'That's the proposed training program for this financial year,' Gillian Koh, vice-president of HR says with a sigh of relief, as she switches off the PowerPoint presentation she was showing the executive committee. The other senior executives seated around the conference room remain silent.
'Gillian, it's a very comprehensive program, but given our present financial position and the fact that the economy is stagnant, I wonder if you're being too ambitious.' The inquiry comes from Mason Kerschner, president of Oz Industries.
'I agree, Mason.' The sharp tones of Travis Lambert, vice-president of manufacturing break the quiet. 'Some of this stuff seems totally unrelated to the work situation. I can't understand why we need to spend money on "laughter training", it seems to be a total waste of money to me.'
Gillian sighs. 'We're using it as an icebreaker for the management development program. It's just a bit of fun to get everyone relaxed.'
'My question stands Gillian — why do we need to spend money on this nonsense?' asks Travis.
Before Gillian can answer, Simon Eastwood, vice-president of finance interjects, 'I'm sorry Gillian, but I attended one of these programs at my last company and I found it to be childish, humiliating and a waste of time. To be honest, I hated it - dressing up in stupid costumes and playing with Barbie dolls is not my idea of management training.'
'Yes, I understand your point Simon, but the program has been well received. Star Industries has regularly used it on their executive development programs and have found it to be a great activity,' replies Gillian.

'And how did they come to that conclusion?' asks Travis.
'Their program evaluations have consistently rated it very highly,' answers Gillian.
'You mean the "happy sheets" that HR issues at the end of a training session. Come on Gillian, you know that they're nothing more than entertainment ratings. Where is the hard data that tell us that the program has transfer value in terms of improved job performance? I bet there's none. You're asking us to spend money just because you say so. This is really unfair to us line managers who have to clearly demonstrate the added value of something before we can spend a cent,' Travis says, with anger in his voice.
'I also want to question the need for this diversity management program; the proposed budget for it is enormous, says Simon.
Gillian is about to respond when Ruth Cohen, vice-president of R\&D interjects. 'I've already had questions from two of my people regarding their need to attend this program.'
'As I mentioned earlier, the aim is to have everyone in the company undertake this training,' Gillian responds. 'That is why the total amount seems large but the per capita cost is quite reasonable if you refer to the figures given on page 7 of my presentation handout.'
'You seriously mean attendance is compulsory?' asks Ruth.
'Yes,' replies Gillian.
'Well, we might have a problem then.'
'What do you mean?'
'Mary O'Brien and Siti Ahmada have already indicated that they do not want to participate in this type of training,' 'Why not?
'Come on Gillian, you must know - Mary is an extremely loyal Catholic and Siti is a very devout Muslim. They are both morally opposed to homosexuality and feel that if they have to attend the program it will dishonour their religious beliefs. In fact, if they are forced to attend they may feel as though they are victims of discrimination as a result.'
'Can I say something?' The question comes from Elena Krishnan, vice-president of legal.
'Attendance has to be compulsory. If it isn't, we are vulnerable to charges that we didn't do enough to prevent discrimination. If, for example, one of our gay or lesbian employees claims to have been discriminated against by either Mary or Siti, we have no defence. We have to be clearly seen to have taken appropriate action to ensure that all our employees are aware that discrimination is unacceptable.'

'Where is the evidence that such training is effective in changing peoples' attitudes and behaviour, and results in reducing discrimination? To me it sounds like a lot of politically correct nonsense,' interjects Travis.
'Travis, the reality is, it doesn't matter whether it is effective or not. We have to be seen as actively doing something to communicate to our employees that discrimination is unacceptable. It is all about appearances, not effectiveness,' responds Elena.
'So what you are saying is that this training is cosmetic - its prime objective is to protect the company from being sued?' asks Travis.
'You could say that,' Elena replies, 'think of it as a form of insurance.'
'Mason, in light of this, I strongly recommend that the proposed training program be re-examined and Gillian be asked to justify her budgeted expenditures,' Simon states. 'The two examples we have discussed surely must raise serious concerns regarding the value of training in this company.'
'Well it appears to me that the HR department is asking us to fritter away scarce resources on window dressing and entertainment. I don't see how any of this can possibly improve productivity or contribute to the company's bottom line.'
'Thank you all for your comments,' Mason says with some resignation. 'I think it only fair that Gillian be given the opportunity to reply before we reach any decisions. Go ahead, Gillian.'

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1 Who are the major stakeholders in this case? What do you think their views are likely to be?
2 If you were Gillian, how would you respond to the points raised?
3 Is training a 'luxury' that cannot be afforded in an economic downturn? Explain your answer.
4 Do you agree or disagree with the comment that diversity training is more about protecting organisations from legal action rather than changing attitudes and behaviour? Why?
5 What ethical, legal and HRM issues are raised in this case? How would you deal with them?