Conclusion

Globalisation has produced a new world that has increased the number of nation-states in the global political system and altered the porous borders between them. The new world has created a space for millions of migrants (Davidson 2007). The global migrant of today is described as ‘in between’ or ‘in transition’ (Davidson 2007, 22). Migration is likened to the airport transit lounge, but with about 10% of travellers leaving their country of origin permanently. However, if they are refugees, they do not know where the forces of globalisation will cast them in their pursuit for survival. Thus, they become members of the mobile workforce, with either many places to reside or none (Davidson 2007).

In those many places, the meaning and influence of multiculturalism is limited without underpinning the role it plays in everyday life. Comprehending the reality of multiculturalism requires close examination of the daily practices and interactions between people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds (Hardy 2017). The term ‘multiculturalism’ first appeared in the 1960s and 1970s from within Canada and Australia. While multiculturalism in Canada dealt with the constitutional rights and land ownership of indigenous peoples, multiculturalism in Australia focused on the assimilation of new migrants, before including indigenous peoples. In both countries, multiculturalism was extended to encompass individual freedoms and equal citizenship. In Britain, multiculturalism was first discussed in the 1960s as a result of the increasing number of immigrants from the West Indies, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh following the enactment of the Nationality Act 1948. Additionally, successive British governments introduced multicultural policies that stipulated equal treatment for minority ethnic and religious groups, and the right to maintain their cultural identities (Hardy 2017). Under the British Nationality Act 1948, anybody who was a British subject was allowed to settle in Britain, regardless of race and colour, which transformed the UK into a multiracial society. In 2001, the UK officially became a multi-ethnic, multicultural society, and multiculturalism worked effectively in the UK, successfully replacing assimilation and integration. Today, the UK still supports multiculturalism, irrespective of challenges and criticisms. The term ‘Multiculturalism’ became popular in the 1980s in the US, which acknowledged the changing demographic and cultural structure. By the 1990s, multiculturalism in the US was interpreted by some social workers as a means to promote the needs of racial and ethnic groups, which led social workers to believe that multiculturalism would ignore ‘the internal variations in traditional culture’ (Reisch 2008, p. 798). Recent efforts made to bond the conceptual gaps that exist between social justice and multiculturalism have failed. Whilst the efforts of minorities shaped the mainstream practices to distinct conditions, there were some constraints caused by insufficient economic resources and political power. However, there remains the challenge today of reconciling the needs of specific groups within a framework of equitable policy in the US (Reisch 2008).

The lack of a specific definition for multiculturalism means multiculturalism can change with differing attitudes in different countries. In Australia and Canada, multiculturalism does not include indigenous peoples, and indigenous groups refuse to be encompassed by multiculturalism because of legitimacy issues. In contrast, in other countries, indigenous peoples use the term ‘multiculturalism’ to be distinguished from immigrant groups. Despite the differences in the definitions of multiculturalism in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US, these countries share the common factor of having an increasing foreign-born population. There has been a shift in multiculturalism by focusing on a globalised migration culture, where organisations in countries with secular democracies enable immigrants from various backgrounds to thrive. However, multiculturalism has caused hostility when immigrants have maintained their differences, rather than being encouraged to integrate into one society, as is the case in the UK.

The four countries examined in this book are destinations for immigrants from various countries around the world. As a result, while most people in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US speak English, all these countries are linguistically diverse. Canada has developed an official language education policy with programs that enable students to retain their mother tongue. The Canadian Constitution guarantees the country’s official bilingual policy, which requires all official documents to be provided in both English and French (Banks 2010). Despite the fact that some states have unofficial bilingualism, the US has not adopted an official policy on language diversity. Although politicians defend spoken English, a close analysis in the US indicated greater acceptance of language diversity, such as through printing signs and brochures in Florida in Spanish, and providing services in Hawaii in Asian languages (Banks 2010).

There is an interesting connection between language and identity, especially in the UK. According to Sir Keith Ajegbo (quoted in Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock 2008, 1), a former school headmaster and Home Office Advisor, the investigation discovered that British identity is not included in the curriculum, and there is more to be done to provide the ‘essential glue that binds people together’. This is one of the main problems experienced by British society—failing to have a discussion that integrates different ethnic groups under the auspices of a common British identity (Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock 2008). The Education Minister declared that a review was conducted as a result of the terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005, and the assumption that it was the lack of a unifying British identity that led some people to consider ethnic and religious signifiers. The 7 July London bombings were caused because of the lack of a civic British identity. The London bombings were undertaken by British citizens whose loyalties were to their ethnic and religious identities, unlike the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the US (Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock 2008).

The global migrant of today is one of the essential elements of multicultural societies around the world. As discussed in the earlier chapters, multiculturalism has been strongest in Canada, while multiculturalism is fluctuating in many other countries, and the influx of immigrants who were expected to assimilate into the mainstream culture meant that governments deemed multiculturalism policies unnecessary. Multiculturalism was well received in Australia, the UK and the US until the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, with different cultural groups and their experiences and contributions encouraged by multiculturalist ideologies. However, a shift in the global and economic structures occurred after the attacks on 11 September, where the focus was on immigration in Western Europe, apart from the US. Having received many immigrants, liberal states must tolerate multiculturalism and recognise cultural differences. Immigration has caused both majority and minority populations to become multicultural, and the 11 September attack led to the creation of a new period of diversity management, known as the ‘post—9/11’ era. As a result, multiculturalism is known as ‘anti- and/or post-multiculturalism discourse’, used initially in the UK to promote cohesion, assimilation and a common identity. In Australia, multiculturalism has been responsible for ‘hollowing out’ the significance of being an Australian citizen. Additionally, the former British Prime Minister David Cameron attributed the weakening of collective British identity and the rise of Islamist extremism to multiculturalism (Crowder 2013).

While multiculturalism is an asset, diversity of itself does not yield benefits; thus, to benefit from multiculturalism, the shortcomings of a specific group must be recognised so they can be managed well. Thus, organisational management is responsible for identifying the cultural differences and backgrounds of a group, and for valuing and supporting employees. Canada adopted its Multiculturalism Act in 1988—becoming the first country in the world to adopt a multicultural policy—to help immigrants maintain their cultures, instead of assimilating into the mainstream. As a result of the retirement of baby boomers and labour shortages, Canada must rely on its immigrants to fill this shortage in the workforce. Canadian multiculturalism experienced success in Canada because of the refugee policy introduced by the Canadian government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Canada presented the most ethnically diverse government and accepted government- sponsored refugees from Iraq and Syria as a way of demonstrating its support of multiculturalism. Evidence of Canada’s support of multiculturalism was articulated in Trudeau’s address, titled ‘Diversity is Canada’s Strength’, delivered at Canada House in November 2015. Canada is considered second only to Australia in terms of the increasing diversity of the population. Moreover, diversity is now part of Canadian organisations, which have strong commitment to diversity by adopting an inclusive approach to diversity management and embracing diversity while endeavouring to increase the benefits in organisations. Only one-fourth of organisations have to comply with culture which they view as a problem. This is in contrast to the findings in the US, which indicate that 11% of US organisations have a ‘compliance’ culture. This is an indication that, while Canadian organisations are still adhering to compliance laws, about half of them have begun to implement inclusion (Garr, Shellenback and Scales 2014).

In the UK, although the labour force has become diverse because of the involvement of minorities, equality has not yet been achieved. Ethnic and religious minorities still face segregation and pay gaps, especially women and black graduates. Public sector organisations enforce equality legislation more firmly, while private sector organisations have a more voluntary approach in implementing the Equity Act. BAME tend to be underrepresented at management levels in the workplace, and, although they are ambitious and enjoy work, their white colleagues have more opportunities to advance. While organisations in the UK are endeavouring to emphasise diversity, it is important for organisations to consider the impact of diversity on customers, suppliers, employers, shareholders and the public. All these considerations will take some time to ensure that ethnic minorities are fairly represented in both the public and private sectors.

Australia has always been a multicultural society, as a nation that has received waves of immigration since 1788; however, multiculturalism became an official policy in 1973, replacing the White Australia policy. Multiculturalism is so valued in Australia that former Prime Minister Bob Hawke (Foster and Stockley 1988) stated the developing process of a multicultural society for 200 years. However, diversity in Australia poses challenges at all levels of organisations, and must be managed both internally (because of changes in the workforce) and externally (because of changes in customer populations and global markets). It is important to examine the effect of these changes on the national economy, and the way such changes are managed in organisations as a result of the increased diversity in the workplace. Diversity management is a result of globalisation; thus, diversity is necessary to ensure strategic success in major organisations to enable them to gain access to global markets. Globalisation affects immigrants from various cultural backgrounds who enter the Australian workforce. However, the government is also seeking to impose national barriers to limit the free movement of people. In addition, both the Australian workforce and global marketplace have significantly changed, and diversity management depends on valuing employees’ differences and skills.

Globalisation, worker migration, family reunification, forced migration and environmental disasters have contributed to the growth of demographic multiculturalism in many countries. This growth in demographic diversity has occurred in the traditional countries of immigration, including Australia, Canada and the US, as well as new immigration countries, ranging from Denmark to South Korea (Ng and Bloemraad 2015). Diversity improves equal opportunities in the workplace and society, since differences in people can bring experiences and innovative solutions to problems. Diversity helps business grow both internationally because of intercultural knowledge, and domestically in regard to trade—especially when approaching special target groups, such as women or customers with a background of migration. A diversified workforce facilitates successful entry to new markets. Multicultural employees originating from various countries are useful for international organisations because of their many abilities and skills, which can be important for solving problems. Thus, international organisations should focus on the potential benefits of diversity (Urbancová, Čermáková and Vostrovská 2016).

Organisations that go beyond compliance often adopt an identity conscious approach to diversity, and believe that different employees bring different knowledge to the workplace. These organisations subsequently gain a competitive advantage, and employees know what is expected of them at work, which enables them to use their skills and experience. Strategic management of diversity enables employees to contribute to organisations, and recognition of employees’ differences in the workplace constitutes a potential strength in the organisation that can advance businesses. Moreover, multicultural organisations attract and retain employees from various diverse cultural backgrounds, which gives organisations a competitive advantage. Diversity appeals to the best employees and can benefit the organisation, if managed well. Employing a diverse workforce enables organisations to reach improved markets and understand the employees’ countries of origin. Communication is another benefit for the organisation, as knowing more than one language is an added economic bonus and a valued skill that employees must have in certain types of employment. This knowledge also protects individuals’ jobs during dire economic situations.

A diverse workforce is beneficial to organisations and brings useful skills—such as languages, experience and ideas—which generate growth in opportunities for individuals and challenges for diversity managers. It is critical for management to turn these challenges into opportunities and a source of productivity through successful strategic management of diversity. Productive diversity is of benefit to organisations, as it promotes the corporate image, advances creativity and builds a bridge of better communication and relationships between management and employees in the workplace.

In the US and Australia, the workforce was dominated by white males in the twentieth century. However, today, women and cultural groups are becoming more visible in the workplace; thus, communication skills are essential in the workplace to avoid misunderstandings. In addition, feedback is considered an effective form of communication and an important aspect of diversity management in the workplace. Diversity training is also an essential element in diversity programs to maximise employee effectiveness and increase the attractiveness of the organisation as a place to work. Diversity training enables employees to value their differences and overcome stereotypes, and leads to competitive advantage. In addition, it has been found that organisations search for talented employees, such as students and women on maternity leave, who are offered temporary employment, which can develop into permanent jobs.

There is ample evidence that equal opportunities make good business sense, and organisations that do not employ diverse people lose opportunities to attract various types of customers (Chidiac 2015). In addition, many scholars believe that organisations that reject diversity management miss out on competitive advantage. Diversity is perceived to promote competitive advantage by giving organisations a better corporate image and enhancing both group and organisational performance to entice and retain employees (Ohemeng and McGrandle 2015). Diversity management can increase organisational efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and profitability, and directly relates to job satisfaction, with satisfied employees reporting diversity management as being strong (Ohemeng and McGrandle 2015). Organisations that introduce diversity in the workplace tend to increase productivity and profits; attract highly skilled and professional people (a major advantage of diversity management); and reduce job turnover and absenteeism, which leads to employee retention. These factors are particularly important in the public service, given the competition between the public and private sectors to recruit the most desirable employees (Ohemeng and McGrandle 2015).

However, some critics of diversity management have raised criticisms, as discussed in detail by Ohemeng and McGrandle (2015). Some critics have claimed that diversity management is AA in disguise to avert any negative response similar to the situation that occurred when AA was introduced some decades ago. Additionally, critics argue that diversity management upholds stereotypes in organisations and strengthens the status quo. Diversity management policies do not have quotas for hiring employees, yet many qualified minority employees can still gain the impression that they were recruited because of their minority status, thereby creating resentment. Tokenism causes further problems in diversity management when only one representative of a minority group in the organisation is expected to join many committees and attend numerous meetings, as the token representative of the minority group, which can lead to serious detraction from job performance (Ohemeng and McGrandle 2015). Thus, problems accumulate for senior managers in organisations, which make them reluctant to introduce diversity policies in the workplace.

Today, managers seem to appreciate the benefits of diversity in the workplace and acknowledge that a diverse workforce improves productivity and maximises effectiveness in the organisation. Diversity management has become a reality in contemporary organisations, and it has been found that, when employees face conflicts in the workplace, dissatisfaction arises and employees can resign. Other reasons leading to resignation include low wages and lack of opportunities.

When examining the legal and political aspects of diversity, it is possible to see a number of similarities and differences in the diverse workforce. In Canada, diversity management focuses on the ‘business imperative’ and the need to fill shortages in the skilled labour force and compensate for the declining population. In the UK, diversity practitioners focus more on corporate reputation, rather than equality, social justice and employee rights. Unions have played a significant role in the growth of workplace culture, but maintain their suspicion of organisations addressing discrimination and inequalities. In addition, trade union presence varies largely between the public and private sectors, and unions favour equalities legislation in the workplace. Equal opportunities policies exist in the majority of UK private sector workplaces. However, while large organisations have policies, the implementation of these policies is not monitored in most UK workplaces. Moreover, discrimination exists in the UK labour market against ethnic and racial minorities and the ageing population, while sexual and gender identity minorities are not supported in the workplace.

Australia adheres to a few methods of diversity management, such as the ‘colour-blind’ approach, the ‘melting-pot’ method and the ‘multicultural’ method. However, the ‘equal footing’ managers are considered the most effective in managing diversity in Australia. It is believed that Australia will remain dependent on immigration to meet skill shortages, while Australian organisations are still coping with the waves of skilled and unskilled immigrants, especially in terms of their English language skills. The lack of diversity management policies in Australian organisations is due to the fact that diversity is considered a legal obligation, rather than being a source of benefits to the organisation. Further, the passing of some Acts and some amendments to the Australian Constitution in 1996 guaranteed fairness and justice in both society and the workplace. In the meantime, there is no evidence of diversity management being implemented in private sector organisations, hence the lack of legislation and absence of compulsory policies to be enforced in the private sector. The current Australian legal frameworks in the workplace are considered ineffective in the absence of any recognition of the disadvantages faced by different groups of women, indigenous people and low-paid migrants. This necessitates legislation to ensure equity and fairness to all employees, irrespective of gender and backgrounds (Chidiac 2015).

In the US, AA has increased diversity and led to changes in the public sector and military, while organisations in the private sector have their own policies and are subject to prosecution in the absence of fair treatment. In addition, diverse groups have gained representation as a result of a diverse workforce and the implementation of AA. Despite the diverse US workforce, the underrepresentation of minorities and women still prevails, irrespective of the efforts made by the federal government to rectify the situation. The US is described as a ‘melting pot’ for races and ethnic groups, but most immigrants wished to become Americans, leaving behind difficult pasts to assimilate into a better society. Religion is the major reason for immigrants to flee war and religious persecution, sometimes leading to illegal migration. However, terrorism has led to rejection of Muslims and opposition to constructing mosques. Over 200 years of migration complicated the class formation in the US, with each immigrant group bringing its own culture and competing with other cultures, which led to the formation of the contemporary working-class culture. Undoubtedly, the waves of immigrants seeking better economic opportunities and personal freedom have changed the American people and identity.

The US has mixed feelings regarding its relationship with immigrants. Federal legislation has dealt with the control of immigration through quotas and other laws. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prevented Chinese immigration to the US, and legislation in the 1920s restricted immigration from Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Jewish regions of Europe. Only white Protestants from Northern and Western Europe were welcome as immigrants by Congress. The Chinese Exclusion Act repeal in 1943 was a shift in view because of China being an ally in World War II. Further, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 removed the discriminatory nationality quotas, thereby allowing family unification and skill preferences, and welcoming more immigrants from Asia (Bayor 2016). Today, the contemporary attitude targets Arab Muslim and Hispanic people (Bayor 2016). The election of Barack Obama as President revealed a trend of acceptance, and laws changed to allow refugees, war brides and family members of people living in the US to enter the country. Additionally, citizenship was extended to members serving in the US Armed Forces. A significant change in politics and assimilation for immigrants is the easier communication that is possible with their home countries, supported through emails, video calls, social media and so forth, in contrast to the previous reliance on letters as a means to decide acculturation, assimilation and dual identities. Internet-based forms of communication—such as chat rooms, websites and Skype—have also made it possible to monitor communication and identify terrorism suspects, which was non-existent in earlier times (Bayor 2016).

During the period 1945 to 1970 (see Table C.1), labelled the ‘age of inequality’, no legislations were passed in Canada, the UK or Australia. The US was the pioneer in introducing legislation dealing with civil rights, immigration, pay equality and age discrimination in employment, which led to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1946, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the Equality Pay Act of 1963 and the ADEA of 1967.

During the period 1970 to 1999, known as the ‘age of equality’, the US introduced three pieces of legislation dealing with immigration reform, disability and civil rights. In Canada, the major unions, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Public Service Alliance of Canada and others focused on workplace equality through AA in the mid-1970s. In 1978, the federal government introduced a voluntary AA program targeting private industry. In 1983, the federal government introduced an AA program aimed at increasing the ‘representation of women, Aboriginal and persons with disabilities in the federal public sector’ (Public Service Alliance of Canada 2017). In 1985, visible minorities were included in the AA program and the Human Rights Act came into force. In 1995, the Canadian Parliament adopted the revised federal EEA, which affected the federal public service.

Source: Based on Silk et al. (2000).

In the UK, diversity-related legislation goes back to the early days of the age of equality, with the enactment of the Equal Pay Act 1970, indicating the ineffectiveness of legislation to deal with embedded inequalities (Burns 2009). The 1970s constituted a difficult period, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was initiated, together with the more comprehensive Race Relations Act 1976, which provided similar types of protection to that passed in the other three countries. These three Acts of Parliament (regarding pay, sex and race), together with other regulations, covered all aspects of equality for two decades from the 1970s. In 1972, the UK joined the then European Community (which became known as the EU in 1992) by signing the Maastricht Treaty, which encompassed provisions that lay the foundations for anti-discrimination law. Although the Conservative Party (Tories) passed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it was not until Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ government won office in 1997 that the UK followed the social provisions of EU law (Burns 2009).

In Australia, during the age of equality, the Commonwealth Government and the state and territory governments passed and introduced laws providing protection to people from discrimination and harassment, based on race and disability, thereby following the pattern of the other three countries. Gender equality was also a prime focus, as evidenced by the enactment of the AAA 1986 and EOWWA 1999.

During the period that began with the new millennium, labelled the ‘age of equity’, the focus in the US has been on disability, marked by the enactments of the ADA of 1990 and ADAAA of 2008. Meanwhile, Canada enacted two HRM standards in the age of equity. Standard 4.3 aimed to ensure a harassment-free work environment for employees, with clear confidentiality rules in complaint processes. Standard 4.4 aimed to provide and promote equity-based business practices at the workplace, including recruitment and selection.

In the age of equity, the UK first enacted Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations in 2003, which were designed to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief or absence of religion or belief. These regulations were introduced to adhere to the EU Directive 2000/78/EC, which was similar to legislation introduced in the US. The aim of the EU Directive was to protect people with a specific sexual orientation, religion, belief and age, and to update the protection against disability, race and gender discrimination. These two regulations in the UK were later superseded by the Equality Act 2010, which was introduced on 1 October 2010, including more than 116 separate pieces of legislation to protect the rights of people, promote equality of opportunity for all and protect people from unfair treatment (Equality and Human Rights Commission 2017).

The early days of the age of equity in Australia were dominated by discussions regarding the pay gap between men and women employees. The pay gap in Australia between men and women led to the legislation of the federal WGEA 2012, which replaced the EOWWA 1999. Employers with 100 or more employees were obliged to report annually to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency.

When examining the practice of diversity management in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, it is possible to see the transition from the age of inequality to the age of equality and then to the age equity. In the US public sector, EEO or AA policies are implemented, while diversity is used in the private sector. Organisations need management strategies and policies to attract skilled employees and compete. Further, promoting diversity and employing a diverse workforce improves productivity, increases profits and captures more markets. There is a need to value employees as the greatest asset and to include more women and minorities. Organisations realise the benefits of changing their strategies to address the differences in their customer base, and a culturally aware management can influence a business as a global organisation. The US workforce is becoming increasingly diverse with the passage of time, and the labour market has attracted both skilled and unskilled immigrants. The US economy has also been affected by the influx of immigrants, who reduced production costs in factories. Immigrants were attracted to the US based on the political freedom and economic opportunities.

Significant changes occurred in organisations, which affected the workplace as a result of globalisation of markets. Commitment to diversity and inclusion ensures equal and fair treatment in the workplace and reveals a diverse global marketplace. The adoption of US management diversity was based on fairness, equality and inclusive workforce. In the US public sector, diversity management deals with fairness in the federal workplace, while, in the private sector, it is implemented by EEO or AA. The US focus in diversity management is on differences and inclusion of employees of various social groups, not on discrimination. Additionally, the importance of diversity management is that it results in competitive advantages; thus, managers value the benefits of a diverse workforce.

New settlers from various countries have shaped Canada’s history, culture and values, and caused Canada to become unique in terms of traditions and customs. Canada is considered the leading nation in accepting immigrants of ethnic diversity backgrounds. Diversity management in Canada is voluntary and replaced employment equity and AA. A diverse workforce in Canada can benefit from talent, since diversity includes people from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Similarly, diversity in the workplace helps organisations gain and compete in global markets, as well as gain access to ethnic markets and improve corporate image. The implementation of diversity helps Canadian organisations fulfil their goals and serve their diverse public. Prominent organisations in the Canadian public sector are committed to culture and inclusion, with emphasis on newcomers and ethnic group representation. Their diversity policy provides opportunities to promote, reward and retain the best employees, and attracts newcomers to join the diverse workforce.

Diversity management in British organisations deals with negative and positive outcomes in the workplace, such as the disharmony and challenges caused by diversity, as well as the benefits caused by diversity. Cultural diversity has helped some young ethnic minority groups and women gain promotions to senior jobs, yet has not helped BME employees. Further, there has been a shift from equal opportunities to diversity management in private sector organisations in the UK. Moreover, the benefits of workforce diversity are emphasised by diversity managers in the public sector, unlike their colleagues in the private sector, who focus on the influence of diversity on the bottom-line. Immigration in the UK has had a positive effect on the economy, yet diversity management has been unsuccessful in law firms for people with non-Anglo backgrounds. Although diversity management has failed in the UK private sector, the implementation of diversity management in the public sector has been prompted by adherence to legislative compliance.

Similar to the other three countries, waves of immigration have increased the number of immigrants in the Australian workforce, which has led to the rise of the Australian policy. Although Australian multiculturalism recognises the diversity of cultures, the country has no laws to promote diversity in the workplace, rather than assimilation. Australia is a multicultural society and the workplace has subsequently been affected by multiculturalism, embracing people from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Equality, fairness and harmony are provided in the workplace in Australia, yet ethnic and cultural differences are not understood. Thus, workplaces lack the awareness that would enable management to benefit from the skills and experiences of migrants with various ethnic backgrounds.

Languages are considered valuable assets that enable employees to communicate with customers and various cultures. Meanwhile, lack of communication can lead to misunderstanding and conflict, and the use of colloquial English in the Australian workplace can create communication issues in the workplace, especially among employees of CALD backgrounds. It is believed that, in diversity management, diversity enhances the corporate image of organisations in Australia, yielding benefits from multicultural environments at work. While cultural differences can cause conflicts in the workplace because of misunderstandings, benefits can be achieved through the skills and effectiveness of diversity management.

Australian legislation lacks a proactive approach, a commitment to diversity, ongoing training programs and diversity policies to manage ethnic and cultural differences. Diversity is increasing because of Australia’s multiculturalism and continuous influx of immigrants. However, there is an absence of diversity policy legislation and lack of recognition of the workforce diversity and cultural differences. Mere adherence to national laws, without proactively managing diversity, is insufficient to address the differences that exist in the Australian workplace. Further, implementation of diversity policies in Australian organisations is overdue, and must be made compulsory, with the onus on management to emphasise the need for a change.