Managing for diversity in Statoil

The course Managing Workplace Diversity which I attended at BI Business School in Oslo was about how to manage cultural differences, backgrounds and skills of employees in an international setting. It was required to write a paper and I with a partner of mine did a research study into Statoil Norway.


The current research paper deals with the diversity policy in Statoil via the analysis of: Statoil Book, Code of Conduct 2016, Sustainability Report 2016, and the Annual Report 2016. The value open and caring of Statoil are supporting the diversity policy by creating a safe and secure environment wherein employees can show their colorful authentic backgrounds (Statoil Book, 2016). Statoil values diversity by recruiting local employees, by increasing the number of women in leadership via development programs, and rewards employees on the basis of their performance; how and what is delivered (Sustainability Report, 2016). The Annual Report (2016) underlines the systematic work “to build a diverse workforce by attracting, recruiting, developing and retaining people of both genders and different nationalities and age groups across all types of positions” (p.80).

According to us, the categorization in Statoil has been done via a dual-value integration approach consisting of an instrumental and terminal value with the integration of subcultures (Olsen & Martin, 2012). Categorization could also be seen through the fundamental choices which organizations have to make when they deal with diversity (Van Ewijk, 2011). Regarding the first choice, we consider that Statoil has developed a group-based approach. Furthermore, regarding the second choice, Statoil focuses more on the practical argument than the moral one, which is in harmony with Olsen and Martins (2012) instrumental and terminal value.

The effects of policy categorization on the employees are, firstly, less stigmatization of the minority groups by adoption of instrumental value (Olsen & Martins, 2012), a better understanding of their selection for achieving business objectives (Gilbert & Stead, 1999), and the potential reduction of conflicts which may surface from diversity selection could be achieved (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Secondly, by adopting at the same time a terminal value, women are more inclined to accept affirmative action programs (Martins & Parsons, 2007). Thirdly, the integration acculturation chosen by Statoil, is more respectful to individuals’ identity and this could result in a positive attraction of minorities (Olsen & Martins, 2012). In addition, integration acculturation could reduce the glass ceiling for women and minorities by informing employees’ differences with the main values of the company (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Finally, this is an approach to discourage stereotyping and seeks the inclusion of women’s view in the top management (Olsen & Martins, 2012).

The HR practices regarding attraction, selection, development and retention within Statoil support the diversity policy in multiple manners. Firstly, by the presence on social media, the publication of job descriptions in their vacancy database, the career section on their website, the publication of their values and vision via the abovementioned documents, and the transparency policy add to the attraction of candidates.

Secondly, by increasing the number of women in leadership positions through the use of development program, by selecting local employees in the countries in which the company operates, by putting emphasis on the recruitment of graduates and apprentices, and by placement of fair and transparent recruitment process Statoil selects employees without discriminating them on the primary mode of differentiation.

Thirdly, through the internal job market, the performance management system People@Statoil, the corporate university LEAP, support of leadership, and e-learning programs Statoil manages to develop their employees.

Finally, the offer of a career plan, the fairness of the reward policy, the competitive market wage in addition to the reduction of salary gap between men and women, importance of welfare, a work environment concerned with employees’ health, safety and well-being, and the consideration of unions in the business strategy help to retain the employees of Statoil.

In regard of the recommendations, Statoil should be more clear in their diversity policy in order to have more positive reactions to their recruitment process and make it easier for recruits to judge the fit with the organization. In addition, they should accept foreign students for graduate and apprenticeship vacancies in Norway. They should additionally offer English language courses for candidates who do match the job requirements but lack the language proficiency, for instance, in the USA. Moreover, they should focus more on the recruitment of non-local workforce within Norway in order to increase diversity. Finally, they should rethink their recruitment policy regarding women in order to significantly increase the percentage in the workforce.

Existing diversity policy

We have chosen Statoil, a Norwegian multinational oil and gas enterprise, as the company to research their diversity policy. Statoil’s approach towards diversity is mentioned in multiple documents. Since Statoil does not have a clear picture for the outside world what their diversity strategy and goals exactly are, we are inclined to use multiple sources to give insight in their diversity approach.

Firstly, we analyzed the Statoil Book, it is a fundamental document for all their employees, which clarifies the values of Statoil, they are: open, collaborative, courageous, and caring. The value open emphasizes the need to embrace diversity and welcome new perspectives. In their commitment part they make the reference to provide a safe and secure environment for their employees, recognized for its equality, diversity, fairness, respect and dignity.

Secondly, the Code of Conduct (2016) guides their approach with valuing diversity, promoting equal opportunities, creating a caring and inspiring work environment for all the employees. The abovementioned commitment part is echoed in their Code of Conduct (2016).

Thirdly, the Sustainability Report (2016) mentions that Statoil is an international company which is dedicated to recruit local employees and promote diversity in the different countries they operate in. Moreover, the document refers to the focus to increase the number of women in leadership and professional positions through their development programs. In addition, to give everyone an equal right, they reward people on the basis of their performance; how and what is delivered. According to Statoil, this approach is “transparent, non-discriminatory and supports equal opportunities. It is the ambition that given the same position, experience and performance, employees will be at the same remuneration level relative to the local market” (p.38).

Finally, the Annual Report (2016) underlines the systematic work “to build a diverse workforce by attracting, recruiting, developing and retaining people of both genders and different nationalities and age groups across all types of positions” (p.80). Furthermore, by law of Norway, the board of directors in companies who went public need to consist out of 40% women. The board of Statoil is composed of five women, and three non-Norwegians resident outside of Norway out of a total of ten members.

Categorization of the policy

Olsen and Martins (2012) categorize the diversity policy, in other words the diversity management approach, into terminal and instrumental value type. We believe that Statoil has chosen the dual-value integration which translates into holding an instrumental, and terminal value, with the integration of subcultures into the organization. Statoil values diversity for its potential contribution to organizational goals and as an end state of diversity by valuing the cultural input of organizational members (Sustainability Report, 2016). Furthermore, integration involves both parties to adapt their culture and by hiring local workforce Statoil acknowledges and allows adaptation of cultural sub-groups into the organizational culture (Berry, 1984).

Categorization is furthermore characterized by the first fundamental choice that the companies have to make when it deals with diversity (Van Ewijk, 2011). Statoil’s diversity policy has the goal to support collectives of diverse individuals by acknowledging the differences and valuing them (Van Ewijk, 2011). We believe that Statoil has developed a group-based approach through its policy. For instance, one of their goals is to enable women to have leadership position in which they have traditionally been underrepresented. Thus, it deals with a wish to overcome past disadvantages as a consequence of socially-based differences. In addition, the development program for professional and leadership positions for women who want to grow into these positions have, thanks to the affirmative action policy, the chance to achieve it (Sustainability Report, 2016). Finally, Statoil has the goal to hire local managers and employees (i.e. policy towards a group) in order to reduce the long-term use of expatriates in business operations (Annual Report, 2016).

Van Ewijk’s (2011) second fundamental choice concerning moral or practical choice is in concordance with Olsen and Martins (2012) terminal and instrumental value type. According to us, Statoil has chosen to emphasis more on the practical argument than the moral argument to implement their diversity policy. In their values-based performance culture every employee is empowered to apply their skills, commit to their work and make Statoil’s ambitions come true (Statoil Book, 2016). In addition, they have the performance framework which translates their vision, values and strategy into action and results, creating a connection to team and individual contribution (Statoil Book, 2016). Moreover, Statoil’s choice to hire locally is practical based since they consider that to gain market shares in the foreign markets, there is a need for a strong relationship between the local workforce and the expatriates, to ensure a good transfer of learning (Sustainability Report, 2016). Finally, the objective to rank number one amongst engineering students and professionals in the Norwegian Universum Employer Attractiveness ranking is paramount for Statoil, therefore, they recruit annually students for apprenticeship positions (Sustainability Report, 2016).

The abovementioned categorization has clearly an effect on the employees and the perception of the organizational culture of Statoil. The choice for dual-value integration helps the image of Statoil in trifold.

Firstly, the instrumental value type is seen as less stigmatizing by the minority group and as more just by the majority group members since it has the emphasis on organizational performance benefits (Olsen & Martins, 2012). In addition, instrumental value helps the majority group members understand better that the minority group members are hired to achieve a business objective than if it was only to comply with the principle of affirmative action (Gilbert and Stead, 1999). Moreover, instrumental value type helps with the dampening of the amount of performance-inhibiting conflicts which could surface from diversity (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Furthermore, an instrumental value type could help with valuing individual differences in the form of recognition and utilization of differences to achieve the organizational goals (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Finally, since Statoil is focused on using performance driven systems, and according to us has a practical approach towards diversity, the expectation is that they will seek the positive side of diversity-to-performance relationship thanks to the instrumental value (Olsen & Martins, 2012).

Secondly, some women and minorities may feel stigmatized if the only choice would be an instrumental value type, therefore, having a terminal value for diversity helps to accept more easily programs such as affirmative action (Martins & Parsons, 2007). Moreover, individuals may feel exploited for their demographic characteristics if only an instrumental value type is chosen for the diversity policy (Ely & Thomas, 2001).

Thirdly, the adaptation of the primary culture with the cultural sub-groups by conforming on certain aspects and retention of pieces from the sub-groups will lead to integration and this could lead to achievement of performance related goals thanks to the positive diversity-to-performance relationship (Berry, 1984). Integration itself requires an organizational culture that values respect, openness and sharing (Olsen & Martins, 2012). In addition, integration is reflected by the use of, for instance, the annual Global People Survey (GPS) which aims to give an overview of the company’s’ health and work environment, in turn, Statoil sends a signal to its employees that they are being heard. This is a way to succeed in the creation of a caring and inspiring work environment for all the employees (Statoil Book, 2016). Moreover, individuals want to keep their identities (Swann, 1983) and the integration acculturation respects more individuals’ identities and this may lead to the positive attraction of women and minorities towards Statoil (Olsen & Martins, 2012). Furthermore, the adoption of an integration strategy could give opportunities to women and minority groups with facing less of a glass ceiling since integration strategy will inform employees’ differences with the main values of the company (Ely & Thomas, 2001). As a result, the methods to measure performance and reward employees will be more fair and just towards the majority instead of a minority of the employees (Olsen & Martins, 2012). Finally, integration acculturation discourages stereotyping and seeks the inclusion of women at top management with the goal of representing women’s view in the organization (Olsen & Martins, 2012).

In conclusion, the dual-value integration will help with achieving Statoil’s goals. The salary differences of men and women are nearly the same, women hired in Statoil earn 98% of the men salaries (Sustainability Report, 2016). In addition, at the end of 2016, the percentage of women in management positions was 29%.

HR and the diversity policy


Statoil is present on social media and has a section on their website which is titled “Careers”. This page showcases their vacancies, their values and what they expect from future recruits (Statoil, 2017). One notable sentence is “If you’re the kind of person who sees the possibilities in every challenge, you could be the one we’re looking for”. Furthermore, they offer salary, benefit package, student internships and graduate programs, and students career fairs (Statoil, 2017).

According to Simon Sinek (2011), individuals want to work for companies who understand why they do what they do and work toward achieving a goal which is bigger than the products and services they deliver. In their Statoil Book (2016), which is available on their website for any visitor to see, they describe what their values, vision, commitments, and expectations are which helps the new recruits to judge the “why” of Statoil and look for the fit with the company (Statoil Book, 2016). By stating this clear in their career section, they attract the right attitude and character and can, in a passive manner, filter out non fitting individuals.

In addition, the “About” page gives a clear description of their ethics and compliance and if anyone has any remarks about it, they can speak up by contacting them via a telephone number and e-mail address (Statoil, 2017). This signals a transparency policy and if there are diversity policy misunderstandings, then it is possible to act upon it; which helps with attracting the right kind of individuals.

The vacancy we choose to analyze comes from their USA location since the ones from Norway are all in the Norwegian language. The example we took from their vacancy database is the job description for “Senior Geophysicist Reservoir Geophysics DPUSA OF” (see appendix 1). The job description has sentences and paragraphs which signal potential recruits what Statoil stands for and they can judge for themselves if they are a good fit with the job and the company. For instance, “We are looking for talented people with a desire to find solutions and opportunities in even the most challenging situations to contribute to our organization” (see appendix 1). The paragraph “Personal Qualities” highlights the right individual and under “General Information” they mention Equal Opportunity Employer which gives insight in their perspective of diversity (see appendix 1). On a final note, it is remarkable that the application needs to be in English or in a Scandinavian language, which emphasizes the international orientation of the company.

Statoil’s attraction practices are transparently depicted on their website with the description of Statoil’s values, norms and commitments which is in concordance with Kulic (2014), who describes the diversity management system as having the following five components: diversity paradigms, policies, programs, practices and climate. Although these practices are in line with diversity management systems, they can only deliver organizational benefits if they are effectively managed (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004).


Statoil aims to build a diverse workforce by attracting and selecting employees who best fit the job description without discriminating on the primary modes of differentiation. According to their Annual Report (2016) in 2016, 19% of employees held nationalities other than Norwegian and 73% of the new employees hired were non-Norwegian which can convey that they value diversity. Moreover, the Global People Survey in 2016 shows that employees do not regard discrimination as something fitting with Statoil. The score for the 2016 GPS was 5.1 out of 6 which is comparable with 2015 (Sustainability Report, 2016). However, the section “Our People Partnership and Values” under “Careers” mentions the use of positive discrimination to achieve diversity policy goals, which are the following practices.

Firstly, there is a wish to increase the number of women in leadership positions by the use of development program which has led in the corporate executive committee from 18% to 27% in 2016 (Annual Report, 2016). In 2016 the share of female managers has been 29% compared to 28% in 2015, which translates according to us in a positive trend regarding the increase of the leadership diversity (Sustainability Report, 2016). The use of development program is in agreement with Kalev and Dobbin (2006) who claim that one of the most effective means of increasing the proportions of minorities are through affirmative action programs. Moreover, to perceive the affirmative action program fair and just by the majority group, there is a need to comply with two important steps; elimination of barriers and numerical analysis (Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie & Lev-Arey, 2006). By promotion of women in top management positions the glass ceiling barrier may be eliminated and, as mentioned in the Sustainability Report (2016), by keeping a numerical track of the diversity goals, Statoil can achieve their diversity policy objectives.

Secondly, Statoil puts emphasis on the selection of local employees in the countries they are present in. This commitment is supported by the different data provided in their Sustainability Report (2016), for instance, in Brazil and Canada in 2016, the shares of local employees were respectively 91% and 94%. The number of local managers is 45 in Brazil in 2016, which represents around 16% of the whole workforce of Statoil in this country. The choice to add local workforce has a positive influence on diversity within Statoil via the use of informational resource perspective to get diversity in information, knowledge, and expertise within a team (Van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2010). Diversity in teams may lead to higher level of creativity and innovation to solve future challenges. However, diversity could in addition lead to social categorization within teams which could lead to issues in communication, lower cooperation, relational conflicts and group cohesion (Van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2010). According to the Annual Report (2016), Statoil aims to increase the selection of local managers and subordinates to reduce the long-term use of expatriates in the organization, this is remarkable, since it reduces the diversity in the country where Statoil operates in.

Finally, Statoil aims to recruit graduates and apprentices, which underlines the priority given to the education and training of younger employees. This should result in an increase of diversity in their employee pool, which has led in 2016 to 271 apprenticeships out of 20.539 employees (Sustainability Report, 2016). Graduates in Norway are expected to speak Norwegian, as it is depicted in their “FAQ” pages (Statoil, 2017). Consequently, one has to question if this is in accordance to their diversity policy and if it positively influences diversity itself.

Furthermore, Statoil’s recruitment and selection processes reflect the core values of the company since it aims to be transparent and fair. The result of a fair recruitment policy may participate to an inclusiveness climate which will create a perception of work group inclusion, and in turn, will increase the job performance, creativity, well-being, and organizational commitment (Shore et al., 2011). As it is depicted in their “FAQ” pages (Statoil, 2017), all the positions available are indexed in a vacancy database on their website and are accessible to everyone. Nonetheless, we notice that the attachments have to be written in English or in a Scandinavian language. Statoil insists on its wish to be an equal opportunity employer as described in the example job description in appendix 1.


Statoil is committed to create a professional environment wherein employees can, on a continuous basis, build new skills and share knowledge (Sustainability Report, 2016). Through an internal job market there is an opportunity to take on a new job which enables specializing further or learning and developing into other career paths such as leadership (Statoil Book, 2016). The performance management process People@Statoil manages the deployment, development, performance, and reward of the employee’s (Annual Report, 2016).

In addition, by the creation of the corporate university, LEAP (Learn, Engage, Achieve, Perform), Statoil has created the opportunity to get in-house training in the, for instance, compulsory anti-corruption or human rights program (Annual Report, 2016). The academy has been restructured in 2016 with the addition of more flexible forms of training, for example e-learning and targeted on-the-job activities (Sustainability Report, 2016). The goal has been to increase the efficiency, impact, and availability of the learning activities which has resulted over 3,000 staff and hired contractors who registered for the human rights program (Annual Report, 2016). The university may help to reduce prejudice by providing learning opportunity to a group in the form of direct learning program and or create an environment wherein individuals with different backgrounds can interact with each other. This is in accordance to Christie and Allport’s optimal contact conditions of equal status, common goals, and intergroup cooperation (Christie & Allport, 1954) which has an affect of prejudice reduction by 94% (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Furthermore, the interaction of a group in a learning environment can lead to a better understanding of work group diversity, since groups will come in contact to social categorization (dis)similarity and task-relevant KSA’s (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

The expectation from the employees is to take the responsibility for their own learning and development and help to create a continuous learning culture (Statoil Book, 2016). Leadership has the role to support the employees in maintaining this learning culture by demonstrating ownership and commitment, for instance, by making sure that activities are in concordance with the ethical standards of the Code (Code of Conduct (2016). By “walking the talk”, leaders can promote compliance and ethics which creates a trustful environment where people can feel safe to speak up and ask questions if anything is not in accordance to the, for example, diversity policy; this in turn results in the accomplishment of the diversity policy. As mentioned in the categorization chapter, Statoil aims to create an inclusive environment for their employees and leadership plays a critical role in this objective. Leadership’s role in the inclusion strategy is, as mentioned by Shore et al., (2011), to treat individuals as insiders and to encourage to retain uniqueness within the workgroup. This is in harmony with Mor Barak’s (2014) inclusion-exclusion continuum wherein differences are valued.

To ascertain that there is compliance with the Code, and in turn with the diversity policy, all employees have to complete the abovementioned anti-corruption e-learning program. In addition, regular training and instructions are also provided to selected suppliers and in-person workshops for those who might face integrity issues (Sustainability Report, 2016). The workshops are designed to facilitate in-depth discussions and allows the participants to ask specific questions related to their work, which in turn creates and maintains the knowledge sharing culture within Statoil (Sustainability Report, 2016).

Moreover, as mentioned in the “Selection” section, there is a development program for women who want a professional and or leadership position. This affirmative action is to achieve more diversity in the roles wherein women are underrepresented (Annual Report, 2016).

To conclude, work specific skills as well as for the maintenance of their values, commitment, and vision, the employees undergo regularly training with the purpose of maintaining the values-based performance culture (Statoil Book, 2016).


Statoil invests a great deal in their employees by giving training opportunities and retaining them in the company is imperative. There are numerous practices which help to retain the employees and in the following paragraphs they are depicted.

Firstly, Statoil underlines in its “Careers” pages, its own capacity to offer its employees a career plan (Statoil, 2017). Statoil deploys via numerous methods the opportunity for employees to develop their career, for instance, an environment for knowledge sharing or the learning policy through the LEAP university. The focus is very much on offering career opportunities at an international level.

Secondly, the reward policy within the organization appears to be driven by the commitment of fairness (Annual Report, 2016). In order to measure performance within the company, Statoil has developed a values-based performance culture, which means that delivery and behavior in the process of production are emphasized equally (Statoil Book, 2016). These progresses are measured with key performance indicators which help to set goals in accordance with the mission and values of Statoil. Updates in these indicators are made regularly (Sustainability Report, 2016). This will result in the fair chance of minorities in the organization to be evaluated on the same basis as the majority group.

Thirdly, concerning the salaries, they are, given the same position, experience and performance, in concordance with the local market wage. We observe the effort toward the reduction of the gap between men and women, as mentioned, women hired in Statoil earn 98% of the men salaries (Sustainability Report, 2016). Moreover, corporate bonuses given to the employees are calculated annually and are based on economic performance. Thus, this fair and transparent pay policy will help to achieve the diversity policy objectives for all the employees. In addition, Statoil offers possibilities to its employees to purchase Statoil shares which will create a sense of ownership, and in return, may help with sustaining the diversity policy by the employees. Furthermore, a transparent pay policy which is fairly implemented may help, in parallel with diversity specific practices, to eliminate bias (Nishii, 2013). The result of achieving diversity policy objectives could mean more success in the organizational objectives and help with sustainable international growth (Sustainability Report, 2016).

Fourthly, welfare is likewise part of the company’s practices regarding retention. Beyond the possibilities to participate with recreational and sport activities, and to benefit from reduced price tickets to attend cultural activities, Statoil helps to balance employees work and personal lives. They do this by offering opportunities to apply for flexible hours (Statoil, 2017). This would help women for instance to conciliate in an easier way their family life and work.

Fifthly, Statoil provides a work environment which is concerned with its employees’ health, safety, and well-being. In order to promote health and reduce the risks associated to gas and petroleum, the company constantly invests in Research and Development. For instance, research in exposure control to noise and chemicals, and the best methods to evacuate from offshore facilities (Sustainability Report, 2016). The reduction of the workers’ exposure to physical health risks is one of the priorities of the company and this led to a decrease of the illness frequency, which dropped to 1,6 in 2016 compared to 2.3 in 2015 (Sustainability Report, 2016). By creating a safe environment, there may be more applicants for Statoil, which gives more choice to choose from minorities instead of majority group, in turn, it may lead to a more diverse workforce.

Finally, employees and their representative in the form of unions are involved in business issues and by being in a group it may lead to a better recognition of their status by the top management. Top management of Statoil regularly negotiates with trade unions in order to reduce potential negative impacts from new business process implementations and to provide a positive work environment (Sustainability Report, 2016). Trade unions are known to fight for minorities and as a result, in agreement with Mor Barak (2014), it may lead to a better inclusion of these individuals in the company. Consequently, organizations “may gain a more loyal, satisfied and committed workforce by becoming more inclusive” (Mor Barak, 2014).


We had a difficult time to find a clear picture of Statoil’s diversity policy; Statoil should be more clear in its diversity policy for the purpose of attracting the right candidates. This will help with the process of evaluating if one agrees with Statoil’s diversity policy, which is part of the open and caring values of Statoil. Furthermore, according to Richard and Kirby (1997, 1998, 1999), it is important for individuals that there is a justification in the hiring choices made by organizations, because individuals will react more positively to these choices.

In regard of the graduates and apprenticeship positions within Statoil located in Norway, they are required to speak Norwegian. This however, will limit the diversity in their workforce since foreign individuals are in this way not selected (Statoil, 2017). If a foreign student speaks the English language at an adequate level, this should be according to us, if diversity is paramount, be sufficient to be selected for the position in order to get the best talent for the job. In addition, for example the job description placed for a vacancy in USA (see appendix 1) dictates that one has to send his or her cv in the English or Scandinavian language which means that non English speakers, however Scandinavian speakers can apply for the vacancy. In contrary, for example, if a Spanish speaker in USA wants to apply for the vacancy, he or she has to speak English. Thus, this results in a positive discrimination towards Scandinavian candidates. We propose that in USA Statoil can offer English language courses for candidates who do match the other job requirements except the language proficiency. This policy could be in accordance to the learning policy of Statoil.

According to the Annual Report (2016), in 2016, “19% of employees and 23% of our managerial staff held nationalities other than Norwegian” (p.78). Considering that 18,000 out of 20,539 employees are employed in Norway, the employees hired outside Norway are mostly local workforce, which makes us believe that the number of foreign employees in Norway is minor and has a sparse impact on diversity. As one might expect after reading the Statoil documents, which we have analyzed, Statoil finds diversity essential and gives great attention in multiple locations but this does not reflect in the numbers. In addition, Statoil wishes to reduce the number of expatriates outside of Norway (Sustainability Report, 2016), which may reduce the diversity outside of Norway. Thus, this is according to us yet another strange practice if Statoil claims to find diversity important. We can recommend a change in their hiring policy within Norway. By recruiting more non-local workforce within Norway, the result will be an increase in their diversity, which as we mentioned earlier, may result in higher organizational performance (Berry, 1984). Furthermore, we advise against the wish to reduce the number of expatriates outside of Norway, since they add to the diversity within those locations.

We have noticed in the Sustainability Report (2016) that the share of women within the workforce did not evolve since 2012, it is constant 30% of the workforce, this could be a glass ceiling within Statoil. In addition, the number of female managers was 28% in 2015 and 29% in 2016, which also can have a correlation with a possible glass ceiling. This leads to the conclusion that the recruitment of women in Statoil needs rethinking. Firstly, Statoil should research the market to see what percentage of women would want to work in a technical branch. Secondly, they should aim to achieve that number if it is more than 30%. Thirdly, we recommend the policy of recruiting women and minorities should be followed stricter to achieve that which has been agreed upon. This can be done by giving diversity training to recruiters within Statoil, which will make them see the positive value of having a more diverse workforce.

In conclusion, the recruitment of women and minorities should have a higher priority in order to achieve an increase in the diversity, since then it will be better aligned with their proposed open and caring value, in turn, a potential increase in the organizational performance.


Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural Relations In Plural Societies: Alternatives to Segregation and Their Sociopsychological Implications. Groups in Contact, 11–27. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-497780-8.50008-5

Christie, R., & Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. The American Journal of Psychology, 67(4), 742. doi:10.2307/1418507

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229. doi:10.2307/2667087

Ewijk, A. R. (2011). Diversity and diversity policy: diving into fundamental differences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24 Issue: 5 , pp.680-694.

Gilbert, J. A., & Stead, B. A. (1999). Stigmatization Revisited: Does Diversity Management Make a Difference in Applicant Success? Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 239–256. doi:10.1177/1059601199242006

Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1013–1036. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013

Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 703–729. doi:10.1002/job.257

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404

Kulic, C. T. (2004). Working below and above the line: the research-practice gap in diversity management. Human Resource Management Journal, pp. 129-1,44.

Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 865–875. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.865

Mor Barak, M. E., & Daya, P. (2014). Fostering Inclusion from the Inside Out to Create an Inclusive Workplace. Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, 391–412. doi:10.1002/9781118764282.ch13

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The Benefits of Climate for Inclusion for Gender-Diverse Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0823

Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity management programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1168–1187. doi:10.1002/job.1792

Pettigrew T. F., Tropp L.R. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 5, 751–783

Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1997). Attitudes of white American male students toward workforce diversity programs. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 784–786.

Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1998). Women recruits’ perceptions of workforce diversity program selection decisions: A procedural justice examination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 183–188.

Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1999). Organizational justice and the justification of workforce diversity programs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 109–118.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. doi:10.1177/0149206310385943

Sinek, S. (2011). Start with Why. Penguin.

Statoil. (2016). Annual Report 2016. Retrieved from

Statoil. (2016). Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

Statoil. (2016). Sustainability Report. Retrieved from

Statoil. (2017). Statoil Book. Retrieved from

Statoil. (2017, June 3). Statoil. Retrieved from

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33 – 66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–541. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546

Van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2010). The Categorization-Elaboration Model of Work Group Diversity: Wielding the Double-Edged Sword. The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity, 255–280. doi:10.1002/9781444325447.ch11

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work Group Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008


Appendix 1: Senior Geophysicist Reservoir Geophysics DPUSA OF

Senior Geophysicist Reservoir Geophysics DPUSA OF

Leave a Reply