04. Gender, Diversity and Indigeneity Refereed Delivered Indigenous Employee Voice and Inclusion: New Perspectives from Vietnamese Public Sector Organizations Mr. Tho Alang School of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Email: [email protected] Dr. Pauline Stanton School of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Email: [email protected] Dr. Raymond Trau School of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Email: [email protected] 1 04. Gender, Diversity and Indigeneity Refereed Delivered Indigenous Employee Voice and Inclusion: New Perspectives from Vietnamese Public Sector Organizations ABSTRACT: The voices from minority groups, in particular Indigenous employees, are often neglected by researchers. This paper focuses on the characteristics of Indigenous voice mechanisms in the case of one public sector organization in Vietnam. It explores the experience of Indigenous people in regard to participation and involvement in this organization and explores Indigenous perceptions of inclusion in organizational decision making. The findings show that different way of communication was considered as an important element of the Indigenous voice practices. Also, the Indigenous employees experienced a lot of difficulties in participation and involvement in work. Moreover, despite the fact that there were voice mechanisms in place by themselves they did not lead to Indigenous inclusiveness. Instead it was inclusive leadership. Keywords: Employee voice; Indigenous employee; Inclusion; Inclusive leadership; Public sector organization; Vietnam. INTRODUCTION Public sector organizations often focus on implementing diversity policies to increase the representation of minority groups within their workforce (Ashikali & Groeneveld, 2015; Sowa & Selden, 2003), as policy outcomes emanating from engaging with their diverse employees might better reflect the needs of a diverse range of employees (Meier, 1993). However, in order to capture a diverse voice within a workplace, distinctive practices which enhance minority employee participation and consultation in work are often necessary since each group has unique knowledge, skills, and capacity to contribute to the organizations’ effectiveness (Jackson, Schuler, & Rivero, 1989). Employee voice (EV) studies tend to see EV as a universal concept which is applied in the same way to all workers (Bell, Özbilgin, Beauregard, & Sürgevil, 2011). However, voices vary across all groups in the organization. Studies worldwide indicate that Indigenous employees often experience a sense of isolation in the workplace due to discrimination and lack of support from management, trade unions and policy makers (Biddle, Howlett, Hunter, & Paradies, 2013; Daldy, Poot, & Roskruge, 2013; Hunter & Hawke, 2001; Kensington-Miller & Ratima, 2015; Kunkel, Schorcht, & Brazzoni, 2010). Also, organizational voice practices do not take into account the specific cultural needs of Indigenous employees (Haar & Brougham, 2011; Haar & Brougham, 2013; Hunter & Hawke, 2002). 2 This paper aims to understand the characteristics of Indigenous voice mechanisms in Vietnamese public sector organization, with a focus on Indigenous employee’s participation and involvement and their perception of inclusion in organizational decision making. This paper focuses on Indigenous people in Vietnam1, who in line with Indigenous people worldwide face a number of challenges in the workplace, for a number of reasons. First, different languages and cultures impede Indigenous employees in their communication and interaction in the workplace. Evidence shows that Indigenous people are less likely to speak the dominant language of the country, which leads them tend to be more marginalized from their non-Indigenous colleagues (Bank, 2009; Baulch, Chuyen, Haughton, & Haughton, 2007). Second, racial prejudice still exists in the workplace and threatens Indigenous participation at work (Badiani, Baulch, Brandt, Dat, Giang, Gibson, & Wells-Dang, 2012; Bank, 2009; Dang, 2012; Molini & Wan, 2008). Indigenous employees are often labelled or perceived as ‘different’ by mainstream employees (Bank, 2009) and are stereotyped as ‘lacking in knowledge’ by management even if they have higher education qualifications (Badiani et al., 2012). In such prejudiced environments, Indigenous voices are overlooked, which may lead to workplace conflict, and reduced productivity and engagement of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees in the workplace. However, Indigenous peoples in many countries have raised their voices politically and put pressure on governments for political autonomy (Gupta, 2005). Even if these demands are not fully accepted, the Indigenous voice can attract government attention and lead to the reshaping of policies that impact on Indigenous communities and their experience in the workplace. For example, in Vietnam, the government regulations on workplace democracy that have been formulated and implemented in public sector organizations are specifically expected to give Indigenous employees’ opportunities to have more say at their workplace (Government, 2012). Notwithstanding, research on Indigenous employees in Vietnamese workplace is very limited and focuses mainly on social and cultural issues (Nguyen 2016). Arguably, little attention has been paid to 1 The Indigenous people of Vietnam are presently known as ‘ethnic minority people’ or ‘ethnic people’ by the policy makers, and hill tribe people or Montagnard people (the Indigenous of Central Highlands only) by the international report documents. This study utilizes the term of ‘Indigenous people’ to refer to the hill tribes and Montagnard people to differentiate these groups from other foreign-descent groups in Vietnam such as Chinese-Vietnamese, Cambodian-Vietnamese, and etc. 3 Indigenous employees within Vietnamese organizations, in particular public sector organizations despite the fact that the percentage of Indigenous government officials has increased to 11.68 per cent of the public sector workforce in 2013 (Cling, Razafindrakoto, & Roubaud, 2014; Ngu, 2015). LITERATURE REVIEW Understanding Employee Voice EV (employee voice) is understood as employee involvement and participation in workplace decision making (Freeman, Boxall, & Haynes, 2007; Marchington, 2005; McCabe & Lewin, 1992). EV can be defined as ‘the ways and means through which employees attempt to have a say and potentially influence organizational affairs relating to issues that affect their work and the interests of managers and owners’ (Wilkinson, Dundon, Donaghey, & Freeman, 2014, p. 5). EV can be categorized as either direct or indirect. Direct voice allows individual employees to get involved and express voice via procedures and practices rather than through third party representatives (Richardson, Danford, Stewart, & Pulignano, 2010). Also, the fact that direct participation and involvement in particular is often token in nature and employees have very little power to make change, and real contribution to decision making (Brinsfield, 2014; Strauss, 2006). In addition, indirect voice refers to collective employee representation through trade union and non-union structures including workers’ councils or consultative committees (Marchington & Kynighou, 2012; Richardson et al., 2010). Voice mechanism are implemented through either formal or informal structures (Dachler & Wilpert, 1987; Richardson et al. 2010; Mowbray et al., 2015). Formal voice is defined as ‘voice using codified, pre-arranged, and regular/concrete structures’ to ‘foster consistent implementation and that reduce the discretionary powers of voice managers’ (Marchington & Suter, 2013, p. 286; Harlos, 2001, p. 329, as cited in Mowbray et al., 2015). Formal voice occurs through several channels including one- to-one meetings; speaking-up programs; emails; open-door policies; empowerment by supervisors; self- management teams; and upward problems-solving groups (Boxall & Purcell, 2010; Cox, Marchington, & Suter, 2009; Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004; Marchington & Suter, 2013; McCabe & Lewin, 1992; Wilkinson, Townsend, & Burgess, 2013). According to Klaas, Olson-Buchanan, and Ward (2012), informal voice mechanisms refer to ‘ideas or concerns…expressed directly and outside a structured process’ (p. 324). This form includes 4 informal discussions; one-to-one meetings; word-of-mouth; emails; open-door policies; and empowerment by supervisors (Boxall & Purcell, 2010; Dundon et al., 2004; Marchington & Suter, 2013; McCabe & Lewin, 1992; Wilkinson et al., 2013). Barak (1999) suggests that informal structures such as lunch meetings are often where information is shared and real decisions take place. Furthermore, EV practices can be incorporated into the work of a wide array of agents such as trade union, managers and civil society organizations (Wilkinson et al., 2014). According to Freeman and Medoff (1984), independent trade unions provide a collective voice to workers giving them a stronger bargaining position to negotiate with the management on pay and conditions. Managers also play an important role in EV practices as they are the people that actually implement legislation or policy (Wilkinson et al., 2014), and can directly impact the effectiveness of such policies particularly those intended to enhance minority voice via equitable climate and treatment practices (Pichler, Ruggs, & Trau, 2017). Indigenous Voice in the Workplace Studies on Indigenous employees find that their voices are impeded by racial discrimination,