of ethnic groups have always
been an issue in Nigerian institutions and organizations.
Discrimination is a very common cause of
conflict in organisations with workforce from diverse ethnic nationalities.
Discrimination is defined as the state of being kept distinct; treating someone
unfairly or unequally because they happen to belong to a particular group of
people or have a particular characteristic (Talathi, n.d). It is very important
that organisational leadership engages in appropriate anti-discriminatory
diversity management practices because where discrimination is not addressed,
it decreases employee trust, heightens tension and personality clashes which
will eventually affect the internal cohesion necessary for growth and
productivity. Disability
is another significant dimension of diversity with its management implications.
Disabilities can range from hearing impairments to missing fingers or limbs, to
blindness, to paralysis. Aduge-Ani (2014) observed that disability is believed
to be the consequence of an impairment that may be physical, cognitive, mental,
sensory, emotional, developmental, or some combination of these. However,
disability has become an umbrella term covering impairments, activity
limitations, and participation restriction. Also, one may be said to be
disabled if he/she had suffered impairment in the past or is seen as disabled
based on a personal or group standard or norm. Mental disorders (also known as
psychiatric or psychosocial disability) and various types of chronic diseases
may also qualify as disabilities.
In
Nigeria, statistics showed that the 1999 census yielded disability rate of 0.48
percent or 4.8 disabled persons per 1000 population though this varied based on
the cities (Onwe, 2016). However, it was noted that this figure was on the
increase. People with disabilities are vital contributors to our economy but
employment data shows their talent is underutilized. Lang and Upah (2008)
opined that within contemporary Nigeria, there is little appreciation that
disability is fundamentally an issue inexorably linked to and rooted to human
rights. Disabled people and disability issues are generally perceived by
policy-makers and the public at large in terms of charity and welfare. This perception
is a significant factor that seriously impedes the social inclusion of disabled
people within the country’s workforce. Therefore, inclusion and exercising some
measures of flexibility in the management of people with disability in
organisational workforce has become an issue in many organisations and a
challenge to management in Nigeria. According to Hall and Parker (2016)
workplace flexibility attends to the whole of the employees’ life and
investigates into creative ways of enhancing the fit between people and work
roles.
Workforce
diversity has become a global issue in human resource management and
organisational productivity due to its derivable benefits. The goal of
diversity in business is to have people of varying backgrounds, education, sex,
creed, and age all working in the same organization. This allows an
organization to have an employee base of very different people that can bring
different ideas and thoughts to the table. Additionally, being diverse helps
the organisation to attract a wider range of qualified employees as it shows
everyone can fit in at the organisation. Campbell (2011) claimed that workforce
diversity leads to savings in recruitment and training cost as well as
maintaining corporate knowledge and expertise. She further noted that it
reduces the high cost associated with workplace exclusion such as increased
turnover, absenteeism and reduced productivity. Several
research studies, Gaunya (2015); DeNisi and Griffin (2005); Owoyemi, Elegbede
and Gbajumo-Sheriff (2011) and Ugwuzor (2014) observed that employing workers
from diverse background such as gender, ethnicity, age, religion, ability,
educational level and background, work experience and tenure and so many other
different perspectives impact positively on the organisation. According to
them, the benefits of a heterogeneous workforce include but not only limited to
wider and quality talent pool, reduced cost as a result of reduction in
employee absenteeism and turnover, innovation and creativity, competitive advantage,
increased efficiency and higher productivity. Workforce diversity is even
celebrated in some advanced countries and private sector organisations (Kamp
& Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2004; Shen et al., 2009; Villum, 2009; Holt, 2016).
Some
scholars (Omankhalen and Joshua, 2011; Hodgetts, 2002; Brownell, 2003; Ogbo,
Kifordu and Wilfred, 2011) however argued that though diversity may exist in a
workforce, it may not yield any benefits without any conscious management
practices or actions such as inclusion, accommodation, elimination of
discrimination, promoting and acknowledging diversity values, flexibility,
training, acceptance and diversity plans. In the views of Villum (2007),
diversity management is a delicate matter with a considerable risk of failure if
conducted wrongly in a given workplace context. Lack of diversity management in
an organisation is an albatross because it creates conflict, tension,
dis-satisfaction and of course low productivity (Mazoni, 2010; Mazur, 2010;
Diversity Officer Magazine, 2010). Well-managed diversity is a productive resource
to the team but when not taken seriously, it causes problems that vitiate the
team’s productivity. It is based on this position that some people see
diversity as a double-edged sword. Workforce
diversity is a contemporary management practice that has become increasingly
common and adopted by many organisations. Workforce diversity management that
is inclusive, accommodating, flexible, that promotes equal opportunity, shuns
discrimination and bias is said to achieve greater employee efficiency and
satisfaction by attracting wider and quality talent pool, reducing employee
turnover and absenteeism. Moreover, studies claim that promoting workforce
diversity contributes to innovation, creativity, organisational goal
sustainability, strategic decision making and competitive advantage over other
organisations. These ultimately result to higher productivity which is the goal
of every organisation including the universities.
The
interest of this study stemmed from the observation that though diversity
exists in Nigerian universities and the Nigerian bureaucracies at large, there
does not seem to be evidence of the aforementioned diversity benefits because
as reported by some research studies, the quality of Nigerian graduates is
poor, below their goal mandates and stakeholders’ expectations (Odeyemi,
Kehinde, Bankole & Abifarin, 2004; Olaniyan & Okemakinde, 2008; FRN,
2009; Uzoechina, et al., 2016). This study was therefore an attempt to
determine the extent administrators’ workforce diversity management influences
quality education delivery in universities in South East, Nigeria. In addition,
there are limited studies on workforce diversity management in Nigeria and even
fewer on administrators’ perceived influence of workforce diversity management
on quality education delivery in Nigerian universities to the best of
researcher’s knowledge. This work intends to extend the frontiers of knowledge
of workforce diversity management in the education sector to attain the goals
of Nigerian university education.
1.2
STATEMENT
OF THE PROBLEM
Workforce
in Nigerian universities is obviously diverse along the lines of ethnicity,
age, gender, ability, religion, educational level and many others. In addition,
Nigeria by its composition has a rich diversity which permeates the university
bureaucracy. This existing workforce diversity ought to influence Nigerian
universities in producing graduates who are productive, employable and capable
of driving the nation’s economy as it obtains in organisations in other climes that
manage their diversity effectively. However,
this may not be the case in Nigerian as evidenced by some empirical research
findings which observed that the quality of education delivery in Nigeria universities
is poor and unsatisfactory to the stakeholders. These studies clearly stated
that most Nigerian university graduates are unemployable and can neither
contribute to their personal development nor national growth. Having a
diverse workforce and not being able to deploy it to influence the quality of
education delivery which is the university goal mandate is a problem. This
problem which may be attributable to university administrators’ inability,
inefficiency or ineffectiveness in the management of the diverse workforce at
their disposal needs to be solved. Studies have revealed that where management
is not inclusive, flexible, equitable and non-discriminatory, and does not
promote diversity values, there is increased conflict, tension, high rate of
employee turnover and absenteeism, reduction in social cohesion leading to
employee dissatisfaction, inefficiency and low productivity.
There
is dearth of information on the extent of the management gap in workforce
diversity and quality education delivery in the universities in Nigeria. Hence,
this study intends to determine the influence of workforce diversity management
practices of inclusion, prevention of discrimination, flexibility,
accommodation and equal opportunity on quality education delivery in universities
in South East Nigeria and make an attempt to fill this management gap through
the findings and recommendations.
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The
study examined the influence of workforce diversity management on quality
education delivery in public universities in South East, Nigeria. Specifically,
the study sought to:
1. ascertain
the extent to which prevention of discrimination in managing ethnic diversity
of employees influences quality education delivery in the universities
2. determine the extent to which the use of inclusion
in managing age diverse employees influences quality education delivery in the universities
3. determine the extent to which accommodation
for religious diversity of employees influences quality education delivery in the
universities
4. ascertain the extent to which flexibility in
managing disability diversity of employees influences quality education
delivery in the universities
5. determine the extent to which equal
opportunity in managing gender diversity of employees influences quality
education delivery in the universities
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To
guide the study, the following research questions were asked.
1. To
what extent does administrators’ prevention of discrimination in managing ethnic
diversity of employees influence quality education delivery in the universities?
2. What
is the extent to which administrators’ use of inclusion in managing age diverse
employees influence quality education delivery in the universities?
3. To
what extent does administrators’ accommodation for religious diversity of
employees influence quality education delivery in the universities?
4. What
is the extent to which administrators’ flexibility in managing disability
diversity of employees influence quality education delivery in the universities?
5.
To what extent does administrators’ use of equal opportunity in managing gender
diversity of employees influence quality education delivery in the universities?
1.5
HYPOTHESES
The
following null hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 level of
significance.
1. There
is no significant difference between mean ratings of male and female administrative
staff on the influence of prevention of discrimination in managing ethnic
diversity of employees on quality education delivery in the universities.
2. There
is no significant difference between mean ratings of academic and
administrative staff on the influence of use of inclusion in managing age
diverse employees on quality education delivery in the universities.
3. There
is no significant difference between mean ratings of male and female academic
staff on the influence of accommodation for religious diversity of employees on
quality education delivery in the universities.
4. There
is no significant difference between mean ratings of academic and
administrative staff on the influence of flexibility in managing disability
diversity of employees on quality education delivery in the universities.
5. There
is no significant difference between mean ratings of male and female staff on the
influence of equal opportunity in managing gender diversity of employees on quality
education delivery in the universities.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The findings of this research study
will be of benefit to the following stakeholders; educational administrators, private
school proprietors, employees of educational institutions, government
ministries and agencies, parents, students, policy makers and researchers
among others.
The
findings of the study will enhance the competence of university administrators
in the management of the ever increasing and diversifying workforce needed to
deliver quality education. It will provide deep insight on the most effective
strategies to adopt in the face of challenges of employee diversity. Apart from
the increased diversity of workers, students’ diversity has equally increased
in recent times and it is still expected to increase more. The findings of the study
will therefore increase the consciousness of university administrators on the
need to build and sustain a workforce that is as diverse as the student
population.
The
findings of this study will enable policy makers to come up with employment policies
and legislations that will ensure equal opportunities for all. The research
findings are likely to give them more insight on benefits of workplace
diversity and the need to legislate against discriminatory practices that are
rife in Nigeria’s workplace. The ministries of education stand to benefit from
the findings of this work by spreading school appointments that are within
their purview if they are acquainted with the advantages of effective workforce
diversity management. This ensures that the best of talents, irrespective of
their diversity, are recruited to enhance quality education delivery. Students will benefit from
the findings of this research as they will be better informed on the advantages
of the diverse workforce found in the universities and so expect best quality
performance from the faculty and staff. The results of this study will be of
benefit to employees of educational institutions as it would likely increase
their diversity awareness. This will encourage them to build their capacity on
diversity issues, appreciate the beauty of diversity, bond better and in turn
deliver quality education in their institutions.
For
private school proprietors, the findings of this work will raise the bar of
their awareness on the benefits of employee diversity which they can leverage
on to recruit the ‘best fit’ to positively impact on the quality of education
delivered to their clients. As private enterprises, they have unfettered access
to explore the tenets of workforce diversity management to give their
institutions competitive advantage.
Parents
who contribute to the funding of university education would be richly informed
on the impact of employee diversity management on the quality of education
their children and wards receive. They may therefore encourage their wards to
seek admission in multi-cultural institutions and also to expect and demand
higher services from schools. Finally, further research can be stimulated
through the findings, suggestions and arguments raised in this work.
1.7 SCOPE OF STUDY
The
study was delimited to university administrators who were categorized by gender
as male and female and by status as academic and administrative staff in the
five federal universities in South East, Nigeria. The South East is made up of
Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo states. These administrators comprised
senior administrative staff and academic staff involved in staff administration
and management. The study focused on influence
of workforce diversity management on quality education delivery as perceived by
university administrators in their respective institutions. Specifically, the study addressed the extent implementation of workforce
diversity management practices of use of inclusion, prevention of
discrimination, accommodation, flexibility and equal opportunity on workforce
diversity dimensions of age, religion, ethnicity, disability and gender influence
quality education delivery in universities in South East, Nigeria. The
independent variable in the study was workforce diversity management while the
dependent variable was quality education delivery.
Login To Comment