Diversity Champions as Change Agents –
Tempered Radicals or Liberal Reformers?
Paper to be presented at the Gender, Work and Organization Conference,
22nd-24th June 2005, Keele University
Abstract
This paper explores the role of one set of practitioners – diversity champions – who are involved in the development and implementation of organisational equality and diversity policy. The paper draws on in-depth qualitative interviews with diversity champions in a broad range of organisations in the private and public sectors. The analysis unravels how diversity champions understand the concepts of equality and diversity, how they select, justify and develop different policy measures and who they build alliances with in order to pursue their objectives. The conceptions of liberal and radical equal opportunities actors Jewson and Mason (1986) and ‘tempered radicals’ Meyerson and Scully (1995) are used as frameworks for this analysis.
Addresses for correspondence:
Gill Kirton
Centre for Business Management
Queen Mary, University of London
Mile End Road
London E1 4NS
Tel: 0207 882 7439
Email: [email protected]
Anne-Marie Greene
Industrial Relations and Organisational Behaviour Group
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Coventry
Tel: 0247 652 2866
Email: [email protected]
Deborah Dean
Industrial Relations and Organisational Behaviour Group
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Coventry
Tel: 0247 652 4274
Email: [email protected]
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to discuss the role and orientations of organisational ‘diversity champions’[1] as a critical group of people involved in developing and implementing diversity initiatives. There are a number of definitions of diversity management, but the following captures the main elements, which we can see reflected in the policies of most large British organisations (Kirton 2002):
‘Diversity management is concerned with the promotion of equality through valuing difference between individuals and groups, particularly those who have traditionally experienced disadvantage. In addition, good diversity management should seek a strong ‘business case’, which encourages inclusiveness and marshals difference’ (Cornelius et al. 2000:67).
The diversity approach contrasts in a number of significant ways with the ‘equal opportunity’ approach traditionally deployed by British organisations (see Miller 1996). The difference that is most salient for the discussion in this paper is the overall aim of policy. Jewson and Mason’s (1986) influential framework of equal opportunities places fairness and justice as central objectives of both liberal (concerned with procedural justice) and radical approaches (concerned with distributive justice). In contrast, diversity management (as reflected in the above definition) emphasises the ‘business case’, in theory at least involving a weighing-up of the costs and benefits of diversity initiatives. It is recognised that in practice the organisational benefits of equal opportunity initiatives have always played a part in justifying the need for action (Liff and Dickens 2000). However, the underlying rationale is significant in so far as it will, to some extent, reflect the beliefs and values and influence the actions of those who champion equality and diversity. For example, Cockburn (1991) states that the equality officer role is a job that attracts progressive people with a commitment to social justice. The question is whether this aim can be and is pursued within a business case (diversity) approach and whether people with a strong commitment to business goals can also be committed to social justice.
It is clear from the above definition of diversity management that just as ‘equal opportunities’ did, it too involves change for organisations and their members. Indeed, the main thrust of the burgeoning academic critique of diversity management is that it de-emphasises the conflicts, problems and dilemmas involved in developing meaningful initiatives and fails to acknowledge resistance to change (Humphries and Grice 1995; Jones et al. 2000; Lorbiecki and Jack 2000; Kaler 2001; Kirton and Greene Forthcoming).
Surprisingly, there is little recent academic research focusing specifically on the group of people responsible for equality and diversity policy formulation in organisations. However, this is perhaps less surprising when we consider that like its sister concept HRM, diversity management usually emphasises the important role for line-management and top management support (Cornelius et al 2000), rather than the role of the diversity specialist who is largely invisible within the diversity discourse. Two exceptions in the British literature are Lawrence (2000) and Lorbiecki (2001). Lawrence (ibid) contends that evaluation of the role of ‘equal opportunity officers’ in achieving equality changes requires a study of the perspectives held regarding equal opportunities. Although one of the perspectives that Lawrence identifies is diversity management, she does not engage in any depth with the question of whether a shift towards diversity means anything substantive for the role. Lorbiecki (ibid) concentrates on the concept of diversity and the costs to ‘diversity vanguards’ of making a difference.
‘Tempered Radicals’ or ‘Liberal Reformers’?
Two papers emerge as particularly helpful in providing frameworks for our analysis. The first from American academics Meyerson and Scully (1995) who develop the concept of ‘tempered radicalism’. The second from British academics Jewson and Mason (1986) who delineate ‘liberal’ and ‘radical’ approaches to the principles, implementation, effectiveness and perceptions of equal opportunities. Meyerson and Scully’s (1995) concept of ‘tempered radicalism’ links to the literature that talks about the organisational pressures for assimilation and social conformity (especially for managers) (for example, Kanter 1977; Alvesson and Billing 1997); the concept of ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ (for example, Tajfel 1982) and voice and silence (for example, Bowen and Blackmon 2003) in organisations. ‘Tempered radicals’ are people who work and seek advancement within mainstream organisations and professions, but also want to change them. They are people who strongly believe in eradicating gender, race, class and other social injustices and who struggle to act in ways that are appropriate professionally, but are also authentic personally and politically. They are ‘radical’ ‘because they challenge the status quo, both through their intentional acts and also just by being who they are, people who do not fit perfectly’ (Meyerson and Scully, 1995: 586). They might not fit perfectly because of their beliefs and values (the political sources of identity) and/or because of their personal identity (for example, gender, race, etc). They are people who are ‘tempered’, first because they are ‘angered by the incongruities between their own values and beliefs about social justice and the values and beliefs they see enacted in their organisations’ (Meyerson and Scully 1995:586). They are also ‘tempered’ because it is necessary for them to tone down their anger and sense of misfit in order to avoid alienating significant others and to survive in their organisations.
This state of ambivalence creates a set of choices and strategies available to tempered radicals, which include living with (and utilising) ambivalence, seeking compromise, or accepting co-optation. Living with ambivalence creates a dual identity, whereby tempered radicals might act as critics of the status quo and also as critics of more radical change. In trying to speak to multiple constituencies, tempered radicals might seek compromise, which might be seen as too radical for some and too conservative for others. Alternatively, the desire to belong might be so strong that a tempered radical might push away from the outsider dimension of his or her identity leading to co-optation, but also feelings of isolation.
Jewson and Mason’s (1986) paper has been referenced and explained many times before (for example Richards 2001; Kirton and Greene 2005) so we will not spend much time detailing this now. There are specific differences in the liberal and radical approaches relating to: a) principles (liberal denotes fair procedures, equality of opportunity, sameness, whereas the radical denotes fair distribution, equality of outcome, difference); b) implementation (liberal requires bureaucratisation whereas the radical requires politicisation; c) effectiveness (liberal requires positive action, radical requires positive discrimination; d) perceptions (the liberal views justice to be done when procedures are seen as fair, whereas the radical is more concerned with whether the existence of fair procedures provides an opportunity for wider consciousness raising and collective action.
Jewson and Mason’s research shows how in practice these conceptions are often deployed simultaneously and in a confused and contradictory way. They outline the way in which liberals often provide radical legitimations for liberal policy actions, or likewise, ‘radicals may… disguise themselves in liberal clothing’ (1986: 323). This is seen as problematic in that it can lead to confusion among different groups (including the intended beneficiaries of the policy) and ineffectiveness of the policy itself. However, this confusion is seen as resulting from the peculiar position that equality activists find themselves in, where equal opportunities must be seen as constituting ‘social practices’ (1986: 327). In this, Jewson and Mason’s analysis bears similarity to Meyerson and Scully’s, in referring to the ‘social ambiguity and social ambivalence’ (1986: 309) surrounding equality activists, which derives from the ‘demands and constraints which impinge upon them’ (1986: 309). Like tempered radicals, in order to make gains or legitimise oneself, liberal or equality activists may have to use the arguments of an opponent or critic which ‘may lead one along a logical road quite divergent from the straight and narrow path of one’s own preferred principles’ (1986: 328).
How do these constructs help us to understand the roles and actions of diversity champions?
Previous research has shown that equality specialists are recruited into their roles from various backgrounds, some from human resource management, from equality activism and others from mainstream business management (Cockburn 1991; Lawrence 2000). It is also a feminised role, although a small number of (usually minority ethnic) men are also found, and these demographic characteristics position diversity champions as ‘outsiders’ or ‘misfits’ within management. Unlike many mainstream business managers, earlier research has found that they usually have an explicit commitment to achieving equality and social justice and abhorrence of discrimination and unfair treatment (Cockburn 1991).
Therefore, diversity champions might be characterised as tempered radicals because they challenge by their actions and their very existence, the status quo. Being at the forefront of equality and diversity programmes diversity champions are inevitably involved in contentious issues and unpopular policy-making areas, which means the role makes many personal as well as professional demands (Lawrence 2000). However, if they have such an explicit agenda for organisational change, it might be argued that equality specialists are radical per se in Jewson and Mason’s terms, rather than tempered radicals. However, given the generally liberal orientation of equal opportunities policies in Britain, whether their architects were ever able to imprint radical ideas on policy is very debatable. Rather it is more likely that in order to be accepted and be taken seriously, particularly by people at senior levels, equality specialists would always have had to temper their radicalism. Further, now that the business case for diversity is, as discussed above, being strenuously promoted and adopted it might also be assumed that the current generation of ‘diversity champions’ would certainly need to temper their radicalism if they are to construct a convincing business case and advance a diversity agenda.
Further, as Lorbiecki and Jack note (2000) the concept of insiders and outsiders is built on a dualistic view of society and is a binary divide which draws the boundaries too tightly. The concept of ‘tempered radicals’ softens this view and sees insider and outsider status as more complex and fluid, and thus provides a fuller explication of the social practice of equality/diversity than is implied by Jewson and Mason’s construct. In order to effect change, diversity champions arguably must influence and build alliances with key actors (often white males) in the organisation, possibly requiring them to temper their aims and demands and gain acceptance on the inside. This could leave diversity champions (as tempered radicals) open to criticism by both defenders of the status quo and by (untempered) radicals. For example, diversity champions might criticise the status quo for informally excluding women or minority ethnic people, but they might also be reluctant to employ radical equality measures for fear of provoking backlash among the white male majority, in particular their own sponsors. It is also possible though that they will internalise the dominant business-driven values of the organisation and compromise their personal commitment to equality or accept co-optation and become an insider by privileging the business case above all other (social justice) considerations.
The alternative characterisation is of diversity champions as ‘liberal reformers’ - people who do not have transformative aims, thinking that systems and procedures need only minor changes to ‘level the playing field’ (Jewson and Mason 1986). This is a particular possibility given the business case orientation of diversity. In addition, while Meyerson and Scully do reflect on people ‘doing diversity work’ in organisations, a slight difference when looking specifically at diversity champions is that the organisation has supported the existence of a diversity role and therefore arguably, change is perceived as integrally linked to business performance. In other words, it is possible that diversity champions do not hold beliefs and values that differ significantly from the majority.
Research approach
The paper draws on qualitative interviews with 24 ‘diversity champions’ in the public (13), voluntary (1) and private sectors (10). The public sector organisations included government departments (3), local authorities (4), the police service (4) and universities (2). The private sector organisations included banking and finance (6), retail (1), newspaper (1), utilities (1) and construction (1) firms. Eighteen of the champions were full-time diversity specialists in their organisations, while six had other full-time roles and had either volunteered or been asked to take a diversity role in addition. The diversity roles of most of the interviewees meant getting involved in both service delivery and employment issues. The group of interviewees consisted of fifteen white women, five black/minority ethnic (BME) women, two BME men and two white men; they were mostly aged over 40 (with only three under 40).
The interviews took place during 2004-5 and were one dimension of a broader European Social Fund project – Involvement of Stakeholders in Diversity Management. The interviews were semi-structured, using a broad interview guide covering five main areas – champion’s background, champion’s role, organisational thinking on diversity, stakeholder involvement and organisational policy and practice. The interview guide was designed with open questions in order to gather attitudinal data as well as concrete examples of diversity initiatives and allowing participants to tell us about their role from their perspective. Interviews lasted between one and two hours; were tape-recorded and fully transcribed. As discussed earlier, we use Meyerson and Scully (1995) and Jewson and Mason (1986) as frameworks for the analysis of the interview data and their constructs did not form part of the interviews themselves.
Exploring the roles of diversity champions
Here we present some of the research findings, focusing on who the diversity champions are, their understandings of diversity management and their role as diversity champions, and their strategies of change. Quotes have been selected that represent typical views and the interviewees’ gender, race/ethnicity and employment sector are shown to help the reader contextualise the comments.
Who are the diversity champions?
As outlined earlier, tempered radicals are people who want to work from inside organisations towards progressive change, therefore the role of diversity champion could be appealing to them, as suggested by Meyerson and Scully (1995). However, arguably, if we are to believe the rhetoric that diversity contributes to organisational success and should therefore be a strategic organisational objective (Kossek et al. 2003), the role could also be attractive to people mainly pursuing business goals who perceive that some reforms are necessary, fitting more closely with a liberal (Jewson and Mason) characterisation.
Work background provides some clues as to the orientation of diversity champions. Immediately prior to taking their present diversity role, twelve interviewees (including the six who were diversity champions on a ‘part-time’ basis) were previously operational managers, seven were human resource (HR) practitioners and five were diversity/equality specialists. Fourteen interviewees were recruited to the role internally (including the ‘part-time’ champions and those who were previously operational managers) and ten externally (including all the specialists). It is particularly notable that many had previously been operational managers, rather than HR practitioners or diversity specialists. Further, when longer-term and broader backgrounds are explored, most of the HR and equality/diversity specialists had earlier operational management experience. A background in mainstream business management (especially in the same organisation) is congruent with the diversity approach, where, as stated earlier, the emphasis is on an internally driven business case, meaning that it is perceived as a strategic and operational issue, rather than an HR or specialist one (Maxwell et al. 2001). Within this, it would seem logical or even necessary for diversity champions to have broader business and organisational experiences. This was reflected in the way that some interviewees talked about their path to the diversity champion role, for example:
‘I came to it as somebody who is used to working in the business as opposed to an HR professional or a diversity specialist. And that was a very specific choice, given they wanted – the people who are making the decisions – wanted it to be treated as a business issue. They wanted somebody who knew their way around the business, had some credibility about knowing how the business worked; that was more important than specific expertise. And so I came in knowing almost nothing [about diversity] and now know lots of course.’ (White woman, banking and finance.)
The manner in which the above was said indicated that the interviewee approved of this approach (as did other interviewees), rather than seeing the lack of knowledge of the equalities area as a disadvantage. In addition, a very small number mentioned political, community or trade union activism as having influenced their route to the champion role. These interviewees revealed a particular interest in pursuing a social justice agenda, although this was more widely shared, with many interviews talking about believing more ‘passionately’ in equality than liberal reformers would be comfortable with.
Because of their imperfect fit within mainstream organisations, tempered radicals are viewed as having dual identities (Meyerson and Scully 1995). Arguably, diversity champions have a dual (professional) identity of diversity change agent and organisational manager, which could potentially exist in tension. It was evident that most interviewees held strong opinions on equality issues, but that at the same time they were committed to pursuing organisational goals. For some, at a personal level, business and equality goals could co-exist happily, for example:
‘I have always felt very passionate about equality. And always as a manager I’ve tried to treat people as individuals and as fairly as possible. And it’s always been my ethos as a manager to do that.’ (White woman, retail.)
However, despite a personal commitment to being a fair manager, many interviewees had observed and experienced unfair organisational practices, which for some had shaped their view of work organisations and influenced their motivation to become a diversity champion, working towards change from the inside, for example:
“I’m really passionate about the issues. I am not a campaigner though; I prefer to be an advisor [emphasis added]. I can also utilise my own experience: that’s what’s got me interested. I’ve been turned down for jobs in the bank, I know it was because I’m a woman and I want to change things.’ (White woman, banking and finance.)
The fact that tempered radicals hold some personal values that clash with the majority can cause them to feel like ‘misfits’ (Meyerson 2003), never feeling entirely comfortable in one community or with one identity, which in turn might induce a feeling of isolation (Meyerson and Scully 1995). Although there was no clear sense that interviewees in the study generally felt like misfits or isolated in their organisations, there was some suggestion of ambivalence about the fit of a commitment to equality and diversity with dominant organisational beliefs and values. For example, a critical position was adopted by one interviewee from a government department, who talked about the constraints of the environment and the difficulties in performing the diversity role. Others talked about experiences of resistance and backlash to diversity initiatives, particularly from middle managers, and many talked about the enormous level of personal commitment necessary for the role, for example:
‘I think to do this sort of role well you’ve got to have a lot of personal commitment. You’re out there, you’re giving the message, you’ve got to get people to follow you, you’ve got to persuade people of the benefits, which are not always easily seen and it isn’t always easy.’ (White woman, utilities.)
A small minority of diversity champions expressed some sense of isolation, for example:
‘I mean certainly from my own experience and doing this work for some number of years now. I think you can, you sense sometimes that you can be a bit of a lone voice. And because I suppose that’s part of what you are doing, you’re constantly trying to move people forward to understand this agenda. So a lot of the time you are going to be a lone voice. Though I think more recently, it’s interesting, there seems to be some greater understanding. There is change coming through I think in terms of people actually understanding and relating to what the issues are. (Utilities, white woman.)
This isolation might encourage co-optation, or might be an advantage as being placed on the margins allows one to be critical (Meyerson and Scully 1995):
‘But you know, I’m not in HR to make friends. You know I’m in the role because I want to make a difference. And make a difference in terms of the culture of the company. (BME woman, newspaper)
Most champions stated very clearly that they believed they had the personal support of senior management, perhaps because they were mostly senior people themselves, but also because they believed there was genuine support for the diversity agenda from the top:
‘We try very hard to mainstream this stuff so you will hear people talking about different customer compositions, and they’re not coming from diversity, but they’ll take the philosophy within [the company] through everything they do. They won’t be talking like I talk about diversity, but you listen to what they say, and… you will find that everyone talks that way, so in fact my job is the easiest one in the world, it’s just I’m passionate about it.’ (White woman, banking and finance.)
In summary, the diversity champions in the study have a variety of work backgrounds influencing their beliefs and values and their actions and strategies. Most interviewees revealed a co-existence of commitment to equality/diversity goals and to organisational/business goals. The diversity champions are perhaps subtly different to the people identified in Meyerson and Scully’s paper. Their tempered radicals were people with mainstream positions in organisations, who held a marginal and critical stance and desire to change things. They therefore experienced violations between their professional and personal identities much more clearly than do the diversity champions in our study. The diversity champions are not necessarily ‘dissident with the organisation’s fundamental premises’ (Meyerson and Scully, 1995: 594), because their roles often involve a specific remit to engender change. However, the type of change envisaged by the organisation is management-led and might conflict with a more progressive change agenda. This joint attachment to both equality and business goals seems to place them in a state of ambivalence, which both Meyerson and Scully and Jewson and Mason identify, and which we discuss further in the next section.
How do diversity champions understand diversity management?
The interviews explored how champions understood diversity management and the analysis paid particular attention to the language used to talk about diversity. Elsewhere we have explored this with trade union equality officers, arguing that language and discourse as modes of action and representation are important in understanding orientations to diversity management (Kirton and Greene Forthcoming). Given that all the interviewees expressed a belief in equality for its own sake (the social justice case), one area explored was whether they understood the diversity approach as purely business driven and incompatible with the traditional social justice aims of the equal opportunity approach. This would then provide insights into whether the diversity champion role could be a vehicle to achieve the kind of progressive change they seek. Many interviewees seemed to regard diversity as a long-term additive process, talking in terms for example of a ‘three stage journey’, a ‘continuum from equal opportunities, through diversity to inclusion’, or of the ‘building blocks’ of equality underpinning diversity, where successes would be built upon and failures learnt from. For example,
‘I see that there’s almost like foundations to diversity, which are about removing discrimination, doing work around, say, harassment and bullying. I mean basic policies around equality and fairness. Then I think what you’re building towards is much more an inclusive organisation.’ (White woman, utilities.)
They were all adamant that diversity had not replaced equality, but rather that the two approaches could not be separated. They seemed therefore to reflect the view that the equal opportunity versus diversity debate represents a ‘false dichotomy’ (Liff and Dickens 2000), suggesting that social justice and business case approaches can be integrated, for example:
‘The first thing is to achieve equality, so that there are no barriers there. But when you’ve achieved that you should then be able to move on to diversity. So it’s [diversity] actually genuinely seeking difference and harnessing that for business value. So, recognising that you’ve got it and doing something with it and celebrating it.’ (White woman, banking and finance.)
‘It’s about mainstreaming diversity in the business, embedding diversity in the business. This is a business issue not an HR issue and it’s not about legislation, it’s about developing people and not using legislation as a stick, and yes, equal opportunities is still important.’ (White woman, government department.)
‘So, it makes good commercial sense for our, the people we employ, the products we provide, to be reflective of the communities we serve. Of course. But more importantly than it makes good commercial sense, it is just the right thing to do. And I often say to people, don’t give me a business case, just do it. Because it is the right thing to do. And how can you tell me that it is not a priority for us to be fair and equal to people? I just find it a strange argument.’ (White man, banking and finance.)
‘…the language has to be all inclusive and one of the things I have talked about… is actually presenting some workshops across my division, with a title not about diversity, but the title being ‘How to improve your performance… not how do you treat black people, It’s about how do we deliver what everybody needs’ (White woman, Police Service).
Arguably, it is a tempered radical who is likely to be able to achieve an integration of approaches, because of their need/desire to speak to multiple constituencies - in this case the organisation and its employees. On the one hand it could be argued that the interviewees’ understandings of diversity demonstrate that they are walking the tightrope negotiated by tempered radicals of acting in a way that is appropriate professionally (by emphasising business goals), but also authentic personally (by pursuing social justice goals at the same time).
On the other hand, Meyerson and Scully (1995) contend that tempered radicals who feel forced to adopt the language of insiders to gain legitimacy risk losing their outsider language and with it their outsider identity. So even if diversity champions appear to be outsiders (by virtue of their beliefs and values and demographic characteristics), using the language of insiders might eventually lead to co-optation and a dilution or even abandonment of the personal change agenda. The business case language of diversity is, arguably, insider language, rather than the language of agitators for social justice change. However, we were surprised at the fact that most interviewees talked unprompted about equality, social justice or inclusion, when giving a definition of what diversity was about, indicating that they had avoided any pressures for co-optation. Some interviewees were clearly using the language of diversity as a means of capturing the attention and gaining support of significant others in their organisations. Indeed, as the quote below shows, some champions had consciously adopted the language of diversity:
‘I’ve seen a transition, and it’s a transition that I’ve been part of in terms of determining a strategy, but also it’s kind of a natural momentum whereby we have moved from equality and equal opportunities into a diversity debate.’ (BME woman, police service.)
This may seem to fit better with Jewson and Mason’s characterisation of radicals in liberal clothing. However, while others were certainly using insider language, this was with subtle linguistic twists that altered the meaning of diversity to make it mean something broader than some textbook definitions would concur with (for example, Kandola and Fullerton 1998):
‘I think it’s about embracing difference. That’s where we are at the moment, and then from there you move to managing inclusion. We’re certainly not at the managing inclusion stage yet, because one of the things that comes out of embracing difference is the challenges involved.’ (BME man, newspaper.)
‘I think they are [diversity and equality] fundamentally part and parcel of the same thing, but diversity for me is about recognising that people are different and actually respecting that difference, and also celebrating diversity, which is a really positive thing.’ (White woman, local authority.)
The dual language (of equality and diversity) that most champions adopted was also evidence of their ability and willingness to speak to multiple constituencies as tempered radicals must do (Meyerson and Scully 1995). In doing so, they were acknowledging the existence of discrimination and disadvantage, but at the same time attempting to appeal to those who are more concerned with mainstream business issues, such as catering well to customers:
‘It [equality] has a negative connotation because it’s come out of legislation around race and gender. So I think those associations are still there, whereas, I think people genuinely understand that diversity is about customers as much as it is about staff.’ (White woman, retail.)
Most interviewees seemed to have a genuine belief in the business case for equality and diversity, rather than simply using it as a discursive tool with which to disguise their goals. In this regard therefore they could not be easily characterised in Jewson and Mason’s (1986) terms, as radicals in ‘liberal clothing’. In fact the concept of tempered radicalism is perhaps a much more accurate reflection of their understanding of diversity, indeed it more clearly represents a state of ambivalence: ‘pure expression of both sides of a dualism’ (Meyerson and Scully, 1995: 588) rather than the ambiguity and confusion which Jewson and Mason argued to exist.
Diversity champions’ strategies of change
Tempered radicals are internal change agents, however, Meyerson and Scully (1995) state that while tempered radicals are often critics of the status quo they are also critics of radical change. This differs significantly from the conception of ‘radicals’ by Jewson and Mason, where broader and politicised social change is the ultimate goal, which may require action that challenges the formalised and bureaucratised liberal agenda and may include positive discrimination (1986: 320). However ‘tempered radicals’ have a wider agenda than Jewson and Mason’s ‘liberals’. In her subsequent book, Meyerson (2003) identifies five possible strategies for tempered radicals to effect change, (i) resisting quietly and staying true to one’s ‘self’, (ii) turning personal threats into opportunities, (iii) broadening the impact through negotiation, (iv) leveraging small wins and (v) organising collective action. Arguably, by the very act of taking on the role, diversity champions have chosen to ‘go public’ with their equality beliefs and values, rather than resist quietly. Further, many have in a sense turned a personal threat – (being a woman or minority ethnic worker in a predominantly white, male organisation, or simply someone whose beliefs and values do not fit) into an opportunity (as discussed earlier the champion role was often a promotion and/or a personal development opportunity, or simply a position from which to effect change). Therefore it is the last three strategies that are discussed here.
When Meyerson (2003:77-100) talks about negotiation she means both formal, but (especially) informal negotiations, where people actively participate in resolving a problem, using strategies that create opportunities for organisational learning and change. This is a significant difference from the ‘liberals’ in Jewson and Mason’s account who strive to formalise procedures and avoid the use of informal processes. It was clear that most interviewees felt that change had to be negotiated, rather than imposed, in order not only to avoid backlash or resistance, but also to change the culture of the organisation. Many interviewees talked about wanting to make a difference ‘to the way we do business’ and to the culture of the organisation, ‘bringing the hearts and minds of managers and employees to diversity’, as one interviewee said. There were a number of examples of diversity champions acting in ways that broadened the impact of the policy by actively creating opportunities for wider learning. Training courses were one vehicle for negotiating change with organisational members, particularly managers, whom most interviewees placed as key to cultural change. Other formal vehicles mentioned included diversity forums, councils, employee networks and surveys, use of the Intranet to publicise diversity initiatives and achievements.
Sometimes the opportunity to negotiate change arose informally and it was through everyday interactions that the champion attempted to lead cultural change, for example:
‘I have had the conversation with my team and with the wider team on what is appropriate language. What offends you? And why does that offend you? Because actually if you understand that, then you understand that that person might be offended by what you say. (White man, banking and finance.)
Therefore unlike Jewson and Mason’s ‘liberals’, the diversity champions did not appear wedded to formal policies as the route to achieving their goals. In contrast, they seem to be reflecting more ‘radical’ viewpoints on the principles of equal opportunities as overall they are perhaps more interested in the spirit than the letter of the procedures. Thus their strategies for change were perhaps more aspirational, looking for broader organisational culture change as the ultimate aim, which might obviate the need for bureaucratic procedures. In the words of one interviewee:
‘Well equality policies to me, I find them very depressing frankly, we’ve got to do this because we’re going to get clobbered in the courts. That’s very negative to me… it’s not attractive and it’s not going to create business advantage… why should staff need to know about the bullying and harassment policy? They shouldn’t need to know that because they will never have to know it because people within the organisation will live within what we call bank core standards of behaviour. It’s there but they shouldn’t need to know it. (White woman, banking and finance.)
The second strategy Meyerson (ibid) identifies is leveraging small wins. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between small wins and liberal reforms (Meyerson and Scully 1995:598), but small wins are incremental steps along the way to a broader vision of radical change. Many diversity champions did have a clear and broad vision of the type of organisation they would like to see and this had often motivated them to take on the diversity champion role, for example:
‘The equality and human rights agenda is a critical facet of improving the lives of people who work in the [government department]. That is very clear to me. So, getting from an add-on to something that’s integral. And finding the tricks or the devices to do that. And that’s about being quite tactical and opportunistic and is also being quite strategic about where you put your effort in.’ (White woman, government department.)
‘It was the opportunity to work in a more strategic area, to work in very close to a lot of very senior people, in a topic that is fascinating, and there was so much opportunity to do good stuff with. And it was an opportunity to devise a strategy and take, work with a blank sheet of paper to see where we wanted to go. We already had a good set of EO policies, in the UK. But practice was very variable.’ (White woman, banking and finance,)
In addition, according to Bell et al (2003:382), tempered radicalism might be one of several strategies ‘for dealing with rage at injustices based on race and gender’ and therefore becoming a diversity champion might be one way of channelling rage towards change within the organisational framework. From this perspective it is unsurprising to find, as stated in the methods section, that the vast majority of diversity champions in the study were either female and/or minority ethnic. While it would be too strong to say that the quotes below reveal rage, they do indicate a range of aspirations relating to transformation of the organisation and the ‘way things are done’, rather than simply liberal procedure-based reform:
‘I would like to see more women in the organisation; I would like to see more ethnic populations in our organisation. I would like to see more development opportunities for under-privileged people; I’ve always wanted a blind receptionist. But it is about giving opportunity to people who perhaps don’t get opportunity at this moment in time. Like to see our buildings being very user-friendly to all shapes, sizes, creeds and abilities.’ (White woman, construction.)
‘And also to actually utilising the staff, value the staff and that’s often said tongue in cheek, but I do mean it because we’ve got people out there who do give a lot of themselves and gave a lot of themselves in the past and it wasn’t actually recognised. This is a way of actually recognising what they were doing.’ (BME man, police service, speaking about a recent diversity initiative.)
‘I mean you’ve got all the normal things here like, the Superintendent’s Association I’m the only Superintendent rank female. When they have their meetings they’ll finish the meeting by going for a Chinese and up the pub. And that’s probably where they do most of their business. Well I’m sorry I’m not doing that, I don’t want to do that, I don’t want to socialise with them. I work with them but I don’t want to socialise with them.’ (White woman, police service)
Some interviewees were circumspect about the depth of change they actually expected to achieve, but nevertheless the ultimate goal was broad and transformational:
‘What I’d like to do is to somehow think that by the time I move on or what have you that actually I have made a difference and that our services are more equal and that the world is perhaps a more equal place. Wouldn’t that be nice?’ (White woman, local authority.)
Even in the case of those new to the role, if diversity champions are to be viewed as tempered radicals, the role might represent an opportunity for some individuals to ‘come out’ and reveal beliefs and values previously concealed by their behaviour or nature of their role. It might be an opportunity to have those beliefs and values reflected in and incorporated within their role, so that there would be a greater likelihood of effecting change. For example, one interviewee explained why he had taken on the sexual orientation strand of the organisation’s diversity policy:
‘I had a reputation over the years for being a bit of a lad’s lad and all of that type of stuff and it would be the thing that people would least expect me to do. So it was a symbol in the organisation that this was OK. I would love all our people to be saying that this is an organisation that values everyone’s contribution, whatever they do, whatever they are or wherever they come from.’ (White man, banking and finance.)
The diversity champion role legitimated this interviewee’s equality beliefs and channelled them into the organisational change agenda, with which he clearly wanted to align himself and in this sense it is an example of an authentic action.
The third strategy - organising collective action could involve a variety of activities for building coalitions inside the organisation. For example, diversity champions might establish formal and informal employee networks, or they might actively involve a trade union in policy development. For example, one champion spoke about one initiative she had established to involve non-management staff and how the views expressed then influenced organisational thinking on diversity:
‘And we’ve done a lot with our own staff, we have a Cultural Diversity steering group with people from different religions and so on. It’s listening to them and listening to what issues are important to them and so on. So we’ve learnt an awful lot from that. And the majority of which, as I say, are business benefits. But actually we can also then talk about, you know, okay we’re doing this because we believe you know, we’re a hard-nosed business and we want to put more money in the till and all the rest of it. But actually, isn’t it morally right that you know, people should be treated with respect and dignity and we understand that people are different and they have different needs and requirements. And when you actually talk to managers in that way, they can’t argue with that.’ (White woman, utilities.)
This type of action represents a way in which diversity champions help create organisational voice and increase the pressure for change, since individuals feel more able to speak up about organisational issues if they feel that their position is supported by others (Bowen and Blackmon 2003). However, collective action is potentially the most threatening for organisations (although arguably it offers the greatest opportunity for broadening and deepening the impact of policy initiatives) and perhaps for this reason we found most, but not all, diversity champions less than enthusiastic to involve the unions in developing policy. This orientation fits with the concept of tempered radicalism as to succeed within the organisation it is necessary for tempered radicals to distance themselves from more radical change efforts, which might be proposed by unions.
In summary, the tempered radical characterisation seems to capture more completely the diversity champions’ strategies of change. They have agendas for broad transformation that move beyond the ‘liberal’ views on either the principles or implementation of equal opportunities. However their radicalism is tempered to align with organisational goals, and indeed they may be critical of more radical agenda.
Conclusions
This paper’s objective was not to test existing typologies of equality/diversity actors. We used Meyerson and Scully’s and Jewson and Mason’s constructs, in order to try and understand the roles and orientations of what might be considered to be a curious group of employees. They are curious because on the one hand they are ‘tasked’ with a diversity role, and are supposed to be committed to the business case for diversity that their organisations have adopted. On the other hand, they commonly have a broader vision of organisational transformation, including many social justice elements and their role places them as unpopular with many organisational actors and on the margins of mainstream policy making. We were intrigued to know who they were, what they did and why they had taken on diversity roles. Part of this goes beyond simple curiosity, because within the context of the wider research project, understanding how and why diversity champions undertake their work may offer some insight into the appropriateness, effectiveness, limitations and constraints of diversity policies within organisations. Indeed a next step for forthcoming papers is to integrate our analysis of diversity champions with broader themes relating to equality and diversity policies, legal regulation, the business case and HRM.
What is clear from our present analysis is the complexity of their positions and orientations. They all have commitment to equality and diversity and some are also passionate about the issues, but they also see their wider transformative goals as not necessarily in contradiction with business goals. They are prepared to talk in the language of both the business and social justice cases to make progress. They are prepared to move beyond liberal reforms, but have radical goals only insofar as this achieves improvements to business performance. Therefore, they deploy a mix of radical and liberal conceptions of the principles, implementation, effectiveness and perceptions of equality/diversity, in much the same way as Jewson and Mason (1986) identified. However, rather than this being viewed as confused or contradictory, Meyerson and Scully’s analysis of ‘tempered radicals’ is more useful in illuminating the experiences of occupying and utilising a position of ambivalence within the organisation. From this perspective, it is possible to avoid assuming that diversity champions are not progressive, simply because they temper their radicalism. As Cockburn has noted (1989) the radical approach is generally not accepted by wider interest groups, provoking backlash, resistance and hostility. The strategies of tempered radicals (and in this paper of diversity champions) have echoes of Cockburn’s (ibid) ‘short’ and ‘long’ agendas, whereby small steps towards broader transformation are seen as the most appropriate way to juggle the needs of the organisation with those of disadvantaged groups. This for us was interesting because when compared to our previous analysis of trade union equality officers (Kirton and Greene, forthcoming), we found the organisational champions’ views to be more complex and nuanced, with much more genuine commitment to social justice principles than we had originally anticipated. The tempered radicals concept softens the binary divide of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ (Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000), and we have been able to demonstrate its utility through showing the tensions that people in these positions in organisations accept (both explicitly and implicitly).
To conclude, the tempered radical characterisation seems to capture more accurately both the strategies of change and orientations of the diversity champions in our study. Jewson and Mason (1986) have been criticised for their conception of radical and liberals as being too dichotomous (Richards, 2001), and the focus on the ‘ambivalence’ of the position of tempered radicals has much resonance for the diversity champions. The peculiar position of diversity champions as ‘tasked’ by their organisations to be critical of the status quo, means that this ambivalence is perhaps even more heightened than Meyerson and Scully found.
References
Alvesson, M. and Y. Billing (1997). Understanding Gender and Organisations. London, Sage.
Bell, E., D. Meyerson, S. Nkomo, M. Scully (2003). "Interpreting Silence and Voice in the Workplace. A conversation about tempered radicalism among black and white women researchers." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39(4): 381-414.
Bowen, F. and K. Blackmon (2003). "Spirals of Silence: the Dynamic Effects of Diversity on Organizational Voice." Journal of Management Studies 40(6): 1393-1417.
Cockburn, C. (1989). "Equal Opportunities: the Short and the Long Agenda." Industrial Relations Journal 20(3): 213-225.
Cockburn, C. (1991). In the Way of Women. Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Cornelius, N., L. Gooch, S. Todd (2000). "Managers Leading Diversity for Business Excellence." Journal of General Management 25(3): 67-78.
Humphries, M. and S. Grice (1995). "Equal Employment Opportunity and the Management of Diversity." Journal of Organizational Change Management 8(5): 17-32.
Jewson, N. and D. Mason (1986). "The theory and practice of equal opportunities policies: liberal and radical approaches." Sociological Review 34(2): 307-334.
Jones, D., J. Pringle, D. Shepherd (2000). "'Managing Diversity' meets Aotearoa/New Zealand." Personnel Review 29(3): 364-380.
Kaler, J. (2001). Diversity, equality, morality. Diversity, equality and disadvantage in employment. M. a. O. Noon, E. Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Kandola, R. and J. Fullerton (1998). Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action. London, Institute of Personnel and Development.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, Basic Books.
Kirton, G. (2002). What is Diversity? Managing Diversity in the Workplace. S. Johnstone. London, LexisNexis: 1-23.
Kirton, G. and A. M. Greene (2005). The Dynamics of Managing Diversity. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Kirton, G. and A. M. Greene (Forthcoming). "The discourse of diversity in unionised contexts." Personnel Review.
Kossek, E., K. Markel, P. McHugh (2003). "Increasing diversity as an HRM change strategy." Journal of Organizational Change Management 16(3): 328-352.
Lawrence, E. (2000). "Equal opportunities officers and managing equality changes." Personnel Review 29(3): 381-401.
Liff, S. and L. Dickens (2000). Ethics and equality: reconciling false dilemmas. Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Management. E. Winstanley and J. Woodall. Basingstoke, Macmillan: 85-101.
Lorbiecki, A. (2001). Openings and Burdens for Women and Minority Ethnics Being Diversity Vanguards in Britain. Gender, Work and Organization, Keele University, UK.
Lorbiecki, A. and G. Jack (2000). "Critical Turns in the Evolution of Diversity Management." British Journal of Management 11(Special Issue): S17-S31.
Maxwell, G., S. Blair, M. McDougall (2001). "Edging towards managing diversity in practice." Employee Relations 23(5): 468-482.
Meyerson, D. (2003). Tempered Radicals. How everyday leaders inspire change at work. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Meyerson, D. and M. Scully (1995). "Tempered Radicalism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change." Organization Science 6(6): 585-600.
Miller, D. (1996). "Equality Management: Towards a Materialist Approach." Gender, Work and Organisation 3(4): 202-214.
Richards, W. (2001). Evaluating equal opportunities initiatives: the case for a 'transformative' agenda. Equality, diversity and disadvantage in employment. Noon, M and E. Ogbonna, (eds) Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Inter-group Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
[1] The label ‘diversity champion’ is used in this paper to mean people designated to take responsibility for the development and implementation of organisational diversity policy.