Diversity Management in Sport Transformation Contexts

Background/Purpose: : The rationale and value of diversity management to communities in transformation in general, and in sport organizations specifically, have been well documented (Cunningham, 2007; Melymuka, 2001; Cavanaugh, 2001; Cornelius, 2001; De Beer & Radley, 2000). From a literature review, three dimensions of diversity management emerged: affirmative action initiatives, economic empowerment of historically disadvantaged groups, and the creation of new management philosophy to support diversity management. Bill (2002) warned against strategies aimed at single dimensions of diversity management rather than multi-dimensional. South Africa, and specifically South African sport, is challenged to utilize diversity management practices and strategies to achieve transformation. The aim of this study, focusing on South African sports federations, was three-fold: (1) to determine perceptions regarding the nature and necessity of diversity management; (2) to determine diversity management profiles; and (3) to identify inhibitors to effective diversity management.

Method:A qualitative 38-statement questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = fully agree) was used to evaluate sport federations perceptions on dimensions and benchmarks of diversity management: (1) affirmative action initiatives; (2) economic empowerment initiatives; and (3) supportive management philosophy. Questionnaires were administered to a 20.0% random sample of South African sports federations as representative of sport community transformation.

Analysis/Results: Overall scores recorded in three dimensions of diversity management ( = 3.10, affirmative action; =2.95, economic empowerment; =2.82, supportive management philosophy) suggest an ignorant approach to the scope and nature of diversity management, locking sport federations into a neutral diversity management zone when measured against Bill's (2002) benchmarks. A detailed analysis of all success benchmarks in the dimensions of diversity management revealed an absence of dedicated diversity management orientation and training programs, a lack of understanding the multi-dimensionality of diversity management, a lack of gender equality, insufficient attention to and respect of cultural differences, and the relegation of diversity management to affirmative action.

Conclusions: Results suggest that sport federations are focused on surface-level diversity indicators (age, sex, race language) rather than deep-level diversity policies, strategies, processes and outcomes. The value-in-diversity hypothesis of Cox, Lobel & McLeod (1991) is not fully realized in sport federations. This prevents sports federations from transferring full benefits of diversity management to sport management reality. In order to manage effectively, sport federations must internalize diversity management initiatives through implementation of visible policies, appropriate training programs throughout the organization, and utilization of management styles and philosophies congruent with the sport industry.