L'Oréal Is The World's Largest Beauty Products Company ✓ Solved

L'Oréal is the world's largest beauty products company. It

L'Oréal is the world's largest beauty products company. It creates cosmetics, perfume, and hair and skin care items in more than 130 countries under 23 brands, including L'Oréal Paris, Maybelline, Lancôme, Soft-Sheen Carson, and Redken. L'Oréal also owns the UK-based natural cosmetics retailer The Body Shop International, which operates about 2,550 stores worldwide. In 2006, L'Oréal had revenues of €15.8 billion and expected future growth to come more from its emerging markets rather than its traditionally large U.S. and European markets. The organization was highly decentralized with countries having full profit-and-loss responsibility.

Local results were then rolled up to the group level to provide a picture of overall effectiveness. L'Oréal's strategy was conducive to a diversity perspective; the very nature of its business makes diversity vital for success. With diverse customers from around the world, innovation must be based on understanding and respecting differences. In order to be global, the organization must be global from within, and their experience showed that variety breeds more creativity and innovation. As a mirror of the ever-changing world, a diverse workforce is better equipped to deal with change, be in tune with the environment, and represent a key to L'Oréal being a “great place to work.” The organization's current efforts are built on a long history of diversity which began in 1974 with the “Schueller” leave, a maternity policy named after the company's founder that gives women an additional four weeks leave in addition to the statutory requirements and which can be taken, in full or in part, until the child is two years old.

In 2000, L'Oréal adopted an Ethics Charter describing its values and practices as a global company and implemented several other initiatives, such as the adoption of policies concerning diversity practices, the appointment of specific roles (a U.S. vice president of diversity was appointed in 2002), the inception of diversity training, and participation in career fairs. Momentum for diversity efforts at L'Oréal increased in 2004 with the signing of the Diversity Charter, along with 35 other large French organizations, and the appointment of a global diversity director. The charter represented a national effort to promote pluralism and diversity as strategies for success. It visibly committed the organization to pursue a variety of initiatives, including raising awareness, incorporating diversity progress metrics in annual reports, and implementing policies that promoted diversity throughout the corporation.

Diversity within L'Oréal came to be defined as “a mosaic of visible and invisible differences… which influence attitudes, behaviors, values, and ways of working within the professional environment.” The new global diversity director assembled a team that developed an explicit diversity strategy. The strategy involved five action levers, including recruitment and integration, training, career management interventions, management and inclusion, and communication. These five levers were expected to drive results along six visible and invisible dimensions, including nationality, ethnic and cultural background, social promotion, gender, disability, and age. The team believed the biggest obstacle to implementation was the cultural differences between the countries and a low-level awareness of the benefits that a diversity strategy could bring.

For example, many of the workforces in the emerging market countries were quite homogeneous relative to the United States and France. Their economies were growing fast, and their leadership teams had little experience or understanding of diversity-related practices. On the other hand, the diversity efforts in the United States were quite advanced. L'Oréal's U.S. diversity program was recognized with the 2004 Diversity Best Practices' Global Leadership Award for creating an environment of diversity and inclusion for employees, customers, and suppliers. The U.S. experience thus provided some important internal benchmarks for the global team.

For example, with respect to the recruiting strategy, the U.S. vice president of diversity had introduced the concept of “fishing in different ponds” to suggest that where the organization looked for diverse talent was as important as whom they were looking for. The organization identified seven different ponds and, as a result, more than 60% of the general managers were women compared to a L'Oréal international average of about 33%. In addition, minority representation had increased from 13.9% in 2001 to 16% in 2004. Eventually, this led to the principle of sourcing diversification to access a broader range of profiles.

In addition, the international organization began computerizing the application process in 2004. Through its website, they deleted requests for certain kinds of information that might contribute to recruiting biases. Since its inception, the organization has deleted home addresses, a type of information that French studies believed was among the most discriminatory, as well as information related to gender, age, and nationality.

In terms of the training strategy, the U.S. vice president collaborated with the global training organization to make diversity and inclusion part of the core curriculum for all major leadership development training programs. One of the global diversity team's initial activities was a two-day diversity seminar that involved over 8,000 managers in 32 countries in Europe. The seminar explained the diversity strategy and created opportunities for managers to establish goals and action plans to make diversity practices a reality in their countries.

In line with the global team's concerns, the managers' reactions were mixed, depending on their organizational role and the country they represented. Many managers wondered if this was a “flavor of the month” issue, believed they were already managing with diversity in mind, or had more important business issues to address. However, many of the managers also realized the potential of diversity and became aware of some personal biases. These managers were used to leverage the diversity effort as it rolled out globally.

The U.S. program also led the way in terms of implementing the strategy of management and inclusion. Diversity objectives were included as part of a manager's responsibilities in annual performance reviews. That practice was eventually expanded, and today diversity objectives are included on a worldwide basis. To measure the progress of the programs, L'Oréal benchmarks the company against leading Fortune 500 companies that are recognized as “Best in Class” for women and people of color. A quarterly “State of Diversity Report” measures results and monitors progress in key areas; it is shared with senior leaders and human resources teams.

In 2006, L'Oréal was recognized with the World Diversity Leadership Council's Diversity Innovation Award, and in 2007 Ethisphere magazine ranked the organization as one of the “world's most ethical companies.”

Paper For Above Instructions

The objective of this paper is to explore and present a detailed educational scenario based on the principles of instructional design, emphasizing L'Oréal's diversity initiatives and their significance in today's global market. It aims to create a one-hour instructional module designed for managers and employees within the beauty industry, focusing on diversity and inclusion, which is a crucial element in L'Oréal's success as a global organization.

Course Topic and Audience

The selected topic for this instructional session is "Understanding and Implementing Diversity in the Workplace." The target audience consists of managers and employees across L'Oréal's various divisions who are likely to engage with diversity in their daily operations. The session will be structured to take approximately one hour, providing a comprehensive overview of L'Oréal's diversity strategy and its practical implications in the workplace.

Key Information About the Course

This course will address the challenges and opportunities that arise from implementing diversity policies at L'Oréal. Given the company's decentralized structure, employees from different geographical locations will engage in discussions about their unique challenges and successes, fostering a learning environment that respects and values diverse experiences. The main objective is to equip learners with the understanding and tools necessary to promote a culture of diversity and inclusion within their teams.

Performance Objectives

Terminal Performance Objective 1 (ABCD Model): By the end of the course, participants will be able to identify at least three key components of L'Oréal's diversity strategy (Audience: employees; Behavior: identify; Condition: during the course; Degree: with at least 80% accuracy).

Terminal Performance Objective 2 (ABCD Model): By the end of the course, participants will be able to create a personalized action plan for integrating diversity practices into their teams (Audience: managers; Behavior: create; Condition: in a workshop setting; Degree: that includes at least three specific strategies).

Instructional Design Models Comparison

The instructional design project will vary significantly when using a competency-based learning model compared to the traditional ADDIE model. In a competency-based learning model, the focus shifts towards learner-centric outcomes, emphasizing mastery of skills and knowledge relevant to diversity practices. In contrast, the ADDIE model, while systematic, often follows a linear approach that may not adapt quickly to the specific needs of diverse learners. The competency-based model allows for tailoring courses to individual learner paths, providing flexibility that aligns with varied cultural and functional contexts found in L'Oréal's multinational workforce.

Advantages and Difficulties of Terminal Performance Objectives

When addressing the affective domain, the advantages include fostering a commitment to diversity and encouraging an emotional connection to the material. However, the difficulties arise from the subjective nature of affective objectives, making them harder to assess compared to cognitive objectives. These affective outcomes require nuanced evaluation methods, such as self-reflections and peer assessments, which may complicate the objective measurement needed by formal education systems.

Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction

Applying Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction in a face-to-face setting involves a structured approach, beginning with gaining attention, informing learners of objectives, and stimulating recall of prior knowledge. In a face-to-face environment, interactive discussions, role plays, and live feedback can enhance engagement. Conversely, when using the model in an online high school setting, methods would differ, utilizing multimedia resources, online forums, and digital simulations to achieve similar learning outcomes while accommodating the limitations of distance learning.

Data for Effectiveness

To evaluate the effectiveness of an eighth-grade class, data such as student engagement levels, assessment results, and feedback from students and parents would be essential to gauge overall understanding and interest in the subject matter. For a training program directed at first-line supervisors, metrics including performance improvement, employee retention rates, and participant feedback on training relevance would provide insights into the efficacy and impact of the program on management effectiveness.

Conclusion

Diversity is not just a goal at L'Oréal but a strategic imperative that underpins the company's commitment to innovation and creativity in a global market. By designing an engaging course focused on diversity, L'Oréal can further embed these principles into its culture, ensuring that its workforce is not only diverse but also inclusive and empowered to thrive in a competitive landscape.

References

• Barak, M. E. M. (2016). Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.
• Gagne, R. M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Thomas, R. R. (2004). Diversity as Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 98-108.
• Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the Meanings of Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 134-155.
• Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What Differences Make a Difference? The Promise and Problems of Diverse Teams in Organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55.
• Page, S. E. (2008). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Incorporating Multiculturalism into Organizational Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 161-173.
• Mor Barak, M. E. (2011). Diversity in the Workplace: A Handbook for Personal Reflection. New York: Sage Publications.
• Cox, T. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organization: A Strategy for Capturing the Power of Diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.