The bourgeoning literature on the practices of employers and colleagues of migrant workers has showed us that the onus is often put on the migrant. When you explore whether somebody has integrated, especially culturally, you have a norm they should match. This runs the risk of reducing integration to acculturation – those with the right type and amount of effort will succeed – and ignores structures which discriminate against and exclude them. In the labour market, this norm is having a job, getting promoted etc. But there is discrimination during recruitment, both in recognising overseas qualifications and due to ethnicity – migrants can be stereotyped as lacking the cultural and linguistic resources to successfully integrate. Barriers are not just based on demographic or socio-economic factors, but on ethnic or racial bias too. Then there is the ‘ideal worker’ concept – those who deserve to be employed or promoted – against which all employees are measured. This often creates a preference for white, male, able-bodied workers from the organisation’s home country – making migrants less desirable. All this evidence suggests organisations are far from neutral meritocracies. Practices engender further discrimination, with racial segregation intertwined in operations – seen in racial, ethnic, nationality and gender wage gaps and skewed hiring practices. DIFFERENT TREATMENT Within our work, we edited two papers specifically focused on practices of integrating recent flow of refugees into the European labour market. One looked at Austria, where a big supermarket chain helps refugees and migrants with low skills take their first tentative steps towards career development through management training. Although a noble effort, the research shows the programme is based on invalid assumptions – that migrants’ transitions to a new life will be flawless, that everything would be as it is for a white Austrian man. Migrants have assumptions about how practices will work as well – and there are clashes when they come together. There are different timescales for the migrants, the employer, and for nonmigrant employees helping the process. It is like an orchestra playing different tunes at different paces. Migrants can become frustrated that documents say one thing, but actions are different. They might be asked to behave in a certain way, when colleagues behave differently – why the discrimination? This can snowball. Small practices can make big differences, resulting in changed perceptions among colleagues, questioning why migrant workers behave in a different way. This can all be based on misunderstandings generated by practices of communication. An important criterion for success at micro level is creating as much mutual understanding as possible. Both parties need to know how workplace and other processes work, the potential negative or positive outcomes. That transparency can shape broader policy and practices. The other paper looked at public service organisations in Austria, Sweden, Germany and Finland. These organisations are mandated with putting into practice national policies to integrate refugees and migrants into labour markets. This research shows how policies change quickly in the face of populist pressures and new challenges brought about by an influx of migrants, and how migrants’ own journeys to and within host societies merge to throw integration programmes off balance. A priori policy assumptions and budget limitations that cannot account for new contingencies do not help. The common factor is that when you put grand ideas into practice, the relational nature of labour market integration and actual practices generate their own peculiarities. All lead to sub-optimal results. WHERE WE ARE NOW We are only at the beginning of looking at these issues with a practice lens. Covid-19 upended so many people’s ways of working, especially for migrants. Many organisations were forced to reorganise, and service industries – a traditional labour market entrance for many migrants and refugees – were impacted heavily. The effects of the war in Ukraine remind us of the scale of the issue. As of April, more than five million people had fled Ukraine for other European countries. Their most pressing issues are security, food, accommodation, healthcare and education, but – as with other refugees before them – they will soon start to think about employment and joining the labour market in a new country. The far-reaching labour market effects of both are still unknown in many regards, but past experiences show vulnerable groups are often the first to suffer during economic volatility and uncertainty. Populist arguments will use emotive terms such as ‘loyalty’, ask why migrants ‘can’t be like us’? But within the UK, London is different to Lancaster, Liverpool to Manchester – so why do we put that onus on migrants? The way you integrate migrants into the labour market creates roots for them. If they have strong roots, then they have more connections, have more reason to feel part of a country. Addressing this is key to a nation’s economy, both now and for future generations, because migration is here to stay. Dr Emre Tarim is a Lecturer in Behavioural Sciences in the Department of Marketing. The position paper Practices of organizing migrants’ integration into the European labour market, by Dr Vedran Omanović, of Gothenburg University; Dr Emre Tarim, of Lancaster University Management School; and Dr Lotte Holck, of Copenhagen Business School, appears in the European Management Review. e.tarim@lancaster.ac.uk FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 35
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=