Reference no: EM133876966
Question: As new generations enter the workforce, organizations must recognize and account for their differences -- as well as how those differences can impact their work and collaboration. A key difference between generations is the focus on socially and environmentally responsible organizations. The influx of younger generations into organizations, and the priority they place on this responsibility, has resulted in many HR departments instituting corporate social responsibility policies and started focusing on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Consider the following fictitious scenario. Colossal Investment, LLC. is a family-run, multinational investment company that has been in business for over 100 years. Though the company began as a small business in Western Canada, it now has offices in 12 countries with an especially strong presence in Australia and New Zealand.
The owners pride themselves on running the business like their fathers and grandfathers did, with no core changes to their values since the company's inception. Because of this mentality, HR has had difficulties enacting contemporary policies. For example, in a board meeting in 2020, Alexander, the head of HR, mentioned that the organization was having issues finding talent to recruit. When asked what was causing the difficulty, Alexander mentioned that the younger talent pool is looking for organizations that demonstrate social responsibility and commitment to diversity. He noted that this was particularly prominent in the New Zealand offices, where young workers were keen to see companies commit to supporting environmental initiatives in partnership with Maori communities. Alexander suggested conducting a study on ways that Colossal Investment could be more socially responsible and then updating their existing policies and creating new policies based on the findings. Hire best assignment help & experienced tutors now!
With its history in Western Canada, he noted there were plenty of opportunities to partner with Indigenous groups in the region on issues similar to those of concern to potential hires in New Zealand. He also suggested that the organization needed to institute an EDI policy that offices in other countries could rely on when recruiting new talent. The board members did not understand the need for these changes, as their current policies had worked for decades.
Instead, they asked Alexander to provide more information about the available talent pool in the regions where this was a pressing issue and told him to consider other recruitment methods that the New Zealand offices might benefit from. Alexander did as he was asked, and while the New Zealand offices ran revised recruitment campaigns that highlighted the organization's long history of consistent values, no organizational policy changes were instituted. By 2023, HR was in a bind: There were 200 open positions that they could not fill, and 89 of those were in the New Zealand offices. Moreover, when they did fill positions in the New Zealand offices, the attrition rate was 35% higher than it had been in the past. Alexander met with the board members again. He stated that the problem was getting larger and that the board needed to revisit his social responsibility and EDI policies plan. The board decided that Alexander was not doing his job well and terminated his employment. One of the board members, who had a background in HR, took over the department. After a year, with similar results to those seen under Alexander's tenure, the board finally decided it was time to update its policies."
Case-related questions: How could Alexander have better demonstrated the need for change across the organization? What policies should Colassol Investment, LLC include in its EDI? Can an organization remain successful in talent recruitment without EDI? Why or why not?