Ezeani, Onyebuchi Emmanuel, PhD
Department of Political Science
University of Nigeria
Nsukka
Abstract
The need for a diverse and inclusive workforce has been recognized by most governments and international Institution particularly the United Nations. This article assesses the various attempts at bringing about a more diverse and reprehensive civil service in Nigeria and the United States of America. It identifies the various diversity management strategies in use in the two countries. The similarities and differences in the experiences of the two countries at diversity management are identified. Finally, the article discussed the challenge to diversity management in the two countries.
Introduction
Diversity has become a fact of human existence. People differ according to sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, age, et cetera, these differences have frequently formed the basis for unjustifiable discrimination, which blights lives, blocks opportunities, perpetuates oppression, preserves monopolies, and feeds hatred and violence (Caiden and Caiden, 2001 a). As the forces of democratization and globalization gain momentum, such discrimination is becoming increasingly in-appropriate and unacceptable.
In declaring the year 2001 as the year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, the United Nations General Assembly acknowledged acceptance of diversity of tastes, ideas, beliefs and values as a necessary precondition toward a creative dialogue that contributes to development and adds vitality to democratic governance (Caiden and Caiden, 2001: la). As an institution which plays an important role in both the formulation and implementation of government policies, the civil service is one such body where the diversity of the entity should he reflected.
The 15th Expert Group Meeting organized by the Division of Public Economics and Public Administration (DPEPA) of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, emphasized the importance of an exclusionary Civil Service when it recommended that member states “strengthen the civil service through diversity and mobility, including the dimensions of gender, ethnicity, age and varied populations” (Quoted in Bande, 2001:1).
This article assesses the attempts at bringing about a more diverse and representative civil service in Nigeria and the United States of America. It identifies the similarities in the experiences of the two countries in diversity management. The choice of the two countries was informed by the fact that both share some similarities such as diversity of their population, practice of federalism, et cetera.
Definition of Basic Concepts
Before we proceed further in this article it is appropriate to define some basic concepts – diversity and diversity management – which shall be used frequently in this study.
Diversity
The concept of “diversity” has been variously defined by writers. For instance, Ospina (2001) defines it as,degree to which there is a variety of attributes (social, cultural, functional) within a particular structure of governance (be it organizational, sectional, societal), the extent to which this variety is distributed at different levels of the structure, the extent of awareness of this reality from various stakeholders.According to Fine, Johnson and Ryan (1990) diversity exists in a group or organization when its members differ from one another along one or more important dimensions. In the context of this article, diversity means the extent to which the diverse attributes or characteristics (such as abilities, age, sex. race, ethnicity, religion, physical ability, economic, education and geographic background, status, et cetera) of the population of a country arc represented in the workforce of an organization. Diversity therefore implies variety “it is an intrinsic characteristic of the natural world, where a bewildering and seemingly inexhaustible variation in living form contributes to an intricate, complex ecology” (Caidcn and Caiden 200 I: 1). In the context of an organization such as the civil service, therefore, “a diverse workforce integrates not only individuals from different racial, national, religious and ethnic backgrounds, but also men and women, the elderly and disabled, and those with different sexual orientations” (Caiden and Caiden, 2001: 1). Acceptance of diversity in the words of Argyriades (2001 :4) connotes respect and tolerance. It is based on individual rights and the equality of such rights.
Diversity Management
Diversity management has been defined by Ospina (2001: 1) as “policies, programmes and practices set in place to ensure that diversity exists and is used positively to enhance the purposes and the structure of governance”. It is therefore initiatives or actions taken by the state or an organization to ensure that diverse groups in the society are adequately represented within its workforce. Diversity demands that the state or organization become pro-active and take necessary steps to promote: (i) equality of aCCt:3 (ii) equality of opportunity; and most importantly, (iii) an open, supportive environment that encourages plurality, facilitates debate, fosters cooperation, consultation and coordination, as well as competition and, far from stifling differences, seeks our accommodation, inclusion, consensus and synergy (Argyriades, 200 I: 5). Management of diversity sees pluralism as positive. Its primary objectives “is synthesis of different views, values, belief, constituencies, professional imperatives, talents and skills, all into a harmonious whole” (Argyriades 2001: 5).
Dimensions of diversity
There are different dimensions of diversity within an organization. These can be divided into two broad divisions – primary and secondary dimensions. The primary forms of diversity include gender, race, ethnicity, religion and physical abilities/condition. They give rise to strong group identity with all its commensurate effects. The primary forms of diversity are often at the center of resource allocation decisions that favour an “in group” to the detriment of an “out-group”, having ever widening ramifications in terms of other forms of secondary diversities (Moleketi, 2001: 3)
The secondary dimensions of diversity consist of attributes such as education, work background, income, marital status, political experience, religious/spiritual beliefs, et cetera. These are factors “that are important to us as individuals and to some extent define us to others but are less permanent and can be adapted or changed” (Onah, 2004: 73).
Fig. I
Diversity Dimension
WORK
Work Background
race/ Ethnicity Language
Socio-
Economic
Class
Marital Status
Physical Abilities/ condition
Parenta1 Status
Sexual Affectional Orientation
Age/ Generation
Political Experience
Geographic Location
Religious/Spiritual Beliefs
Source: Jemiai (2001)
The Case for Diversity In The Civil Service
The need for diversity in the civil service has long been recognized in most countries of the world. According to Caiden and Caiden (200 1: 1 b): The nineteenth century reforms which firmly established public bureaucracies as the core of the administrative state theoretically opened up civil service careers to all qualified citizens. Equal opportunity and the living and promotion of equality personnel would fulfil both the demands of democracy and the requirement for a capable workforceDiversity in the civil service is therefore, justified on the following grounds (Caiden and Caiden, 2001: 5b):
(i) The need for a highly qualified workforce. Diversity the civil service would help attract highly qualified personnel in policy and management positions in the civil service. Government needs to draw on a wider pool of talent.
(ii) Social equity. Diversity promotes equity and justice in workplace. As a public resource, the civil service should be open to all citizens. It should not be an instrument for a single class, gender, race, ethnic group or religion.
(iii) Development of Human capital. Through the deliberate attraction of neglected and underrepresented groups to its workforce, the civil service becomes an active force in building human capital necessary for national development.
(iv) Nation building. A diverse civil service contributes to national integration and nation building by eliminating or at least reducing feeling of marginalization, discrimination and injustice which have been sources of conflict.
(v) Promotes Organizational Efficiency. Diversity in the service promotes efficiency “through facilitating the exchange of new perspectives each employee brings to the workplace and creates a respectful and encouraging work environment” (http://unpanl.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/document/un/unpan 002311. pdf).
(vi) Innovation and Problem solving. It has been argued that organizations with diverse workforce are generally more creative and innovative than less diverse ones. Organizations with diverse workforce are characterized by multiple perspectives and ways of thinking and are therefore more likely to generate new ideas and ways of doing things (Onah, 2004:74). Related to the creativity argument is the problem-solving argument. Diversity carries with it an increased pool of information which can be brought to bear on problem solving.
Strategies for Diversity Management
A number of strategies have been adopted by the state for the management of diversity in the civil service. However, the strategies adopted depend on circumstances, which differ from country to country. Therefore, strategies that are successful in one country may not be successful in another. The strategies discussed in this article include: legal, educational and structural. Each of these has
advantages and disadvantages.
Legal strategies
Legal strategies are attempts by the government of a state to use the Jaws and regulations to ensure that the diverse groups in the country are adequately represented in the civil service. The primary objective is to “gain for under-represented groups their share of the benefits and power related to a civil service career” (Caiden and Caiden, 20001: 8b). Usually the law prohibits all unfair discrimination and prejudice, as well as the removal of all unnecessary obstacles to equal opportunity.
Legal strategies entail two distinct approaches. The first entails providing equal opportunity to every person and the elimination of discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, color, age, and physical ability. The second approach, affirmative action, according to Caiden and Caiden “requires agencies whose workforce do not conform to the characteristics of the population, to make good faith efforts to promote and recruit persons who are under-represented” (Caiden and Caiden, 200 I: 8b). The legal strategies are, therefore, intended to send signals regarding what is or is not acceptable conduct in recruiting, retaining or promoting staff Usually commissions are established which are empowered to hear individual cases alleging discrimination. In an extreme case, living quotas is prescribed.
Legal strategies have the following disadvantages: (i) Enforcement of laws and regulations depends on the ability of individuals or classes of individuals to validate claims of discrimination and gain damages. This is an expensive and difficult process. In addition, the judicial system itself may be biased; (ii) They attack symptoms rather than dealing with the causes of prejudice and discrimination and creating a diversity friendly workforce; and (iii) In emphasizing “protected” categories, legal strategies end up entrenching distinctions rather that obliterating them. This may make it more difficult to end discrimination (Caiden and Caiden 2001 b: 9).
Educational Strategies
An educational strategy is an attempt to replace existing organizational culture with a multi-cultural perspective through education. There is a deliberate move to increase the level of cultural awareness and sensitivity of the workforce. This is accomplished through training the workforce, including the top levels, to get people to understand their own culture, and then those of others.
Despite its advantages, critics contend that training is an inadequate tool for cultural transformation which requires an entire change in individual personality and assumptions. This call Hot be achieved by merely attending a few workshop. Again, it is doubtful whether knowledge acquired in the classroom can actually be applied back in the work setting, especially, where the organization is not change oriented or is even hostile to change (Golembiewski, 1995: 32-42). Finally, in extreme cases, this strategy just like the legal strategy tends to highlight and emphasize differences.
Structural Strategies
This strategy focuses on the way the civil services are organized. As remarked by (Caiden and Caiden, 2001 b: 11).
It starts from the premise that bureaucratic organizations, among their other failings, are hostile to diversity, because of their emphasis on narrow specialization, their stress on process, and the application of rigid rules to pre-assigned categories.
Therefore, to achieve diversity, it is important to change organizational policies with regard to the method of sharing work and assigning people to do it. “A new perspective is needed to redesign jobs and structures to encourage diverse recruitment, discourage narrowness, and facilitate greater flexibility” (Caiden and Caiden, 2001b: 11). One way to achieve this is through job rotation (allowing people to gain experience in doing different work) and job enrichment (giving employees greater responsibilities over a particular area of work). A major limitation of the structural strategy is the general difficulties in gaining organizational changes. For instance, job enrichment andjob rotation are limited by the need for qualifications for certain work, particularly as civil services become increasingly professionalized.
COUNTRY CASE STUDIES
The preceeding section focuses on the various strategies of -diversity management that can be adopted by any nation. It, thus, provides a setting for the appreciation of the experiences of Nigeria and the United States of America in the management of diversity.Nigeriawith a population of about 120 million people, Nigeria is a heterogeneous country, made up of over 200 ethnic groups, who practice several religions and whose histories and cultures at times varied (Bande 2001: 1). The “divide and rule” policies of the colonial government and the operations of the post-colonial state at times accentuated the differences, even as objective factors created compelling alliances (Afigbo, 1988; Uzoigwe 1994; Usman, 1994).
The idea of having a diverse and representative civil service is widely accepted in Nigeria. The diverse groups and interests agitated for inclusion Oil grounds of fairness. The main strategy for the management of diversity in the Nigerian civil service is legal/constitutional. By far, the most important development in the effort to create a representative civil service in Nigeria came in 1979 with the introduction of the principle of “federal character” into the constitution. This principle was introduced in response to the educational imbalance between the south and the north. Framers of the constitution felt that the merit system, by stressing the possession of formal qualifications, would be “identity blind”, and in that state, would tend to exclude candidates from the “educationally disadvantaged” parts of the country. In addition, it was thought politically unacceptable for a powerful institution such as the civil service to be “dominated” by a specific ethnic or geographical group (Balogun, 2001′: 16). Thus Section 14 (3) of the 1979 constitution stipulates:
The composition of the Government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or in any of its agencies. To operationalize this requirement, a system of quotas was instituted. The “federal character” principle was further enshrined in the 1999 constitution.
This constitution expanded the scope of the federal character and specified the role of the Federal Character Commission. Sections 14(3) and (4) of the 1999 constitution thus states:14(3) The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote National unity and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies. (4) The composition of the Government of a State, a local government, or any of the agencies of such Government or council and the conduct of the affairs of the Government or councilor such agencies shall be carried out in such manner as to recognize the diversity of the people within its area of authority and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all the peoples of the federation.
Part 1 of the Third schedule of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria specified the
composition of the Federal Character Commission thus:
7(1) The Federal Character Commission shall comprise the following members –
(a) a chairman; and
(b) one person to represent each of the states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
(2) The Chairman and members shall be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate in Section 8(1) of the 1999 constitution are:
(a) work out an equitable formula subject to the approval of the
National Assembly for the distribution of all cadres of posts in the public service of the federation and of the States, the armed forces of the Federation, the Nigerian Police Force and other government security agencies, government owned companies and parastatals of the states;
(b) Promote, monitor and enforce compliance with the principles of proportional sharing or all bureaucratic, economic, media and political posts at all levels of government;
(c) take such legal measures, including the prosecution of the head or staff or any Ministry or government body or agency which fails to comply with any federal character principle or formula prescribed or adopted by the commission; and
(d) carry out such other functions as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly.
(2) The posts mentioned ill sub-paragraph (1) (a) and (b) of this paragraph shall include those of the Permanent Secretaries, Directors General in Extra -Ministerial Departments and parastatals, Directors in Ministries and Extra -Ministerial Departments, senior military officers, senior diplomatic posts and managerial cadres in the Federal and State parastatals, bodies, agencies and institution.
The “federal character” provision has generated serious debates especially with regard to its scope and intent. Critics want to know what “equitable formula’ is being used to give effect to this provision, or how the proportional sharing “of all bureaucratic, economic, media and political positions at all levels of government” is to be determined (Bande, 2001:4). Critics regard the provision as a smoke screen for ethnic favouritism. Furthermore, critics are worried about the problem posed to the goals of nation-building by the heightening of sense of separateness arising from an excessive concern over ‘origins’ (Bande, 2001: 5). Finally, critics contend that both the “federal character” provision and the Quota system are counter to merit and has negative effect on efficiency. Yet, its advocates see it differently – as the only way to ensure equity and fairness.
An attempt was made through the civil service (Reorganization) Decree 43 of 1988 to fine-tune the constitutional provisions on “federal character”. As Balogun (2001: 17) puts it:
While reaffirming commitment to the principle of representative bureaucracy, the Decree limited the application of “federal character” to entry-level. Junior management positions (then ranging from GL 07 to GL 10). Thenceforth, recruitment into higher-level vacancies would be strictly be strictly on merit…
It is important to mention that the 1988 decree has since been amended leaving the “federal character” provision intact.
The effectiveness of the “federal character” provision as a strategy for diversity management is open to debate. What is clear is that provision does not address the problem of exclusion of women, the disabled, the aged, et cetera. There is little consideration about the needs and rights of the disabled in Nigeria today, and there is a glaring imbalance in favour of men in employment.
United States of America
The United States of America like Nigeria is a heterogeneous country made up of diverse population of immigrants. The 2000 Census shows that about one third of the population was made up of minorities, consisting of persons of African American, Hispanic, Asian and other minority origin, compared with about one quarter a decade earlier (Cohn and Fears, 2001; AI). It was estimated that by 2005, racial and ethnic minorities will probably make up almost 30 percent of the workforce, and by 2050 almost 50 percent of the population (Carnevale and Stone, 1995: 33; Goodman, 1996: 2).
As a result of its diverse population, the problem of discrimination has featured prominently in the history of the United States. Racial and ethnic minorities as well as women, the elderly and the disabled have been discriminated against in employment. The history of the United States is, therefore, known for continued demand for remedies through legislation, litigation, and changes in public and private policies. Successive governments have responded to the situation by adopting various diversity management strategies mainly legislations and other actions that promote diversity in the workforce. The legislations and initiatives affect but are not specifically directed at the civil service. Let us briefly discuss some of them.
Equal Opportunity
The 1964 Civil Rights Act remains a landmark legislation in the United States which banned discrimination in voting, public places, federal programs, federally supported public education and employment. In 1972, provision was extended to employees of states and local governments. Title VII of the Act provides for equal employment opportunity for specified cases of workers. It forbids employers, employment agencies and unions to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, colour or national origin (Caiden and Caiden, 2001a: 4). The main objective is “to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate those discriminatory practices and devices which have fostered stratified job environments to the disadvantage of minority citizens” (Quoted in Walsh, 1995: 145).
The Equal Employment commission was created in the Department of Labor by the Equal Opportunity Act. It comprises of a group of commissioners appointed by the President to enforce workplace anti-discrimination laws (Caiden and Caiden, 2001a: 4). The commission not only receives and investigates complaints; it “also decides which anti-discrimination laws will be emphasized and how, and issues guidelines and interpretations” (Caiden and Caiden, 2001: 4). Up to 1991, plaintiffs had no right to jury trial; and remedies were limited. In the same year, a Civil Rights Act was promulgate which provided for both a right to jury trials and greater redress. In other words, the Act made the courts more accessible to complainants and provided for payment of compensation for damages.
The most important and disputed issue in the implementation of the Act is what constitutes discrimination and the difficulty in proving discriminatory intent. Critics argue that Equal opportunity laws hardly altered the impact of longstanding discrimination. Thus President Lyndon Johnson opined that “Equal opportunity is essential, but it is not enough” (Johnson, 1997: 58).
Affirmative Action
There are various definitions of affirmative action, ranging from some that are vague and general definitions to specific ones. One such general definition sees affirmative action as “good faith efforts to recruit, hire and promote women, minorities, veterans and people with disabilities” (Brown, Snedeker and Sykes, 1995: 6). A good example of a specific definition is one that sees affirmative action as “positive non-discriminatory measures to ensure fair treatment in the workforce for qualified employees or applicants who face employment barriers because of such factors as their race, sex and national origin” (Carnevale and Stone, 1995: 71). Affirmative action is, therefore, a deliberate and good faith attempts to ensure that women, minorities and the disabled are given special consideration in employment and education. Such measures as goals and timetables, minority set asides for contracts and preferences have been adopted to achieve diversity. The rationale for affirmative action was succinctly articulated by Caiden and Caiden (200la: 6) thus: The rationale for affirmative action, which takes deliberate measures to achieve diversity rather than relying on prevention of discrimination in individual personnel decisions, lies in the alleged entrenchment of preferences in employment, education and contracting. If things are left alone, it is argued, nothing will happen to change existing patterns of imbalance, because stereotypes will prevail: people hire and promote in their own image…… certain groups are at such a competitive disadvantage, as demonstrated by their absence from entry level higher management positions, that it is necessary to legislate preference for them until the situation equalizes.
The origin of “affirmative action” may be traced back to an executive order C 10925) by President Kennedy, which simply emphasized recruitment and training of minorities and women (Caiden and Caiden, 2001 a: 7). In 1970, the Department of labour issued Order No.4, which made it mandatory to some major companies and educational institutions to initiate affirmative action plans to employ and promote more women and minorities. As it affects the civil service, the civil service reform Act of 1978 clearly called for a representative bureaucracy – “a workforce reflective of the Nation’s diversity” to be attained through rigorous use of numerical goals and timetables (Golembiewski, 1995; 31).
The results of “affirmative action” is mixed. On the positive side, in the federal civil service, which was specifically targeted by “affirmative action”, one observer noted that “the overall trend toward greater diversity or representativeness seem clear enough”: the proportion of women in the most senior jobs increased between 1970 and 1990 and that of African Americans by over 200 percent (Caiden and Caiden, 2001: 10). Goodman (1995: XII) reported that minorities (with the exception of Hispanics), account for a higher proportion of the federal workforce than of the civilian labour force. Despite the above progress, Golembiewski (1995: 34-35) reported that women only constitute just a little over II percent of the executive grades, while minorities were less than 8 percent. And according to Goodman (1995: XII):
…. in most federal departments, minorities still work primarily in clerical and other low-level positions, where they are unlikely to have management responsibility or to make substantive contributions to policy development… the nation is far from the goal of achieving governance by a professional workforce that reflects the nation’s diversity.
Critics accuse “affirmative action” of “reverse discrimination”. They argue that by giving preference Lo certain groups, “affirmative action”, was discriminatory and a denial of equal opportunity. Others argue that by giving preference to disadvantaged minorities and women with lower qualifications, “affirmative action” sacrifices merit in selection, hiring and promotion.
Age discrimination Act
Age discriminate is no doubt a salient and resilient problem in the employment area in the United States of America (Henderson, 1995: 81). It “involves the same basic issue as other kinds of discrimination: older persons are rejected for employment, passed over for promotion; or replaced because of their age, and are not judged on their qualifications and capabilities” (Caiden and Caiden, 2001a: 11). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, prohibited age discrimination in employment. Employers are prohibited from hiring, firing, paying or setting other conditions of work based on age. The Act covers employees over the age of 40, and employers with over 25 employees. One notable impact of the ADEA has been to virtually abolish compulsory retirement. Although the ADEA permits employees- to report any case of age discrimination to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and to take matter to court if necessary, age discrimination has been difficult to prove. Quite a large number of cases have been dismissed for lack of specific evidence of intent.
Gender Discrimination Acts
Gender discrimination has been a salient problem in the United States. Women have been discriminated against in the area of employment, pay, promotion, and they face sexual harassment. The 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII, prohibited discrimination against women, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution guarantees “equal protection of the laws”. But more specific Acts have been promulgated against gender discrimination. For instance, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (effective 1968) requires the same pay for men and women doing equal work, requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions in the same establishment. This Act, therefore, eliminates male/female gross differentials in pay in the same organization.
The Family and Medical leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, addressed the issue of pregnancy and looking after small children (or other dependents). The FMLA gives employees the right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to look after family members, during which the employer continues.to pay benefits, and the employee has the right to return to the job after leave. According to President Clinton who signed the Act into law “Never again will parents have to fear losing their jobs because of their families” (Walsh, 1996: 201), In the words of Caiden and Caiden (2001 a: 12) “The philosophy of the act was that it would help to strengthen families, and would promote work place diversity not only by allowing women leave, but also by providing men with the same rights, and taking into consideration reasonable family concerns”.
Discrimination Against the Disabled Act
In the United States, the disabled and even those perceived to be disabled face stigma and discrimination in employment. Yet, any effort to achieve a truly diverse work force would need to include the disabled. Disability is used here to encompass not only physical disability such as blindness, deafness or paralysis, but also such conditions as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, mental impairment, such as mental retardation and mental illness, and chronic diseases such as asthma, arthritis, HIV/AIDS, et cetera. The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against the disabled. Prior to this legislation, there was the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which covered employees and contractors of the federal government, and banned discrimination on the basis of disability to anyone receiving federal funds (Camevale and Stone, 1995: 379). The protective legislations notwithstanding, discrimination against the disabled has worsened in the United States over the past decade, as their employment and earnings actually fell (Reekard, 2000: AI4).
Challenges to Diversity Management
There are a number of challenges to diversity management in the civil service. They include:
The exclusionary nature of public employment: There are certain basic academic requirements or qualification for employment in the civil service. Consequently, the unqualified and uneducated who are more likely to belong to minorities and disadvantaged groups are excluded. Furthermore, “greater professionalization and the need for higher technical qualifications might exclude an even larger proportion of the population, unless other changes take place” (Caiden and Caiden, 200 1 b: 6). Again, where the government has embarked on privatization exercise, the downsizing of the labour force resulting there from, might restrict opportunities for employment in the civil service.
Social constraints: Diversity in the civil service is difficult to achieve where there is widespread poverty and illiteracy. Sometimes poverty and illiteracy prevail more among certain groups or minorities in a country. Since employment into the civil service requires certain basic educational qualification, these groups or minorities are usually disadvantaged.
Prejudice and adverse cultures: Entrenched prejudice and stereotypes that exist among the different racial, and ethnic groups constitute serious challenge to the management of diversity. Often diversity is perceived by each ethnic or racial group not as an opportunity to harness and channel aggregate energies towards national development, but to claim citizenship rights while imposing all the obligations on “strangers” (Adejumobi, 200 1: 163-169). Also as Caiden and Caiden (200 1 b: I) rightly points out:
It is well known that individuals in organizations tend to select in their own image, looking for their own traits and believing only these will satisfy the demands of the job … formal job qualifications may be framed in accordance with this image, even though the positions in question may not really require the skill stipulated. The unexpressed objective may be to keep out women and minorities….
In Nigeria, particularly in some parts of the Northern areas, women are discouraged from seeking employment due to cultural and religious reasons. Diversity Policies: The implementation of policies toward greater diversity in civil services may have dysfunctional effect, which defeat their aims. For instance, policies such as “equal employment” “affirmative action” and the “federal character” principle, result to “reverse discrimination”, or intensification of racism or ethnicity and prejudice, rather than alleviating them. Also attempts to favour a disadvantaged or under-represented groups provoke a backlash from applicants or candidates from the majority group, who now find themselves disadvantaged (Caiden and Caiden, 200 1 b:7).
Summary and Conclusion
So far in this article, we have examined the various attempts by Nigeria and the United States of America to achieve a representative and diverse workforce in their civil services. There are several similarities in the experiences of both countries. An obvious similarity is the heterogeneity of both countries. Another is that both share a general commitment to equity, and recognize the need for greater representation of various groups and interests in their civil services. Both rely mainly on the legal strategies for managing diversity. The two countries have civil services based on merit principles, but they arc determined to improve their representation of under – represented groups in it. Consequently, in both countries, efforts to achieve diversity by tilting in favour of disadvantaged groups, confront the issue of merit versus preference as well as the problem of “reversed discrimination”. Finally, in both countries discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race, gender, age, physical disabilities, et cetera, remain unresolved, and the area of diversity is constantly changing.
However, there are certain differences in the experiences of the two countries in dealing with the issue of diversity. While Nigeria has addressed the issue of diversity by focusing on ethic balancing in the civil service through the “federal character” principle, the United States has moved beyond addressing the issue of minority representation through Equal Opportunity” and “Affirmative Action”, to addressing the problems of age discrimination, gender discrimination and discrimination against the disabled, through enactment of Acts that ensure the representation of various groups in the workforce. Nigeria is yet to give desired attention to the problems of age and gender discrimination, as well as discrimination in employment based Oil disabilities.
References
Adejumobi. Said (2001) “Citizenship, Rights, and the Problem of Conflicts and Civil Wars in Africa”. Human Rights Quarterly, 23.
Afigbo, A.E. (1988) “Federal Character: Its Meaning and History” in P.P Ekeh and E.E. Osaghae (eds.) Federal Character and Federalism in Nigeria. Ibadan: Heinemann.
Argyriades, Anemetrios (2001) “Diversity in Diversity”, paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Diversity in the Civil Service New York: United Nations Headquarters, 3-4 May.
Balogun, M.J. (200 I) “Diversity Issues Facing the Public Service in Sub-Sahara!) Africa”, paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group JMeeting on Managing Diversify in the Civil Service, New York: United Nations Headquarters, 3-4 May.
Bande, T.M. (2001) “Managing Diversity in the Civil Service: A Brief Examination of the Nigerian Case”, paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Managing Diversity in the Civil Service, New York: United Nations Headquarters, 3-4 May.
Brown, C.D., Snedeker, C.C. and Sykes B. (eds.) (1997), Conflict and Diversity. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Caiden, G.E. and Caiden N.J. (200 1) “The Experience of the United States and United Kingdom in the Area of Diversity”, paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Managing Diversity in the Civil Service. New York: United Nations Headquarters, 3-4 May.
Caiden, G.E. and Caiden N.J. (2001) “Strategies for Meeting the Challenges of Diversity Management in the Civil Service”, paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on managing Diversity in the Civil Service. New York: United Nations Headquarters, 3-4 May.
Carnevale, A. and Stone S. (1995) The American Mosaic. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Cohn, D’Vera and Fears D. (2001) “Multiracial Growth Seen;lll Census”. Washing/on Post, March 13: AI.
Goldembiewski, R.T. (1995) Managing Diversity in Organizations. Tuscaloosa, Alabama; University of Alabama Press.
Goodman. A.E. (1996) Diversity in Governance: A Status Report, American Council on Education.
Jemiai, Y. (2001) “Balancing Unity and Diversity in the Civil Service” paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Managing Diversity in the Civil service. New York: UN Headquarters, 3-4 May.
Jolmson, L. (1997) “To Fulfill Those Rights: Commencement Address at Howard University”, in F. Beckwith and T. Jones eds; Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination? Amherst, New York: Prolllethesu Books.
Moleketi, G.F. (2001) “Tackling Diversity” paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Mai/aging Diversity in the Civil Service. New York: United Nations Headquarters, 3-4 May.
Onah, F. (2004) “Managing Work Force Diversity in Public Organizations in Nigeria”, in African Journal of Political and Administrative Studies Vol.1, No.l.
Ospina, O. (2002) “Clarifying Some Terms for the Discussion of Diversity in Civil Service”, paper presented at the United Nations Expert Group JVleeting on Managing Diversity in the Cil’il Service, New York: United Nations Headquarters. 3-4 May.
Reckard, E.S. (2000) “Economic Boom Leaves Disabled Workers Behind” Los Angeles Times, November 18.
Usman, YB. (1994). “The Federation of Nigeria and the Lessons of Historical Experiences of the people of Nigeria”, in J. Elaigwu, et al, (eds) Federalism and Nation-Building in Nigeria. Abuja: NCIR.
Uzoigwe, G.N. (1994) “The Historical Background to the National Question in Nigeria” paper presented to the seminar on Economy, the Contemporary Nigeria, Nsukka, April 10-13.
Walsh, 1. (1995) Mastering Diversity: Managing for Success Under ADA and other Anti-Discrimination Laws. Santa Monica, California: Men-it Publishing.