 |
当前位置：首页 >> 个人服务 >> 预览个人简历信息 提醒：任何一种简历保密设置，都不会影响您在线投递简历。 |
|
| 个人信息 |
| 姓 名： |
徐译员 [编号]:2864 |
性 别： |
女 |
|
| 擅长专业： |
英语语言文学 |
出生年月： |
1988/1/1 |
|
| 民 族： |
汉族 |
所在地区： |
上海 上海 |
|
| 文化程度： |
硕士 |
所学专业： |
英语 |
|
| 毕业时间： |
2010 |
毕业学校： |
南开大学外国语学院 |
|
| 第一外语： |
英语 |
等级水平： |
专业八级 |
|
|
| 口译等级： |
中级 |
工作经历： |
2 年 |
|
|
| 翻译库信息 |
| 可翻译语种： |
英语 |
|
|
| 目前所在地： |
上海 上海 |
| 可提供服务类型： |
笔译、口译、家教 |
| 每周可提供服务时间： |
目前假期皆可，学习期间周六日都可、晚上时间充裕 |
| 证书信息 |
| 证书名称： |
专业四级 |
|
| 获证时间： |
2008/9/1 |
|
| 获得分数： |
良好 |
|
|
| 证书名称： |
专业八级 |
|
| 获证时间： |
2009/6/1 |
|
| 获得分数： |
良好 |
|
|
| 工作经历 |
| 工作时期： |
2009/7/1--2009/8/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
狗不理集团 |
|
| 公司性质： |
民营企业 |
| 所属行业： |
翻译 |
| 所在部门： |
迎宾部 |
|
| 职位： |
兼职翻译 |
| 自我评价： |
认真负责出色地完成任务 |
|
|
| 笔译案例信息 |
| 案例标题： |
A case study in the UK airline industry |
|
| 原文： |
The Authors
Asma Bajawa, “GlobalAir”
Jean Woodall, Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr Mark Saunders and to Dr Liz Docherty of Oxford Brookes Business School, for comments on an earlier draft.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on case study research of employment downsizing and the implications for equal opportunity and diversity management conducted in the UK airline industry during 2002/2003.
Design/methodology/approach – Review of literature on downsizing and equal opportunity and diversity management followed by identification of a number of research questions which are answered with reference to secondary analysis of labour market data and interviews with key informants from senior management and line management.
Findings – A planned approach to downsizing had been adopted that was strongly influenced by the human resources function in terms of equal opportunity and diversity management. An adverse impact on different employee groups had been avoided in order to sustain the diversity of the workforce.
Research limitations/implications – The research focuses on the management of downsizing and equal opportunity and diversity management. It addresses the perceptions of managers involved in developing and implementing policy, but does not examine the perceptions of other employees.
Practical implications – There are some reflections on ways in which equal opportunity and diversity management policy might adapt to organisational change and downsizing.
Originality/value – This paper brings together two scholarly debates on downsizing and equal opportunity and diversity management, and provides case study evidence of how an equal opportunity and diversity management agenda is implemented during organisational restructuring and downsizing.
Article Type:
Research paper
Keyword(s):
Downsizing; Equal opportunities; Airlines; United Kingdom.
Journal:
Employee Relations
Volume:
28
Number:
1
Year:
2006
pp:
46-61
Copyright ©
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:
0142-5455
Introduction
The global economic downturn, increased competition, and the increased risk of terrorism have put the survival of many airline carriers into question. Thus, it is not surprising that some have developed strategies to downsize and restructure their businesses. Downsizing has become a popular choice and apparently easy method for many organisations to cope with unfavourable business conditions. However, policy options may be constrained by other human resource considerations such as maintaining levels of workforce trust, commitment, retention of talent, succession planning, career development, and developing a diverse workforce. Downsizing initiatives stand in stark contradiction to many human resource management (HRM), and particularly human resource development (HRD), interventions founded on the principle of conserving and developing human and social capital. This paper explores what happens when equal opportunity (EO) and diversity management policy and practice are confronted by the need of a major airline, GlobalAir (pseudonym), to downsize during a two-year period between 2002 and 2003. It reports on the interface between two corporate initiatives on EO and diversity on the one hand, and downsizing on the other, and their implications for the workforce. The paper concludes with some reflections on the need for robust monitoring of EO and diversity management initiatives and the need to recognise that organisational change, restructuring, and downsizing are increasingly common phenomena.
Theoretical framework
This research problem is informed a by a review of two sets of literature: that on human resource downsizing, and that on EO and diversity management. It provides a strong argument that both literatures tend to be relatively silent on their mutual implications: the downsizing literature has some acknowledgement of EO implications, while the EO and diversity management literature tends to ignore the issue of workforce reductions.
Downsizing (or “rightsizing”, as it is referred to in some literature) has become a frequent option for organisations to cope with unfavourable business conditions (Zeffane and Mayo, 1994). Downsizing first appeared on a large scale in the 1980s, and has been recurrent since then. The majority of organisations contemplating downsizing anticipate cost-savings by means of a reduction in fixed staff overheads, and are attempting to reposition themselves as “lean and mean” in order to gain competitive advantage in uncertain markets. In essence downsizing is the reduction of an organisation's staff through various methods such as outplacement, early retirement, redundancy (severance), and suspending short-term contracts, but which is done with the purpose of improving organisational performance (Kozlowski et al., 1993).
While it has often been described as a reactive or tactical, and not a strategic solution, there are indeed three broad strategies that firms tend to adopt when downsizing (Cameron, 1994). The workforce reduction strategy is often the first choice for organisations that want a “quick fix”, and this is usually implemented at all levels of the organisation without consideration for the impact on key skill groups and individuals. The work redesign strategy aims to reduce work instead of cutting the number of employees, and focuses on the mid-term by phasing out functions, hierarchical levels, departments or divisions, and redesigning tasks, combining units and adopting a shorter working week. The systematic strategy is more long-term in focus, aiming to ensure that a repetitive cycle of workforce reduction will not have to be carried out in the future. A major concern is to simplify all organisational processes.
Yet while there is much agreement that downsizing is mainly driven by a desire for cost reduction, these benefits are not always achieved (Burke and Nelson, 1997), and the measures used to assess the effectiveness of downsizing initiatives do not necessarily capture the impact on all stakeholders (Shaw and Barrett-Power, 1997). Furthermore there is much evidence that downsizing raises serious human resource issues in organisations, and especially among the surviving employees (Drew, 1994; McKinley et al., 1998; Thornhill et al., 1998). The negative effects can last long after the time when the workforce reductions were carried out, and can include increased sickness absence, demotivation (Zeffane and Mayo, 1994a), and feelings of betrayal and anger resulting from insecurity and confusion. However, on the other hand there is some evidence (Dewettinck and Buyens, 2002) that some employees can respond positively, seeing downsizing as an opportunity for personal growth.
A recurrent theme in this literature is the need to ensure an equitable approach to downsizing. Three groups of employees who are particularly vulnerable to downsizing can be identified. The first group includes those who traditionally have been seen as over-represented in the secondary labour market: recent immigrants, ethnic minorities, ageing workers and women. The second includes those who work on a freelance or short-term contract basis, and the third is newly-appointed workers. Zeffane and Mayo (1994) and Applebaum and Fewster (2002) have gone further and suggested ways in which this could be managed to ensure that equal opportunities employment rights are not infringed, including strategic planning detailing fundamental criteria and principles, human resource monitoring of the impact and regular audits. However, there has been little further discussion of how downsizing can co-exist with EO and diversity management initiatives.
Turning now to EO and diversity management, the latter surfaced as an alternative approach to traditional group-based EO management in the 1990s. The traditional EO approach has been criticised in the UK as being at best superficially effective, focusing mainly on women, ethnic minorities and the disabled (Liff, 1996), and at worst as serving to consolidate or increase discrimination rather than to promote equality (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Collins and Wray-Bliss, 2000). It is popularly held to rest on a moral concern for social justice between different groups of employees, while the more recent diversity management approach rests on the “business case”; ensuring that individual differences are recognised and utilised to ensure effective outcomes for the organisation. However, a recent review of the debate (Kirton and Greene, 2005) indicates that there is much contradiction and confusion. The classic distinction (Jewson and Mason, 1986) between the “liberal” approach (focusing on promoting social justice by means of fair procedures that treat everyone the same) and “radical” approaches (focusing more on distribution of reward to achieve equality of outcome) has been blurred in both public policy and organisational practice (Liff and Wajcman, 1996). The current consensus around diversity appears to emphasise four main points (Kirton and Greene, 2005): an emphasis on the centrality of the individual who should be positively recognised, nurtured and rewarded; a move away from standardised procedures in order to respond to the individual basis of difference; an organisational policy agenda that is business-driven rather than resting on moral claims to social justice; and policy action that goes beyond redressing the imbalance, towards changing the culture and “mainstreaming” equality policies. So for example, MacDougall (1996) sees diversity management as about principles such as valuing people and enabling them to work to their full potential so that this will make the workplace more inviting, and also benefit the long-term vitality and profitability of organisations. With respect to a focus on the individual that avoids a standardised approach (Kirton and Greene's first two points), Gagnon and Cornelius (2002) have argued for a “capabilities” approach whereby diversity management policies revolve around identifying the choices people have, facilitating these choices, and providing the organisational environment in which individuals can make the fullest use of their individual sets of capabilities. This assumes an organisational culture where individuals are respected and have the possibility to engage in dialogue, and where the organisational environment is stable and offers possibilities of employment continuity and career development. These assumptions do not always hold. Sinclair (2000) has also accused diversity management of implying that all differences can be managed by equivalent processes, and thereby neglecting power, trivialising systematic sources of disadvantage, and recasting diversity as an individual issue solved by individuals exercising choice.
Turning to an examination of organisational approaches to diversity policy, Liff (1996) has provided a typology involving different policy goals and objectives. The first could be described as dissolving differences: from this approach any differences in needs are viewed as being best addressed at the individual level. The second approach is accommodating difference by opening up opportunities to all groups, while the third can be described as utilising difference where there is more recognition of the social basis of difference and how this needs to be overcome to prevent the perpetuation of inequality. The final approach is based on valuing difference and using it as a basis for different treatment in order to redress inequalities. While these are not presented as mutually exclusive, some commentators have observed that the approaches of valuing, accommodating and utilising difference can be described as an extension of a traditional equality approach (Woodhams and Danieli, 2003), and only dissolving difference is qualitatively different.
Much of the discussion on managing diversity has centred on definitions and distinctions (Mavin and Girling, 2000; Maxwell et al., 2003), and the case for the superiority of the diversity management approach has been made mainly on the basis of the business case. The business case for diversity is presented as unassailable, in that it will automatically maximise the return on investment in human capital, enhance the recruitment and retention of top talent, increase creativity and innovation, improve access to a changing market place and improve business resilience and flexibility (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Gardenswartz and Rowe, 1998). There is some supporting evidence in the USA, for example Wright et al. (1995) compared stock returns on organisations which did make special efforts in diversity management with those that did not, and found them to be considerably more profitable, and better able to attract and maintain the talented people needed for organisational survival. However, despite the potential advantages, numerous process losses, including increased interpersonal conflict, miscommunication, higher levels of stress, and slower decision making, have been associated with diversity management initiatives (Neck et al., 1997). To date there has been little discussion of the resilience of the business case for diversity management when organisations are undergoing radical change that involves cutbacks and downsizing. Related research on organisational restructuring (which may or may not involve downsizing) has indicated that sustaining even an EO culture may be difficult in times of change. For example, downsizing can be akin to a “lottery” for women where there are occasional winners, but usually losers (Woodall et al., 1997), and the associated organisational restructuring can lead to job losses in business functions where women are concentrated; women can be excluded from the informal organisational networks that spring up at such times and which provide access to career development opportunities within the organisation; and formal EO policy can be rendered ineffective as structures and roles change. It is therefore reasonable to argue that if women have been disadvantaged, then other diverse groups such as ethnic minorities, the disabled, older workers, and employees on short-term contracts are also likely to be disadvantaged in a similar way.
In the UK there is little evidence of employers abandoning equal opportunities policy in favour of diversity management and “… unlike in the US context, employers appear to understand diversity as an equality strategy, complementing and supplementing, rather than substituting traditional EO policies” (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p. 205). Unsurprisingly, official organisational policy statements on EO and diversity management also belie organisational practice. The rhetoric of individually focused diversity management sits alongside a social justice approach emphasising being a “good employer” operating “best practice” (Dickens, 1999; Liff, 1996). However, as Dickens (1994) and Docherty (2004) point out, this “business case” may well be contingent upon short term business conditions, and a desire to ensure legislative compliance. As such it remains an equal opportunities agenda.
Research design
As the nature of this research problem is exploratory and descriptive, and the context is organisational, a case study research design was selected (Bajawa, 2003). The research site was GlobalAir (pseudonym), a large international airline with an established reputation for diversity management initiatives, and which implemented a major downsizing of its workforce during 2002-2003. The above review of the literatures on downsizing and on EO and diversity management raises a number of questions to pursue in empirical research:RQ1. Did GlobalAir avoid a “knee jerk” (Cameron, 1994) approach to downsizing, or did they adopt a more strategic approach focusing either on work redesign or a long-term systematic strategy (Cameron, 1994)? RQ2. What was GlobalAir's approach to equal opportunities and diversity management, and what evidence is there that it is focused more on dissolving as opposed to valuing, utilising or accommodating difference (Liff, 1996)? RQ3. Did the managers formulating the policy for downsizing at GlobalAir recognise the business benefits of a diverse workforce, and if so, how was this built into the Global Air policy for downsizing in 2002-2004? RQ4. What has been the impact of downsizing on different employee groups in the GlobalAir workforce, and are certain groups at greater risk of job discrimination and redundancy, irrespective of their performance and qualifications (Zeffane and Mayo, 1994; Applebaum and Fewster, 2002)? Different sets of data were required to answer each of the research questions, including an analysis of internal labour market data (RQ4), and interviews with key informants who were the architects of the policies on downsizing (RQ3 and RQ1) and diversity management (RQ2). A purposive sample of four line managers responsible for implementing headcount reductions in customer services and operations, the business area most affected by downsizing (RQ4). The principal researcher was employed in customer services at GlobalAir. This provided exceptionally good access to company labour market and policy data, and to interview participants. Problems of researcher bias were addressed by confirming the analysis with the interview participants and with the co-researcher.
Secondary analysis of the workforce profile data of January 2002 and January 2003 was carried out to scrutinise the change in the absolute and relative proportion of staff across all major departments in terms of gender, ethnicity, disability and contractual basis of employment (fixed term versus permanent). Primary research was conducted by means of interviews and respondents were selected according to the criteria outlined in Table I. The analysis of interview data was carried out by using the framework method (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994).
Findings
The strategy adopted for downsizing in GlobalAir 2002-2004
Air travel is one of the world's largest industries, generating over $300 billion in revenues in 2001 alone, and passenger numbers have risen at an annual rate of 7 per cent over the last three decades. It is a highly complex and also highly regulated industry. Scheduled passenger services constitute the most important sector of the UK airline industry, and accounted for over 70 per cent of the £15.2 billion revenue generated by UK airlines in 2001. The revolutionary changes in passenger services since the mid-1980s and the emergence of “no frills” carriers has created greater choice for customers and fierce competition. The combination of this with a global economic slowdown, health concerns (such as the SARS epidemic and fears of deep vein thrombosis) and, of course, the threat of terrorist attack, have severely affected consumer confidence and led to a steep fall in passenger numbers and forward bookings.
GlobalAir is one of the world's biggest passenger airlines, carrying more passengers from one country to another than any other airline. With a long history rooted in public ownership, it had been privatised in 1987, and in line with other major carriers, by 1999 had formed a global alliance with a number of other international airlines, and also operated franchise and code share agreements with several others. With six major brands, it was a global company. Worldwide GlobalAir employing just below 57,000 in 2001, of which 80 per cent were based in the UK. The employee base was very diverse, with a high proportion of women and different cultures, religions, races, ages and abilities (although at senior level the representation of ethnic minorities was more limited).
GlobalAir has suffered financially like many of its competitors in recent years, and their reliance upon the North American market severely dented financial performance after September 11, 2001. Planned growth had already been severely cut back after 1999, but the events of September 11, 2001 prompted more accelerated cutbacks. Within fiev months senior management had launched a downsizing and restructuring package. This included annual cost savings of £650 million over two years to address the company's cost base and achieve a 10 per cent operating margin; 13,000 job losses (23 per cent of the global workforce of 56,700 in August 2001) of which over one-third (36 per cent) were to be found in head office and support departments located within the UK; and a significant restructuring of the short haul business. The aim was to achieve the staff reductions by voluntary means, working closely with the trade unions (GlobalAir is highly unionised), and to take account of diversity issues in the downsizing strategy.
In essence, GlobalAir responded very quickly, but did not take a “knee-jerk” reaction to downsizing. The approach was planned over a five-month period, and the implementation was rolled out in a measured way over two years. The strategy for cost reduction focused upon £450 million in staff costs, £100 million through distribution costs, and £100 million in procurement costs. However, although this was primarily a workforce reduction strategy (it involved a total loss of just under 4,300 posts within the UK from 45,800 to 41,497) it was combined with elements of work redesign to bring about new ways of working. The organisation structure contained 11 directorates, each containing a number of departments. Several departments were merged, especially in the broad area of Customer Services and Marketing. For example, nine separate departments within the Customer Services and Operations directorate were transformed into six new departments: including expanded Inflight Services and Operations Departments embracing a broader range of activity, and four other much reduced departments responsible for operations at the major London terminals, other UK regions, and the international and short haul business. The effect was to reduce the workforce in the Customer Services and Operations Directorate from 24,270 to 23,007. While the total employed in the new Marketing and Commercial Development directorate rose from 396 to 510, this was largely due to the relocation of a large group of staff from the Strategy Directorate which was the disbanded:
I wouldn't call it a knee-jerk reaction – it was fundamentally crucial that we did something … it [the downsizing strategy] is a manifestation of a failure of the management to own up to the lack of focus upon performance, the imbalance in the business, the building up of a huge debt mountain (senior manager responsible for the development of the downsizing strategy).
We came at the restructuring from a job basis … so these are the jobs that need doing. Category A jobs were unchanged, B changed but shrunk, and C were new jobs, and that process, and that process made it clear (senior manager responsible for developing criteria and guidelines for headcount reductions).
The approach was systematic focusing on work redesign as well as workforce reduction, and it was led by the HR department. However, the “voluntary” approach to workforce reduction excluded contract staff and the senior management team.
The approach to EO and diversity management
GlobalAir has a long history of EO and diversity management going back to the late 1980s, which contrasts quite strongly with other manufacturing companies. Senior managers demonstrated a strong commitment to EO and diversity management, and awareness training was “mainstreamed” through many areas of HR policy such as recruitment and selection, and performance review. However, not all line managers exhibited an unconditional commitment to these policies:
We've had someone looking at equal opportunities in the last 10 years, and have been monitoring and keeping track and records over the last 13-14 years … And where we have been going in the last 2 years is almost…from an equal opportunities base in terms of all the legislative [requirements] into managing diversity … [which is] all about recognising and valuing difference and is along way from Equal Opportunities (senior HR manager 1 responsible for diversity policy development and implementation).
I spent over 20 years in the automotive industry, mostly in and around the Midlands and came to GlobalAir in 2001. In terms of the contrast between the two companies, I found GlobalAir to be leaps and bounds in front in terms of the way in which it treats its people. I was shocked at that, as I have been familiar with a tougher environment…this organisation has gone too far the other way – it treads very carefully before taking a decision against people. I can see the contrast between the two sides, and the pluses and minuses (line manager 4 main terminal operations).
The long-standing involvement in EO and diversity management meant that there was considerable effort devoted to systematic auditing of staff, producing a breakdown by grade, job, and site on the basis of gender, ethnicity, disability, and type of employment contract (but not age and sexual orientation), and to ensure that the organisation complied with the law. However, there was no evidence that these data were integrated with that held in relation to other aspects of HR policy such as access to training and development, appraisal outcomes, labour turnover and sickness absence. There were however EO and diversity “champions” and consultative forums located in different departments, and for different categories of staff (such as a disability users group). Regular presentations were made to staff groups and management to raise awareness. Other HR policies such as different types of employment contract and opportunities for flexible working were perceived to assist in accommodating diversity. This resulted in a high proportion of women and (to a lesser extent) ethnic minorities making career progress into middle and senior management. Thus, when downsizing, maintaining the GlobalAir reputation for EO and diversity management was a priority. Interviews with the two HR managers who were responsible for EO and diversity management, revealed some interesting findings:
The representation of women has improved significantly over the last 15 years … [but] in different parts of the workforce it differs hugely … it reflects social trends and attitudes: the most striking example is the large number of women in cabin crew and the small number in cargo … we have improved at most levels of management quite significantly over the last decade … Whereas with women it's what type of job it is, with ethnic minorities representation its what type of job it is and where it is geographically. So for equivalent jobs [at the two major London terminals] you see a different type of representation reflecting the makeup of the different communities … We have a good understanding of women, a reasonable understanding of ethnic minorities, and a poor understanding of disabled people in the workforce, and the problems and definitions are much greater in that respect … the topic that has preoccupied us the most is the representation of ethnic minorities in management (senior HR manager 2 responsible got diversity policy development and implementation).
However, the approach tended to be group-based (focusing on women, ethnic minorities and the disabled) indicating that the main driver appeared to be concerns about legislative compliance, and therefore essentially an equal opportunities, rather than diversity management approach. The major concern was to value and to some extent accommodate and utilise as opposed to dissolve differences. The two HR managers also had differing views on the potential business benefit of a diverse workforce, and on the whole their policy orientation was more towards EO than diversity management:
Twelve or 13 years ago people were enormously big for the business case on peoples' diversity, and that was almost all you ever heard people talk about. I think the business case always needs to be put in balance, and I have a hierarchy of reasons to take diversity seriously, and at the bottom of my hierarchy is that as a company we have legal obligations in relation to diversity, and to me it's the least important reason for taking it seriously, but a reason not to forget. Above that [in the hierarchy] is that it's good as a business perspective to do it, and at the top of the hierarchy I have a moral view that we have some fairly fundamental obligations to each other in terms of respect, and therefore it is the right thing to do (senior HR manager 2 responsible for diversity policy and implementation).
I don't think there are any [business] disadvantages [associated with equal opportunity and diversity management] they are all advantages – things like retention of employees, reduced training costs, attraction in the first place … the right calibre of people and the younger generation will not go to companies who have moved forward on the diversity agenda … The other big issue is reflecting our customers – as I believe that we are still perceived as middle class white male, predominantly (senior HR manager 1 responsible for diversity policy and implementation).
Implementing downsizing alongside EO and diversity management
The HR function maintained a strong steer here, setting clear criteria and providing guidance on how these were to be implemented. They participated in meetings with the senior managers working on the headcount reductions, and made some recommendations with respect to the criteria used and how they were applied. An HR professional also had oversight of the manner in which each directorate and department approached downsizing so that they could both support and challenge line managers. Standard EO tools such as workforce audits and monitoring were used and a downsizing “good practice” guide was developed and applied. In making reductions to workforce numbers GlobalAir had decided to take a voluntary approach to achieve its targets, without regard to the diversity of the workforce profile. By implication this might have led to a disproportionate effect on certain groups. For example, it was anticipated that women might be more likely to opt for severance than men because they might not be the primary household earner. However, there were a number of attempts to mitigate this by first allowing HR to challenge decisions on staff reductions for each department, requesting a formal justification wherever the effect appeared to be disproportionate. This aimed to ensure that any critical skills were retained (yet without preventing high performers from leaving). Secondly by offering a number of flexible working options to reduce headcount, such as part-time working and unpaid leave the HR team managed to attenuate the effects on certain groups such as women. So for example, the headcount reductions in Cabin Crew were achieved by means of moving to part-time contracts alone, with the outcome that 50 per cent cabin staff ended up on part time contracts. In another case, the danger of drastically reducing the numbers of ethnic minority middle managers across the support function was avoided, because most of the reduction in this function was related to the rationalisation of a network relationship with other airlines, and took place at a terminal where the workforce was predominantly white. In addition, all managers making headcount reductions were expected to have attended the mandatory corporate equal opportunities training. The two HR managers only mentioned one serious problem. This related to concerns expressed by senior managers who belonged to ethnic minorities about their under representation at senior management level. However, the researchers were assured that each individual case was reviewed by one of the company directors to ensure that the process had been fair, bearing mind that, along with contract staff, senior management were outside the scope of the “voluntary” approach to downsizing, and were selected on the basis of their “performance”:
[It is easier to do something about] under-representation … in the context of a company that is growing … Increasing representation in a growing population is relatively easy [in a] static population it is more difficult, and it will take a longer period of time, and once you start to downsize, you are in a more difficult situation. Downsizing makes it more difficult to make make progress on the representation issues … we look back at history [to a previous downsizing exercise] and can see that we did have more women and people from ethnic minorities self-selecting out in the downsizing period. What happened to the senior level of ethnic minorities [was that] we started off with 11 and ended up with five who left, and that statistically looked like over half of ethnic minority senior managers, but just a quarter of white senior managers had left. (senior HR manager 2 responsible for diversity policy and implementation).
Overall the approach was greeted very positively by the four line managers who reported that they found the support from HR to be very helpful and clear. One line manager was even encouraged by this to conduct his own audit before completing the headcount reductions to ensure that there had not been a disproportionate effect on any particular groups within the department:
I got feedback saying that it was done fairly and quickly. It's reassuring that we were involved at every stage, and we were able to resolve as much as possible (line manager, Inflight Services).
We wanted to make sure that there was no sexual prejudice or bias within the organisation, and that's not always obvious so we wanted to take a snap-shot before and after…and before we confirmed everyone in position, we wanted to check we had not go rid of disproportionately more women, or more disabled, or people with different ethnic backgrounds. We wanted to ensure that the percentages were the same as when we finished, and if not why not (line manager 1 – Inflight Services).
I guess speaking within in-flight services and a couple of other departments we had already been through a couple of restructurings, and therefore had skilled ourselves up on how to do this … the managers have communication skills as a crucial part of their job … they spent a long time communicating and making them understand and extra briefings were in place to take them through the process (line manager 2 – Inflight Services).
The line managers who were interviewed were also able to identify the business benefits of having a diverse organisation, and only one of the four hinted at potential problems involved in managing a diverse workforce.
The impact on different employee groups
The researchers had access to two employee data sets for January 2002 and March 2003. One of the immediate problems was that data could only be compared at an aggregate level, because the mergers and relocation of different departments across directorates made detailed comparison of change impossible. Also, the strategic approach involving redesign of work processes and job roles, further complicated matters. In addition, missing data for ethnicity and disability (because the requirement to report was voluntary) made monitoring difficult. Tables II-V summarise the overall effects on each group for the organisation in general, and then for management (NB “management” excludes those in “senior management” positions). As mentioned above, the process of downsizing for senior management was dependent upon evaluation of performance. However, some separate observations are made about that group below.
There appeared to be little effect upon the proportion of women in management grades. Even within the support functions of the business where women were strongly represented, the relative proportion of women remained unchanged at around 67 per cent in HR and 56 per cent in Customer Services. Contrary to the literature, women were not more likely than men to opt for redundancy. This was attributed to the availability of flexible employment options, but also may be due to the growing importance of women's contribution in dual career households dependent upon their income.
As mentioned above, separate arrangements were made for downsizing of senior management positions. Quite serious cuts were made at this level as the total of 135 positions at this level in 2002 were subsequently reduced to 68 in 2003. Yet despite their substantial reduction at this level the relative proportion of women was marginally improved (they held 35 out of the 68 posts).
As already alluded to, the major concern was around the marked reduction in positions at senior managerial level held by ethnic minorities (a shift from 11 in 2002 out of the total 135 posts down to five out of a total of 68.
The negligible presence of disabled employees among the senior managers was unaffected by the downsizing, but the main issue is the prevalent under-reporting of disability which is an acknowledged problem elsewhere (Kirton and Greene, 2005).
It is quite interesting to note the release of over 1,000 fixed term contract posts (held mainly by staff on managerial grades) appeared to have been counterbalanced by an increase of part-time employment opportunities for non-managerial staff (mainly Inflight Services and Customer Services). However, the proportion of part-time posts in management fell substantially.
Conclusions and recommendations
It is clear from the above account that GlobalAir handled downsizing in a manner that was proactive as opposed to reactive (Kozlowski et al., 1993), and sensitive to issues of EO and diversity management. In terms of the use of targeting, choice of method and the nature of the selection criteria (Thornhill et al., 1998) plus the process and outcome (Zeffane and Mayo, 1994), the organisation had endeavoured to implement downsizing in a way that sustained the diversity of the workforce. This was a planned workforce reduction strategy incorporating a focus upon job redesign (Cameron, 1994), and the findings were contrary to those found in earlier US studies in respect of a negative impact upon employee relations (Thornhill et al., 1998). However, there are a number of issues of concern for the future of diversity management at GlobalAir.
The first concerns the difficulty of monitoring the impact of downsizing upon the workforce profile, and there are two aspects of this that are problematic. In particular, downsizing changes the shape and structure of the organisation. The merger, relocation and even disappearance of departments make it difficult to compare “before” and “after”. Also, the voluntary basis for reporting of data on ethnicity and disability, can affect the reliability of statistical data. Therefore when changes take place in organisational structures, it makes it very difficult to find the evidence base for the effectiveness of diversity management initiatives, endorsing the earlier findings of Woodall et al. (1997). In addition in GlobalAir with the exception of those in senior management, the employment data were not differentiated by grade, further obscuring the impact of the workforce reductions on the career structure.
Second, EO and diversity management is more than an exercise in arithmetic. While the overall proportions of diversity may have been preserved at all levels of the organisation, where glass ceilings exist (especially on the boundary between middle and senior management) the cuts in absolute numbers of women and ethnic minorities may well take years to redress. This was alluded to by one of the HR managers interviewed, in relation to the ethnic minority presence in senior management. Success in building up the absolute numbers of ethnic minorities at this level will depend on adherence to non-discriminatory selection criteria, a transparent system of performance management, ample opportunities for training and access to career development opportunities that guarantee visibility. There was no guarantee that these were present in GlobalAir at the conclusion of the downsizing exercise. On reflection, there was nothing in the downsizing exercise that indicated an approach to diversity management based on dissolving difference (Liff, 1996; Docherty, 2004), and while there was some evidence to suggest valuing, utilising or accommodating difference, essentially the approach to downsizing reflected a more traditional EO concern with balance.
Furthermore, the business environment conditions that confront the world airline industry are unlikely to change. Competition remains fierce, profit margins continue to be tight, and further restructuring and downsizing maybe just around the corner. All this does not bode well for EO and diversity management, and there is a danger that the main successes in this respect will remain confined to the lower reaches of organisations, with limits to the gains achieved further up the organisational hierarchy. In particular the disappearance of part-time positions in management, and the exemption of senior management positions from a “voluntary” approach to downsizing, may provide a major setback to the career advancement of women and ethnic minorities, in particular – a setback that may take years to redress. In these circumstances this case would indicate that HR professionals are more likely to resort to more traditional EO measures. In any case the EO and diversity policy agenda will need to engage more actively with unfavourable business conditions.
Finally, this research has focused on the management of downsizing and diversity. It has not examined the perceptions of those on the receiving end of the policies who either left or are survivors. Their experience may well affect the credibility of company policies on EO and diversity, and place obstacles in the way of achieving a culture receptive to equal opportunities and diversity management (Woodall et al., 1997).
Table ISampling frame for semi-structured interviews
Table IIComparison of gender profiles before and after downsizing
Table IIIComparison of ethnic minority profiles before and after downsizing
Table IVComparison of disability profiles before and after downsizing
Table VComparison of contract profiles before and after downsizing
|
|
| 译文： |
英国航空业的范例分析
作者
Asma Bajawa “全球航空”
Jean Woodall 英国牛津布鲁克斯大学商学院
致谢
本文作者对牛津布鲁克斯大学商学院的Mark Saunders博士和Liz Docherty博士对于初稿提出的意见表示感谢。
摘要
目的：该论文的目的是报道2002和2003年期间，由英国航空业管理下的缩小招聘规模、机会均等和多元化管理的含义的范例研究分析。
设计/方法论/步骤：查阅有关缩小规模、机会均等和多元化管理的文献，随后通过查阅劳动力市场数据的二级分析、采访高层管理和部门管理的主要消息提供者，来解答一系列研究问题。
研究结果：人们已经采用了一种有计划的步骤来缩小规模，这在机会均等和多元化管理方面来说，极大地受到人力资源功能的影响。为了保持劳动力的多样性，我们已经避免了对于不同雇员小组的负面影响。
研究局限性/结果：该研究集中于缩小规模的管理以及机会均等、多元化管理。它解决参与发展和实施政策的管理人员的观念，但是不考察其他雇员的观念。
实践结果：在一些方式上有所反映，即机会均等、多元化管理政策可能适应组织更换和缩小规模。
独创性/价值：该论文将两个学术上的有关缩小规模和机会均等、多元化管理的争议结合起来，对于在机构重组和缩小规模期间怎么样实施机会均等、多元化管理，提供了范例分析证据。
Article Type: 论文类型
Research paper 研究型论文
Keyword(s): 关键词
Downsizing; Equal opportunities; Airlines; United Kingdom.
缩小规模；机会均等；航空公司；联合王国
Journal: 杂志期刊
Employee Relations 雇员关系
28卷第1号 2006年 页码46-61
Copyright © 版权 翡翠有限出版集团
国际标准期刊编号0142-5455
导论
全球经济危机，激烈的竞争以及日益增加的恐怖主义的风险给许多航空运输公司的生存带来了问题。因此，一些公司制定对策对他们的商业缩小规模、进行重组也不足为奇。缩小规模已经成为许多企业广泛的选择以及显然的简易方式来处理棘手的生意状况。然而，政策选择也可能受其他人力资源考虑的限制，如保持劳动力信任、贡献的程度、人才保留、接替计划、职业发展以及多元化劳动力的发展。缩小规模的倡议与许多人力资源管理完全不一致，尤其是人力资源发展，根据保留和发展人力和社会资本的原则我们发现了干涉。本文探讨在2002到2003年两年期间，当机会均等和多元化管理政策和实践遭遇一个主要的航空公司，全球航空（化名）需要缩小规模时会发生什么。它报道两个企业倡议交接处，一方面有关机会均等和多样化，另一方面关于缩小规模，以及他们对劳动力带来的结果。本文总结反映出对于机会均等、多元化管理倡议的强壮监督的需要，以及认同企业更换、重组的需要，同时认识到缩小规模时逐步成为一种普遍的现象
理论框架
该研究的问题由两套文献的评论意见提出：关于人力资源的缩小规模，以及关于机会均等和多元化管理。它提供了强有力的争议，认为两套文献对于他们共同的结果趋向于相对沉默：缩小规模的文献部分承认机会均等的结果，而机会均等和多元化管理文献趋向于忽略劳动力减少的问题。
缩小规模（或者“适当规模”，一些文献中所提到）已经成为企业处理不利商务情况一个常见的选择(Zeffane and Mayo, 1994)。20世纪80年代，缩小规模首次大规模出现，并且从那以后再度发生。考虑缩小规模的绝大多数企业期望通过减少固定成员管理费用的方式来节省成本，并且尝试重新将自己定位为“精干和出色”，以便在不确定的市场获得竞争优势。
然而这总是被描述为做出回应的或者战术性的举措，而不是战略上的解决方法。事实上，企业进行缩小规模时，趋向于采用三种广泛的策略(Cameron, 1994)。对于需要“快速整修”的企业，减少劳动力往往是首先的选择，并且所有规模的企业实施时不考虑对于主要技术小组和个人影响。工作重新设计策略旨在减少工作而不是减少雇员数量，通过逐步废除职能、等级层次、部门，以及重新设计任务，联合各单元，采用更短的工作周期，专注于中期。系统的策略则更专注于长期发展，旨在确保将来不会出现减少劳动力的循环圈。主要的考虑是简化所有机构程序。
尽管人们都不少共识，认为缩小规模主要是由减少成本的意愿所驱使，然而并不总是能够达到这些利益(Burke and Nelson, 1997)。那些用于评估缩小规模倡议有效性的举措并不一定能够虏获对于所有股东的影响(Shaw and Barrett-Power, 1997)。更重要的是，明显的证据表明缩小规模会引发企业内严重的人力资源问题，尤其是在现任的雇员中间(Drew, 1994; McKinley et al., 1998; Thornhill et al., 1998)。在采取减少劳动力措施后，负面影响会持续很长一段时间，包括病假人数增加、消极因素增加Zeffane and Mayo, 1994a)，由不安全感和困惑引起的背叛感和怒气也会增加。然而另一方面，有一些证据表明(Dewettinck and Buyens, 2002)一些雇员能够积极地应对，把缩小规模看做是个人成长的一个机遇。
该文献中不断出现的主题是确保一个公正的方式进行缩小规模的需要。我们可以确定三个小组的雇员对于缩小规模的举措特别脆弱。第一组包括那些在二级劳动力市场传统上认作是任职过多的人：近期的移民，少数民族，年老的工人和女性。第二组包括那些自由职业者和基于短期合同的工作者。第三组是新任命的工人。Zeffane and Mayo (1994) 和 Applebaum and Fewster (2002)分析得更为深入，并且给出建议，使这些得到管理来确保机会均等就业权不受侵犯，包括详述基本标准和原则的战略规划，监督影响和定期审计的人力资源。然而，还有更深一层的讨论如何将缩小规模和机会均等、多元化管理倡议共存。
现在转向机会均等和多元化管理，在20世纪90年代，后者对传统的基于小组的机会均等管理以可供选择的方式浮现。传统的机会均等方式在英国遭到批判，认为充其量是表面上的有效，主要集中于女性、少数民族和残疾人(Liff, 1996)，从最坏的角度来看，则充作巩固或增加歧视，而不是促进平等(Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Collins and Wray-Bliss, 2000)。人们普遍认为在不同的雇员小组之间需要基于对社会正义的道德忧虑。而近来的多元化管理方式则基于“商务范例”，确保个人的差异得到认可和利用，以保证企业有效地产出。然而，该争论的最近评议(Kirton and Greene, 2005)则暗示了众多的矛盾和困惑。“自由”的方式（专注于通过平等对待任何人的公正程序来促进社会正义）和“激进”的方式（更多地集中于报酬的分配来达到产出的平等）的典型区别在公共政策和组织实践已经模糊(Liff and Wajcman, 1996)。目前围绕多样性的共识呈现出重视四个要点(Kirton and Greene, 2005):重视应得到积极认可、培养、奖励的个人的中心；为了应对个性基础差异做出的远离标准程序的一个举动；受商务驱动的组织政策议程，而不是基于对社会公正的道德宣称；以及不止局限于调整不平衡现象、还改变文化和以平等政策为主流的政策行动。比如，MacDougall (1996)将多元化管理看做是原则性的东西，像评价人们并使他们发挥最大的潜能到工作中去以便使工作场所更诱人，也使企业获得长期的活力和受益。关于避免一个标准化的方式集中于个人（Kirton and Greene的首要两点），Gagnon and Cornelius (2002)主张采取“能力”方式，多元化管理政策围绕确定人们所有的选择、为这些选择提供便利、提供机构环境，在这里个人可以充分利用他们的一系列能力。这要求一个个人被尊重以及有可能从事于对话的组织文化，在这里组织环境比较稳定并提供雇佣延续和职业发展的可能性。这些假设不一定总能保持。Sinclair (2000)也指责多元化管理暗示了所有的差异能够通过相等的过程来管理，因此它忽略力量，轻视不利因素的系统资料，并且重塑多样性为个人问题并由个人做出选择来解决。关于对多样性政策的组织方式的考察，Liff (1996)提供了一个涉及不同政策目标和目的的类型学。第一个可以描述为消除差异：在这个方式任何需要帮助的差异被视为在个人层面最佳地得到解决。第二个方式是通过对所有小组开放机遇来适应差异，第三个则被描述为，当基于社会的差异有更多认同以及怎样需要克服以阻止不平等的永久性时，来利用差异。最后的方式是基于评价差异以及使用它作为不同举措的基础以便矫正不平等现象。然而这些方式并不是互相独有的形式呈现，一些评论家观察得出评价、适应、利用差异可能描述为一个传统平等方式的延伸(Woodhams and Danieli, 2003)，只有消除差异才是质的区别。
关于多元化管理的绝大部分讨论以定义和差异为中心(Mavin and Girling, 2000; Maxwell et al., 2003)，在商务范例为主的基础上，有关于多元化管理的优越性的范例得到制定。展现出来的关于多样性的商务范例是无可争议的，因为它自动地将对人力资本的投资回报最大化，因此顶尖人才的招聘和保留增加了创造性和创新能力，提升了向变幻不定的市场位置的通道，提高了商务弹性和领悟性(Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Gardenswartz and Rowe, 1998)。在美国有一些支持性的证据，例如Wright et al. (1995)比较了在多元化管理中做了特别努力的企业和没有做出努力的企业在股票上的回报，发现前者拥有更客观的收益，并且能更好地吸引、保留为企业生存所需的有才干的人。然而，尽管有潜在的优势，大量的过程损失，包括增加的人际冲突，不当的交流，更高程度的压力，以及相对较慢的决策，与多元化管理倡议相关(Neck et al., 1997)。迄今为止，当企业经历涉及削减人员和缩小规模的巨大变化时，关于多元化管理的商务范例的适应力的讨论几乎很少。相关的有关企业重组（可能涉及或不涉及缩小规模）的研究表明变化的时候即使维持一种机会均等的文化也会非常困难。例如，缩小规模与为女性的“抽彩”同类，有偶然的胜者，但通常是失败者(Woodall et al., 1997)，相关联的企业重组会导致在女性集中的商务职能中工作减少；女性不包括在于目前迅速生长的非正式的组织网络，该网络在企业内部提供职业发展机遇的途径；正式的机会均等政策随着结构和角色的变化导致无效。因此，这种主张是合理的，即，如果女性处于劣势，那么其他不同的小组像少数民族，残疾人，年老的工人，以及短期合同的雇员也可能同样地处于劣势。
在英国，几乎很少有雇主会放弃机会均等政策，而偏向于多元化管理。“不像美国的环境里，雇主似乎将多样化理解为平等策略，补充或者增补传统的机会均等政策，而不是替代他们” (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p. 205)。令人不足为奇的是，官方的关于机会均等和多元化管理的组织政策陈述也不符合组织实践。在个人方面，目标明确的多元化管理的言辞处于社会正义方式之旁，该方式重视成为一个“优秀的雇主”，进行“最好的实践” (Dickens, 1999; Liff, 1996)。然而，正如Dickens (1994) 和 Docherty (2004)所指出，该“商务范例”可能将视短期商务条件而定，且有意愿来确保法律服从。因此，这仍然是一个机会均等议程。
研究设计
由于该研究问题的性质是探究性和描述性的，内容是系统性的，我们选择了一个范例分析研究设计(Bajawa, 2003)。该研究场所是“全球航空”（化名），一个大型的国际航空公司，因多元化管理倡议建立了良好的声誉，并且在2002到2003年增加了一个主要的缩小劳动力规模的举措。上述文献有关缩小规模和机会均等、多元化管理的论述带来了一系列问题来探求以经验为依据的研究：研究问题一，全球航空会避免“本能” (Cameron, 1994)的方式用于缩小规模吗，或者他们采用了更具策略性的方式集中于任务重新设计和长期的系统的策略(Cameron, 1994)吗？研究问题二，全球航空对于机会均等和多元化管理的方式是什么以及有什么证据显示它集中于消除差异，反对评价、利用或者调整差异？研究问题三，在全球航空规划缩小规模政策的经历认同不同劳动力的商业利益吗？如果是，在2002到2004年，对于缩小规模这是怎样纳入全球航空的政策的？研究问题四，在全球航空劳动力中，对不同的雇员小组进行缩小规模的影响是什么？不考虑一定小组成员的表现和资格，他们是否在工作歧视和过剩上有更大的风险(Zeffane and Mayo, 1994; Applebaum and Fewster, 2002)？不同的数据被用来回答各个研究问题，包括内部的劳动力市场数据（研究问题四）的分析，以及对主要消息提供者的采访，他们是减小规模政策的设计师（研究问题三和一）以及多元化管理（研究问题二）。一份目标明确的样本，其中四个部门经理负责实施减少在消费者服务和操作、以及被缩小规模影响最大的商务区域的统计人数（研究问题四）。最重要的研究员受雇于全球航空的消费者服务部门。这对于了解公司的劳动力市场和政策数据以及采访参与者提供了极好的途径。研究者偏见问题则通过证实与采访参与者和共同合作的研究者的分析得到解决。2002年1月和2003年1月的劳动力简介数据的二级分析已经完成，用来观察绝对和相对比例的工作人员的变化，这些人员按照性别、民族、残疾缺陷和基于合同的雇佣（固定时期对比永久性时期）来自所有主要的部门。首要的研究通过采访的形式执行，且根据表格一列出的标准来选择调查对象。通过使用框架方式进行采访数据的分析。
研究结果
2002到2004年全球航空缩小规模采用的策略
航空旅游是世界上最大的产业之一，仅在2001年就有超过3000亿美元的税收。在过去的30年，乘客数量以每年7%的幅度增长。这是一个高度复杂并且也是高度管理的产业。排定的乘客服务构成了英国航空业最重要的部门，并且在2001年占了英国航空公司产生152亿税收的70%。自从20世纪80年代中期以来的在乘客服务部门发生的革命性的变化以及无虚饰的出现使消费者有了更多的选择也导致了激烈的竞争。这与全球经济衰退、健康担忧（如非典大流感和深度静脉血栓的恐惧），当然还有恐怖袭击的威胁，这种结合已经严重影响了消费者信心，导致了乘客数量的急剧下降和影响订票。
全球航空是世界上最大的客运航空公司之一，比任何其他公司要运载更多的乘客，从一个国家到另一个国家。全球航空根源于公有制，有一段较长的历史，到1987年，它被私有化，与其他运输公司一致，到1999年，它与许多其他国际航空公司形成了一个全球联盟，并且与一些其他公司进行特许权和准则共享协议。它已经是一个全球性的企业，拥有六个主要品牌。2001年，全球航空在世界范围内只招聘了不到57000人，其中80%的人驻于英国。雇员的基础是各异的，有很大比例的女性以及不同文化、宗教、种族、年龄和能力（尽管在高层里少数民族的代表受到更多的限制）。
全球航空在近年来与它的许多竞争者一样在经济上遭遇困境。2001年9月11日以后，他们对于北美市场的依赖严重地损害了财务绩效。1999年以后计划增长受到严重削减。但是2001年的9.11事件加速刺激了人员的削减。五个月之内，资深的管理人员进行了缩小规模和重组方案。这包括两年内每年6.5亿英镑的成本节省，以解决公司的成本并且实现10%的经营利润；超过三分之一（36%）的在英国总部和支持性部门的13000失业者（在2001年8月是全球567000工作人员的23%）；以及对短期商务的重要重组。此目的是通过资源方式实现人员缩减，与工会运营贴近（全球航空是高度组织的），并且在缩小规模策略中考虑到多样性问题。
实质上，全球航空应对机制非常快速，但对缩小规模却没有自动做出反应。他们用超过5个月的时间规划了方案，用超过两年的时间以慎重的方式投入实施。成本节省的策略集中在人事费用有4.5亿英镑，1亿销售费用和1亿采购费用。然而，尽管这主要是劳动力减少策略（这牵涉到在英国共4300个失业，从原来的45800到41497），这也和工作重新设计以带来工作新方式的因素相关联。企业的结构包含了11个领导班子，每一个都包含了一些部门。一些部门已经合并，尤其是消费者服务和市场的宽泛的领域。例如，顾客服务和操作领导本子内的九个单独的部门已经转型成六个新的部门：包括扩大的舱内服务和操作部门包含了更宽泛的活动范围，其他四个急剧缩小的部门负责在伦敦主要终端、英国其他地区以及国际的和短期商务的操作。结果是客户服务和操作理事会的人员从24270减少到23007。而在新的市场和商业法杖理事会的总招聘人数从396增加到510。这在很大程度上是由于解散后的策略领导班子的一大组成员的重新部署：
我不将其称之为膝反射，我们做一些事情才是真正关键的。缩小规模的策略是管理人员失败的显现，去坦白地承认对业绩的忽视，生意上的失衡，巨大的债务堆积如山（资深经理对缩小规模策略的发展负有责任）。我们来时正处于工作基层重组……所以有一些工作需要完成。A类工作保持不变，B类改变但有收缩，C类则是新的工作，以及那种流程，那种流程使一切清晰（资深经理对人数缩减中制定标准和准则负有责任）。该方式系统地集中于工作重新设计以及劳动力的较少。这也由人力资源部门领导。然而，这种对劳动力缩减采取的“自愿”的方式不包括合同工和资深管理人员队伍。
机会均等和多元化管理方式
全球航空拥有很长的机会均等和多元化管理的历史，可以追溯到20世纪80年代后期，这与其他制造业公司形成强烈的对比。资深经理极其重视致力于机会均等和多元化管理，并且意识到在很多人力资源政策领域像招聘、挑选和业绩考察，培训是主流。然而并不是所有的部门经理都对这些政策做出了无条件的投入。在过去十年间，我们已经要一些人朝机会均等看，并且一直在过去的13-14年间监督、注意动向、保持纪录……在过去两年间我们按照所有合法的要求经历了从一个机会均等的基础到管理的多元化。这都是关于认同和评价差异的，也是沿着机会均等的路子（资深人力资源经历对多元化政策的发展和实施负有责任）。我在汽车工业花了20年的时间，大部分时间在米德兰，在2001年我来到全球航空。从两个公司的对比上，我发现全球航空在对待它的员工的方式上飞速发展。我很震惊地发现，随着我对这个更艰苦的环境的熟悉，这个企业在另外一条路上走得太过--对员工做一个决定之前它总是非常小心地前进。我能够看到这两方面有利有弊的对比（主要终端站作业的部门经理4）长期地投入机会均等和多元化管理意味着大量可观的尝试投入到人员的系统审计，形成了一个衰溃，在级别、工作、基于性别、种族、残疾缺陷的场所以及雇佣合同的类型（年龄和性取向不包含在内），确保企业遵守法律。然而，没有证据显示这些数据与有关于人力资源政策其他方面成为一体，如培训和发展、评价产出、人员调整以及病假离开的渠道。然而在不同的部门有机会均等、多样性“捍卫者”和咨询论坛提供给不同类型的员工（像伤残使用者小组）。定期地向员工小组和管理人员作报告以提高他们的意识。我们的人力资源政策，像不同类型的雇佣合同和机遇用于灵活的工作被认作是有助于适应多样性。这导致了一个较高比例的女性（在一个较小的程度）和少数民族的人获得了职业成长，进入中高层管理部门。这样，缩小规模时，为机会均等和多元化管理保持全球航空的声誉成为首要之选。与两位负责机会均等和多元化管理的人力资源经历的采访显示了一些有趣的发现：
在过去的15年间女性代表有了极大的提高。但不同部分的劳动力却差异极大……这反映了社会趋向和态度：最显著的例子是座舱乘务员中女性有很多以及货物乘务员中女性只有小部分……在过去的十年间我们在各层次的管理部门都有了极大的提高……而对于女性这是有关什么类型的工作，对于少数民族代表是有关什么类型的工作以及其地理位置。所以对于同等的工作（在伦敦两个主要终端），你可以看到不同类型的代表反映了不同团体的构成……我们对于女性有一个良好的了解，对少数民族有一个合理的理解，对工作人员中的残疾人则了解极少。在那一个方面问题和定义更加明显……最吸引我们的话题是管理部门的少数民族代表（资深人力资源经理2对多元化政策发展和实施负有责任）。然而，这个方式趋向于以小组为基础（集中于女性、少数民族和残疾人），这暗示了主要的掌舵人表现对法律服从的担忧，因此，其本质上是一个机会均等方式而不是多元化方式。主要的担忧则是评价、并在一定程度上顺应并且利用差，这与消除差异相反。这两个人力资源经理也对多元化劳动力的潜在商业利益持有不同的看法，总的来说他们的政策取向更倾向于机会均等而不是多元化管理：12或者13年以前人们对关于民族多样性的商务范例有极大的兴趣，这也是几乎你都能听到人们所讨论的。我认为商务范例需要一直处于平衡状态，我有一系列的理由来重视多样性，我的领导层的底线是作为一个公司，我们对多样性有法律上的责任，对于我这是最不重要的原因来重视它，却也是一个不该忘记的原因。在领导层更重要的是从商业视角来重视它是极好的，在领导层的顶端，我有一个道德上的观念，那就是关于尊重我们互相有一些相当基本的责任，因此，做它是正确的（资深人力资源经理2对多元化政策和实施负有责任）。
我认为有任何商业劣势（与机会均等和多元化管理相关联）。这些都是优势—像雇员的保留、培训费用减少、处于首要位置的吸引……人员中的正确的骨干才能和年轻一代将不会去那些朝着多元化议程前进的公司……另外一个重大的问题是反映我们的客户—因为我相信我们仍然主要地被视作中产阶级的白种男人（资深人力资源经理1对多元化政策和实施负有责任）。
实施缩小规模和机会均等、多元化管理
人力资源职能保持着一个强健的操纵，对于这些如何实施设置了清晰的标准、提供了导向。他们和致力于缩减职工人数的资深经理一起参与会议，在使用的标准以及如何应用方面制定了一些建议。一个人力资源专业人士也监督每个领导班子和部门进行缩小规模时的态度，以便他们可以支持并且挑战部门经理。标准的机会均等工具像劳动力升级和监督得到使用。并且一个缩小规模的良好实践引导得到发展和应用。在进行劳动力数量减少时，全球航空决定采取自愿的方式来实现它的目标，不考虑劳动力构架。通过暗示这有可能导致对一定小组的不协调的影响。例如，人们预测女性比男性更有可能倾向于选择裁退费，因为他们可能不是家庭主要的赚钱者。然而，为减少这个已经进行了一系列的尝试，首先允许人力资源挑战每个部门人员较少的决定，无论何地该影响呈现出不协调时要求一个正式的理由。这旨在确保任何关键性的技术得到保留（然而没有防止高水平的执行者离开）。其次，通过提供一些灵活的工作选择来减少职员总数，像兼职工作和准假停薪，人力资源队伍实现了对一定小组像女性的影响的减小。所以例如，机组成员职员总数的减少仅仅通过移到兼职合同就得到实现，结果是50%的机舱职员最后是兼职合同。
在另外一种情况，需要避免在支持性职能中急剧减少少数民族中级经理的危险，因为该职能内大多数缩减与其他航空公司的网络关系的合理化相关，并且在终点站发生，在这里，职员主要是白人。另外，所有进行职员缩减的经理预期参加了强制性的企业机会均等培训。这两个人力资源经理只提到了一个严重的问题。这与隶属于少数民族有关代表资深管理人员级别的资深经理表达的担忧相关。然而，研究人员确定每一个个案被公司的一位理事所审查，来确保这个过程的公正。使人们知道，资深经理与合同工一起，缩小规模的自愿方式范围之外，并且基于他们的绩效而被选举。做一些有关于代表性不足的事更容易……在一个正成长的公司环境里……在增长的人数中增加代表相对容易，在一个静态的人数里则相对较难，并且这需要花费更长的时间，一旦你开始缩小规模，你就处于一个更加困难的境地。缩小规模使得在代表事宜上作出进步更加困难……我们回顾一下先前缩小规模实践的历史，可以看到在缩小规模期间，有更多的女性和来自少数民族的员工自己挑选出来。资深阶层的少数民族发生的就是我们以11个人开始，以5个人离开告终。这在统计学上看上去像是有一半以上的少数民族资深经理，但是只有四分之一的白人资深经理离开。（资深人力资源经理2对多元化政策和实施负有责任）。
总的来说，该方式受到四个部门经理的积极地支持，他们声称他们发现了来自人力资源的支持非常有用且清晰。一个部门经理甚至受此激励在实现职工人数缩减之前检查自己的账目，以确保在本部门内对任何特定的小组没有失衡的影响：我得到反馈，显示一切公正而快速地完成。我们再一次确定我们参与了任何一个阶段，我们也可能尽可能地解决问题。（部门经理，舱内服务）
我们想要确定在公司内没有性别歧视或者偏见，那并不总是很明显，所以我们希望在之前和之后采取紧急行动……在我们确认每个在职人员之前，我们希望核对我们没有不协调地摆脱更多的女性，或者更多的残疾人，或者有着不太那个种族背景的人员。我们想要确定当我们结束时，百分比仍是相同的，如果不相同，那又是为什么（部门经理1—舱内服务）
我猜想说到舱内服务和一些其他部门，我们已经经历了一些重组，因此对于如何做我们已经掌握了一定的技能……经理们拥有交流技能作为他们工作的重要部分……他们花费了很长的时间来交流，并使他们被理解，其他一些小事在合适的位置使他们经历该过程（部门经理2—舱内服务）。
被采访的部门经理也能够了解到拥有一个多元化企业的商业利益，在潜在的问题中暗示出来的四个问题中，只有一个涉及到一个多样化的劳动力。
不同雇员小组的影响
研究人员获得了2002年1也uhe203年3月的两个雇员数据。其中一个即显的问题是数据职能在一个总计的层面去比较，因为领导班子不同部门的合并与重新部署使改变的具体比较变得不可能。同时，战略性方式也涉及工作过程和工作角色、更复杂事项的重新设计。另外，丢失少数民族和残疾人（因为报道的要求是自愿的）的数据使监察更加困难。表格2-4总结了在总体上对公司每个小组的总体影响，对于管理人员（管理人员不包括那些处于资深管理人员位置的人）。综上所述，对于资深管理人员缩小规模的过程依赖于绩效的评估。然而，以下是对那个小组所进行的一些单独的观察。
在管理部门级别，女性的比例介乎没有任何影响。即使是在明显代表女性的支持性商业职能，女性的相对比例在人力资源部门保持在67%左右不变，在客户服务保持在56%左右。与文献相反的是，女性与男性相比，更不可能选择裁员。这是由于灵活的就业选择的可行性，同时也由于在依赖于收入的双职工家庭中，女性贡献的重要性不断增长。
正如上述所述，资深管理部门职位为缩小规模做了各自的安排。该级别做了极大地削减， 在2002年该级别135个总职位在2003年缩减到68。然而尽管该级别有极大地减少，女性的相对比例有微小的提升（她们在68个职位中占了35个）正如已经提到的，主要的担忧是少数民族握有的资深管理级别职位的明确的减少（从2002年135个总职位中的11个转变到68个总职位的5个）。资深经理中的残疾雇员的可忽略不计的现象不受缩小规模的影响，但是主要问题是普遍的对残疾的漏报，这在其他地方也是众所承认的问题。(Kirton and Greene, 2005)。注意到超过1000个固定时期合同职位（主要是管理级别的员工握有）的发布被非管理员工（主要来自舱内服务和客户服务）的兼职就业机会所抵消是非常有趣的。然而，兼职职位在管理部门的比例急剧下降。
结论和建议
从上面的说明很清楚，全球航空处理缩小规模主要是以积极主动的方式而不是被动被动回应(Kozlowski et al., 1993),对机会均等和多元化管理的问题也很敏感。关于目标的使用，方式的选择，以及挑选标准的本性(Thornhill et al., 1998)再加上过程和结果(Zeffane and Mayo, 1994)，企业以保持劳动力多样性的方式努力实施缩小规模策略。这是一个有计划的职员减少策略加上对于工作重新设计的关注(Cameron, 1994)，结果与早期美国关于雇员关系的消极影响的研究相反(Thornhill et al., 1998)。然而，在全球航空队未来的多元化管理有一系列担忧的问题。
第一个担忧是监督对劳动力构架缩小规模的影响的困难，有两方面有问题。尤其是，缩小规模改变了企业的规模和结构。部门的合并、重新部署和消失使比较“之前”和“之后”变得困难。同时，对种族和残疾的数据报告的自愿自出会影响统计数据的可靠性。因此，企业结构发生改变时，发现多元化管理倡议的有效性的证据会显得非常困难，这认同之前Woodall et al. (1997)的发现。另外，在全球航空，随着资深管理人员对此的期望，就业数据不因级别而不同，更掩盖了劳动力减少对职业结构的影响。
其次，机会均等和多元化管理不仅仅是算术联系。而多元化的总比例可能已经在企业的各个级别得到保存，这里存在着“玻璃天花板”（尤其在中级和高级管理部门的界限），女性和少数民族的绝对数量需要花费很多年来进行再调整削减。这是一个被采访的人力资源经理提及的，关于资深管理人员的少数民族存在。在该级别建立少数民族的绝对数量，要实现这种成功依靠于坚持无歧视的选择标准，一个透明的绩效管理，大量的培训机会以及确保透明性的职业发展机遇的通道。我们无法确保全球航空在缩小规模实践的尾端这些都存在。反映出来的是，在缩小规模实践中没有显示任何基于消除差异的多元化管理的方式(Liff, 1996; Docherty, 2004),但是却有一些证据显示了评价、利用或者适应差异，本质上缩小规模的方式反映了一个更加传统的机会均等平衡的担忧。
更重要的是，世界航空业目前面临的商业环境的条件不太可能有改变。竞争仍然激烈，利润仍然很紧凑，更远的重组和缩小规模也将临近。所有这些对机会均等和多元化管理预示不是很好，另外一个危险是这方面的主要成果将一直限制在企业的低端领域，受益有限，且加深了企业等级。尤其是管理部门兼职职位的消失，以及缩小规模的自愿方式中资深管理人员职位的免除，可能给女性和少数民族的职业前途带来主要挫折，尤其是这挫折要花费多年来解决。在这些环境下，该范例将暗示人力资源专业人士更有可能采取更加传统的机会均等措施。在任何范例中机会均等和多元化管理议程将在不利的商业条件下更加积极地面对。
最后，该研究集中于缩小规模和多元化的管理。它还没有检查那些关于离开或者存活的政策的结果的观念。他们的经验将很好地影响公司的机会均等和多元化政策的可信度，同时在达到能迅速接受机会均等和多元化管理的文化的方式中，带来了阻碍(Woodall et al., 1997)。
采访的数量 选择参与者的标准 研究问题
1 对缩小规模策略的发展负有责任的资深经理 全球航空队缩小规模策略采取的方式（研究问题一）
1 参与到削减职员人员发展标准和准则的资深经理 确定用于职员人数减少的详细的标准和过程（研究问题一和三）
2 对多元化政策发展和实施负责的资深人力资源经理 确定全球航空实施多元化和机会均等政策的方式（研究问题二）
4 对特定商业领域的职员人数减少规模实施负有责任的部门经理 确定劳动力多样性以及其他实施企业政策和原则事项中过程的公正性及影响
表格一 半结构采访的抽样调查框架
2002年1月 2003年3月
性别构架 % 所有雇员 % 所有雇员
女性 42.63 19526 42 17395
男性 57.37 26274 58 23102
女性经理 32.43 33
男性经理 67.57 67
注意：资历较浅以及中级经理的绝对数量的数据无法获得
表格二 缩小规模之前及之后的性别构架比较
2002年1月 2003年3月
少数民族构架 % 所有雇员 % 所有雇员
少数民族 11.72 5386 11 4679
白种人 79.04 36199 74 31798
不确定 9.2 4233 15 5020
少数民族经理 3.88 3.87
白种经理 89.38 84,99
不知道的经理 6.74 12.14
注意：资历较浅以及中级经理的绝对数量的数据无法获得
表格三 缩小规模之前及之后的少数民族构架比较
2002年1月 2003年3月
残疾构架 % 所有雇员 % 所有雇员
残疾人 0.34 154 0.3 124
不残疾人士 21.42 9812 66.74 19307
不确定 88.24 35834 32.71 22066
有残疾的经理 0.51 0.4
不残疾的经理 22.03 60
不确定的经理 77.46 40
注意：资历较浅以及中级经理的绝对数量的数据无法获得
表格四 缩小规模之前及之后的残疾人士构架比较
2002年1月 2003年3月
按类型的合同构架 % 所有雇员 % 所有雇员
全职 78.71 36047 78.73 32672
兼职 11.11 5088 21.17 8784
固定时期合同 10.19 4665 0.10 41
全职经理 86.73 91.93
兼职经理 13.15 8.07
注意：资历较浅以及中级经理的绝对数量的数据无法获得
表格五 缩小规模之前及之后合同构架的比较
|
|
|
|
|
