Only a dirty D word?

Organisational and trade union talk about diversity in the UK

 

Anne-marie Greene (University of Warwick)

and Gill Kirton (Queen Mary, University of London)

 

22^nd SCOS, July 7-11 2004, Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Introduction

 

 

The above quote appeared in a national newspaper article on the day Kenan Malik’s controversial television documentary ‘Segregated Britain, Disunited Kingdom’ was aired on Channel 4. It represents one of very few critiques of diversity management currently found in the popular public arena in the UK. Even within academic circles, where there has been far more scepticism of the diversity approach, after the initial critical points are considered, there is often an overall conclusion that the diversity approach has a lot to offer (for example Liff, 1999; Cornelius, 2002).

 

Indeed, as Malik suggests, the traditional ‘equal opportunities’ agenda has now given way to the concept and language of diversity in much organisational policy and practice. As Malik points out, ‘diversity’ has become the new buzzword: the fashionable accessory that all organisations should have. ‘Managing diversity’^[1] has become a popular catch phrase in the UK management and practitioner literature, which urges organisations to celebrate diversity in order to achieve success (e.g. EOR, 2001; Kandola and Fullerton, 1994). Although in some ways the emphasis on difference is novel, many traditional ‘equal opportunities’ issues are also included within the diversity discourse and sometimes the two terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same set of policies (Gagnon and Cornelius 2000). However, unlike diversity, ‘equal opportunities’ has a long history in the UK, having been part of employment policy and standard business practice (at least for large companies) since the early 1980s following the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and the Race Relations Act (1976). Traditionally, ‘equal opportunities’ reflects a moral concern for social justice, which involves implementing measures to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. One of the main criticisms of ‘equal opportunities’ has been that it is a negative approach.  Failure to comply with the law could carry penalties, but organisations are not compelled to actually promote equality. 

 

Although even advocates of diversity approaches do not propose abandoning the principles of ‘equal opportunities’ altogether, it is suggested that ‘managing diversity’ is a new way forward that will appeal more to business organisations (Kandola and Fullerton, 1998, IPD, 1996).  The cornerstone of diversity is the business case (Kirton and Greene, 2000; Maxwell et al, 2001). Indeed Noon and Ogbonna (2001) argue that this is the key analytical differentiation between ’equal opportunities’ and diversity approaches: ‘equal opportunities’ is underpinned by the social justice (or moral) case, while diversity by the business case. While ‘equal opportunities’ policies may utilise business rationales to achieve moral/social justice ends, diversity policies can be seen to have an exclusive focus on business case (Kaler, 2001: 59). Thus, a diversity approach appeals to critics of traditional equality approaches, who have argued that the moral cause of ‘equality’ has little purchase in the competitive world of business. The proponents of diversity approaches usually emphasise four main advantages to business: taking advantage of diversity in the labour market, maximising employee potential, managing across borders and cultures, creating business opportunities and enhancing creativity (Cornelius et al, 2001; Allen, 2002: 32-38).

 

Although most organisations that are held up as exemplars of ‘managing diversity’ are predominantly non-union (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Liff, 1999), many unionised organisations have adopted the diversity discourse. However, like its sister concept, HRM, (e.g. Webb, 1997; Kirton and Greene, 2000), diversity is an approach which theoretically fits best with non-union organisations (Miller, 1996: 206). Mirroring the debate about the role of unions within HRM (e.g. Guest, 1987), one of the theoretical concerns about the diversity approach is that the traditional union role might be marginalised. The new focus on the individual employee and the identification of diversity as a top-down, managerial activity (Dale, 1998, Kandola and Fullerton, 1994, Maxwell 2004) potentially threatens union involvement.  This is especially salient and ironic in the present context when there is renewed legitimacy accorded to unions by the polity at national and European levels and some evidence of a strengthening platform for collective bargaining (Colling and Dickens, 2001). In Dickens’ (1997) ideal model of ‘equal opportunities’ practice, the role of trade unions for example is seen as a vital piece of the ‘jigsaw’ making up the campaign for equality in the workplace.

 

One of the main problems for unions is that in policy terms, diversity emphasises individual difference, rather than social group-based difference. This could lead to less emphasis on standardised procedures to eliminate discrimination (such as job evaluation) and more on individualised techniques such as performance appraisal and performance pay. Further, diversity might involve the abandonment of positive action to redress historic disadvantage of particular social groups. These developments would in principle be unwelcome to trade unions, which rely on identification of group-based issues, collective agreements and the principle of positive action to pursue their equality agendas.

 

Our position is at the critical end of the spectrum, generally sceptical of diversity approaches, particularly those most associated with narrow managerialist notions of diversity (Kirton and Greene, 2000; Greene and Kirton, 2004). The main points of our critique are that the most prevalent practitioner models of diversity emphasise an individualist rather than collectivist focus of both policy-making processes and policy measures; and the primacy of the business case rather than social justice case for equality management. Further, we are concerned that the management-led, business focused orientation of diversity could marginalise traditional equality approaches based on joint regulation, involving legal compliance, employer policy, and trade union/employee participation (Dickens, 1999). Also, does the emphasis on the myriad of individual differences draw the focus away from the realities of prejudice and discrimination? In Malik’s terms, has diversity become a public relations exercise rather than something designed to combat inequality at work? There is now a need for research, which investigates diversity policy in organisations, exploring the underpinning discourses, the policy measures, the processes involved and the outcomes delivered. To date there has been little research into how organisations have actually operationalised the concept (Mavin and Girling, 2000; Maxwell et al, 2001) and even less into how trade unions have responded to the diversity discourse^[2].

This paper presents a discourse-based analysis of key respondent interviews conducted as part of a qualitative research project exploring diversity policy and practice in the UK and focusing in particular on identifying the effects of different arrangements for stakeholder involvement, on the policies, processes and outcomes. This particular paper explores how organisation diversity champions[3], and their counterparts in the trade union movement, perceive and engage with the discourse of diversity.  In particular we explore what organisation and union diversity champions understand diversity to be about, what the triggers are to the implementation of diversity policies, what the rationale is behind the policies implemented and perceptions of stakeholder involvement in diversity policy. We are particularly interested to locate points of similarity and difference in the organisational and trade union discourses of diversity.

Most employment relations writers do not carry out discourse-based analysis, reflecting a commonly held view within the field that talk is less than action and therefore less worthy of study (Hamilton 2001).  Kelly is among a minority of authors in the field who highlight the importance of discourse in framing employment relations issues and problems, ‘study of the day-to-day language, or discourses of industrial relations is therefore of major significance’ (1998:127).  In terms of policy formulation, the subject of this paper, talk precedes action and the talk of the actors defines the policy issues and the policy initiatives. Discourses are therefore powerful resources and can be used to ‘denote a representation of norms for accepted thinking and thereby as a model for the interpretation and understanding of society’ (de los Reyes 2000). Therefore we cannot properly understand the policy measures organisations utilise and the way that stakeholders challenge them without appreciation of the discourses actors draw upon to rationalise and justify their positions. Further, in describing and labelling things the way they do, organisational actors seek to persuade others, employees for example, to accept policy and its measures, to change or reinforce certain attitudes or values (Hamilton 2001).  From this perspective discourse is not simply reflective of reality, but significant in constituting reality: it is a mode of action, as well as a mode of representation (Fairclough 1992).  For example, as Malik implies, marshalling a diversity discourse can ‘airbrush’ an organisation’s image causing problems such as discrimination to be written out of the text.  Hamilton (2001:443) argues that rhetorical discourses are central to the exchanges within employment relations settings.  Following this, we argue that it is highly apposite to examine the discourses of management and trade unions when seeking to understand diversity policy and practice.

 

The research

 

The two-year research project, funded by the European Social Fund, is entitled Involvement of stakeholders in diversity management. It aims to explore the following research questions:

a)      How does the rhetoric of organisational policy reflect practice?

b)      What were triggers to diversity policy in the organisational context? How is the business case for diversity operationalised?

c)      What stakeholders were involved in developing diversity policy? How do the different stakeholders perceive the policy?

d)      What does diversity policy implementation involve at the line management level? What problems and obstacles are faced in implementation? What successes and examples of ‘best practice’ can be identified?

 

The project involves two main research methods. Firstly, in depth semi-structured interviews with approximately 20 organisation and 15 trade union diversity champions selected from a wide range of industrial sectors (armed services, manufacturing, local authority, NHS, finance, retail, local government, telecommunications, construction). Currently, 11 trade union and 12 organisation interviews have been completed. These lasted on average an hour, and have been tape recorded and fully transcribed.

 

Secondly, in-depth case studies in three organisations in order to understand the actual processes of diversity policy making. The fieldwork involves a variety of organisational stakeholders, although there is a focus on the line management and local team level, identified as a particular location of barriers to diversity policy. The organisations have different forms of formal stakeholder involvement mechanisms (e.g. unionised and non-unionised). Methods utilised within the organisations include: in-depth meetings with key diversity champions; semi-structured interviews and focus groups, involving HR managers, line managers, trade union representatives and employees; observation at diversity training courses, key policy making meetings, and diversity events; examination of documentary evidence, including relevant policies and monitoring data. Access has been confirmed with two organisations, one in the public sector, (a government department with a well established diversity agenda and high unionisation), and one in the private sector, (a construction/facilities management organisation at the very early stages of its diversity agenda with varied unionisation across its different departments). We are also negotiating access to a finance organisation for the third case study.

 

Finally, we complement the two primary research methods with two workshops, one near the beginning of the project and one near the end, of senior managers, trade union officers and academics involved in the area of diversity. The first workshop, held in April 2004, provided an opportunity for practitioners to be involved in the design and substance of the research, including what areas are investigated. Thus there is an emphasis on close links between user groups. The second workshop will provide one vehicle for dissemination. The first workshop involved a mixture of small group and plenary discussions, all of which have been tape recorded and transcribed.

 

This paper draws mainly on analysis from the diversity champion interviews although supplemented with analysis of the first workshop proceedings.  It begins by exploring how organisation and trade union diversity champions understand the concept of diversity generally, with specific discussion of two of the main features of diversity, the business case and the focus on individual difference.  It then examines union and organisational perspectives on stakeholder involvement in diversity policy and practice.

 

How do organisation and trade union diversity champions understand the concept of diversity?

 

Many of the union champions found organisations’ adoption of the discourse of diversity an amusing example of management’s proclivity for new buzzwords.

Whilst they generally perceived dangers in the diversity discourse taking hold, there was also a feeling that in practice diversity was simply a renaming of the traditional equal opportunities discourse, which had not substantively altered the nature of management-union discussions in the equality area:

 

‘Just because people use the word diversity, doesn’t mean they’re not still talking about the same old things, and if you say the agenda has broadened, well that’s just part of the way that we’ve all begun to look at work in a different way.  I’m still not convinced that there have been great changes out there which have impacted on the way that unions are able to advance the interests of their members.’  (TUC)

 

‘I’m quite flexible about the terminology – it’s just another thing to use, another argument in bargaining.  I mean I don’t see it as being particularly significant.  You can still make the same arguments in the context of the in quotes diversity agenda as you can make in the context of equal opportunities’.  (Connect)

 

In seeking to explain employers’ adoption of this particular ‘new buzzword’, some union champions highlighted its inclusive, positive veneer, in contrast to the negative associations of ‘equal opportunities’:

 

‘Employers feel much more comfortable about a more human resource management type of approach, which it seems to me, is where this managing diversity stuff has come from.  Actually it doesn’t tackle anything.  You can get people to understand what festivals one particular religion might have, you can share different types of food – you can do that forever.  It doesn’t mean that someone won’t be denied equal pay in the workplace because of the colour of their skin.’  (TUC)

 

‘Sort of management saying goodbye to equal opportunities, that PC image and the negativity surrounding equal opps and now we have diversity and it makes good business sense. So perhaps it was a bit more palatable for senior managers.’ (Connect)

 

Indeed, even some of the organisation champions believed that there was a sensationalist, faddish aspect to the diversity discourse:

 

‘It's much easier now I think for people to carve a career out of race and diversity.  And so there's a lot of people in the target wriggling for a place in the sun or, you know, a bit of the action’ (NHS)

 

‘I think it's a piece of language that HR have developed.  And the HR media have developed.’ (ConstructionCo)

 

‘It sometimes can be seen as political correctness.  And the old chestnut, how it's just an HR initiative, flavour of the month, it will pass.’ (GovDept1)

 

The lack of clarity and agreement about what diversity means was evident in the way that the organisation and trade union champions spoke about employer policies.  It was clear that some trade union champions regarded diversity policy and equality policy as one and the same.  According to some of them, nothing more than a name change had taken place, for example:

 

‘I mean there’s a lot of fancy stuff talked about this transition from equality to diversity, so I suppose it could be argued that diversity is a more positive statement about the type of workforce they are wanting to get hold of and keep.  If they are levelling everybody up and accepting difference and if you’re talking about diversity right through the organisation, then I suppose that’s a fairly significant change.  But part of me says that it’s just a bit of language change.’  (Connect)

 

In contrast, most of the organisation champions saw diversity as being something distinct from equality for example:

 

‘Equality probably meant something else, yes.  Very much equal opportunities and very much HR and compliance, you know that side of the spectrum really.  And I think what we've been trying to do is move that agenda on. To move away to sort of say, we want to be talking diversity and inclusion not equal opportunities any more’ (ServiceCo)

 

‘And it's not about legislation it's about developing people and not using legislation as a stick…  And about yes, equal opportunities is still important... But with the focus on diversity, so that at some point, you don't need to think about equal opportunities because it won't be necessary.  (GovDept1)

 

‘A lot of organisations are moving towards diversity from equal opportunities, really to just be a bit more inclusive.’ (CampaignOrg)

 

Therefore, diversity was positioned by some of the organisation champions, not simply as a name change, but as a progression from equal opportunities, as a significant shift in emphasis from legal compliance to inclusion of all individuals. Nevertheless, it was clear that a very small number of organisation champions perceived difficulties with the concept of diversity and believed that it was important to have a clear understanding of how equality and diversity were conceptualised:

 

‘So I've always struggled when people start getting into this equality versus diversity stuff because I've never seen it like that.  It seems, you know, a false dichotomy, opposition.’ (who is it?) (NHS)

 

The NHS champion appears to have a more radical (Jewson and Mason, 1986) understanding of ‘equal opportunities’ as beyond simply the legal compliance conception of many other organisation champions:

 

‘But I know that it [equal opportunities] has a history now, of being about, you know, people make very strong associations between the concept of equality of opportunity and over-zealous, legalistic behaviour if you like.  And also a view that it's something about equal access and that's the end of the story.  Now personally I've never understood equal opportunities like that…. I always understood it as related to the concept of equity, of redistribution and fair outcomes’ (NHS).

 

Unusually among the organisation champions, this interviewee constructed a diversity discourse, which specifically included equality, rights, respect and issues relating to discrimination faced by certain social groups.

 

There was less clear understanding amongst the union champions about possible differences between diversity and equality. Some problematised the lack of intellectual engagement on the part of trade unionists with the concept of diversity, arguing that a failure to recognise the different philosophies behind the discourses of diversity and ‘equal opportunities’ could lead to obfuscation, which would be unhelpful to the union agenda:

 

‘Trade unions and employers are sitting down and thinking that they’re talking the same language.  I think that’s really problematic at the moment because I don’t think there’s a lot of understanding around the trade union movement about the difference between equality and diversity.’ (TUC)

 

The concern expressed here and by some other union interviewees was that the unions would be ill prepared to tackle the potential weaknesses and threats of diversity unless they confronted the conceptual distinction and engaged reflexively with the discourse of diversity.  In summary, overall trade union champions were aware of how the language of diversity positioned policy differently from ‘equal opportunities’, but generally they believed that this made little difference in practical terms.  However, the organisation champions generally claimed that diversity was a distinctly different policy approach.  The organisation champions typically emphasised the ‘new’ business case.

 

Diversity discourse - a business-driven approach?

 

One of the main features of ‘managing diversity’ is its claim to construct a business case.  Generally, the majority of organisation champions conceptualised diversity as being something that ‘moved beyond’ social group discrimination to consider how addressing individual needs could be beneficial for the business. For most organisation champions, the business case signalled that the equality agenda was moving forward and that diversity was a progression from equality, for example:

 

‘One of the policies that we're trying to see is this policy about corporate social responsibility and the link to building the brand, building trust in the brand; also building trust in terms of people thinking about [us] as a place they'd like to work.  As a place that our employees are proud to work in.  That they, then the knock-on effect of how they talk about us, just to customers or to friends and others… We want to be looking much more about the individual and individual difference… So my definition of diversity is much more about valuing individual difference.  And I think that works both for the employee and for the customer.’ (ServiceCo)

 

‘It's about mainstreaming diversity in the business, embedding diversity in the business.  This is a business issue, not an HR issue….  it improves output and improves employee relations and therefore cuts down on complaints, which can be costly.  And then the obvious, the business case it improves recruitment retention and attendance.  And allows people to develop to their full potential if it's taken on board in the right way.  And from the customer point of view it helps us to understand our customer base’ (GovDept1)

 

‘There's a real need to continue to make progress on those [equality] issues, those strand issues where there was legislation to ensure that particular interests are looked at… are they actually adding value to your organisation?  Are we getting innovation and creativity and that missing dimension that you don't know you're missing until you get someone with a different perspective?  And, as far as the, one of the main themes of the campaign [that is] different I suppose it's that it really does promote the business case’. (CampaignOrg)

 

In contrast to the positive engagement with the business case by organisation champions, the union champions expressed concern that in emphasising the business case, the diversity discourse could be used as a smokescreen to divert attention from equality problems that had proved difficult to tackle, for example:

 

‘I always feel that the problems are the problems whatever you call them.   I get concerned about what people will perceive diversity as and it sort of becomes a cover-up for not really doing anything.  I wouldn’t want it to detract from the equality agenda we’ve got by having this softer term – I mean it is a softer term.’ (GPMU)

 

‘I just feel that the managing diversity approach is fine as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t tackle inequality, it doesn’t tackle discrimination at the workplace.  I think that’s extremely problematic because I think a lot of the diversity debate, that concept, has tended to replace a lot of the discussion within organisations around inequality.’  (TUC)

 

Therefore, unions felt it was incumbent on them to push equality discourses and issues, such as race discrimination, which some felt would not be included in employer diversity policy. Some organisation champions, especially those in the public sector shared the union view that diversity and equality could be twin approaches, within a broad business case, for example:

 

‘Diversity without equality will not work – it will not redress the balance for under-represented groups within the civil and public services, either by ensuring improved recruitment practices to bring such groups into employment or by addressing the reasons for which, traditionally, they have not progressed through the hierarchy. So, to properly obtain and maintain diversity in the civil and public services that reflects the communities it serves, it is necessary to join Diversity and Equality initiatives together – but of these, the most important is equality because without it, diversity is meaningless.’ (NHS)

 

Although other organisation champions agreed that diversity and equality are not entirely separate, it was the NHS champion who seemed most aligned to the view of union champions, that in theory, diversity discourses could mean a denial or dilution of focus on discrimination.

 

However, in adopting the business case most organisation champions did believe it was important not to lose sight of the problem of discrimination:

 

‘The facts are, people are discriminated against.  And the consequence of all this is, say in the Department of Health, is people still can't talk about racism, for instance.  They don't like the term and they don't like talking about discrimination.  There's always this tendency to go back to this sort of comfort zone of cultural diversity’ (NHS)

 

‘We still recognise that we're unrepresented at the top by minority groups.  And we still need to have an interest in equal opportunities and the legislation…’ (GovDept1)

 

‘I still think there's work to be done in broad terms around certain groups - there's definitely work that one needs to do that's about say women's promotion to senior levels.’ (ServiceCo)

 

There was therefore clear attachment by some organisation champions to more conventional equality agendas. The interview with the ConstructionCo manager indicated perceived difficulties with the use of diversity terminology, because it was not seen as appropriate in their particular organisational context, where the business case was weaker. Having attended our project workshop, the ConstructionCo champion had decided to draw on equality discourses, rather than diversity discourses for their new policy agenda:

 

‘It was coming here to the workshop that you ran.  And it's something that X and I have discussed previously actually.  And everywhere I go… right from an exceptionally senior level even our number 2 guy in the whole of ConstructionCo who's very traditional in his outlook - 'what's this diversity stuff then X?'  And it's very difficult to explain what diversity is…Because I think they, I think for me, I think it's because a lot of our people understand that there's rules and regulations if you like around race and sex discrimination. So they understand equality means treating people in the same way…  But I think they just understand that equality means what it says.  It just means being equal.  And it's just keeping that simplicity.’

 

The GPMU champion stood out as the only union interviewee who stated that the business case discourse of diversity had not permeated the vocabulary of employers in the male-dominated printing sector and therefore it had not been necessary for the union to develop a response:

 

‘Diversity is not something you would find spoken about in our union or industry – we’re still talking about equality.  We’re still at the level of looking at overcoming barriers, as opposed to the diversity view of managing people to fulfil their potential, that positive spin.  It is an industry that’s quite far behind in terms of job segregation.  You don’t find many women in management, black people even less.’

 

So, management is not necessarily driving a diversity approach in all sectors and industries. In the print sector the champion felt the lack of employer engagement with the diversity discourse was in part explained by the industry being dominated by small firms without HR specialists. She also argued that the business case for diversity was much harder to construct in manual work. Thus the diversity discourse might be perceived as more suitable for white-collar contexts where there is a longer history of equality policy and perhaps a stronger business case.  It should also be noted that ConstructionCo is at the early stages of developing policy in contrast to most of the other organisations the champions represented with long-established policy frameworks.

 

In summary, most organisation champions perceived the business case for diversity as a positive development, which could help move the equality agenda forward and win the hearts and minds of managers.  In contrast, the trade union champions were concerned that the business case might be weak in some contexts and that it could lead to less focus on tackling discrimination.

 

The focus on individual difference – the ‘airbrushing’ of social group-based inequalities?

 

One of the other main features of diversity is the focus on individual difference. It has been argued that ‘there is no room for group claims’ within the discourse of diversity (Jones et al, 2000). For Thomas and Ely (1996:79) thinking of diversity ‘simply in terms of identity-group representation’ inhibits effectiveness.  The diversity discourse views all individual differences equally, so that personality or characteristics such as ‘work-style’ are seen as being as significant as and independent of, gender or ethnicity (Kandola and Fullerton 1994). While the broadening of the equality agenda beyond the race and gender emphasis of ‘equal opportunity’ is seen as positive at one level, on the other hand, the diversity discourse is felt by critics to disregard the realities of social group-based disadvantage (e.g. Greene and Kirton 2004; Humphries and Grice 1995).  This in turn is felt to make equality more palatable for employers, as commented upon by union champions:

 

‘There's a suspicion that managing diversity is all about individuals, rather than the commonality of disadvantage that some groups can experience.  The concept that we still cling to is overcoming disadvantage and getting rid of discrimination, which is not something that employers feel comfortable with.’ (TUC)

 

‘Diversity is very easy as window-dressing and it's very convenient for management if you don't really want to do anything… And of course it individualises, so I suppose to some extent it fits better with management ethos now’. (CWU)

 

Thus the discourse of diversity is perceived by union champions as side stepping the issues of embedded inequalities, by claiming that everyone is valued for what they are regardless of their gender, race etc. The majority of the union champions felt that the discourse of diversity was a distraction from important equality issues, and reflected a 'watering down', or a much 'softer', less politicised equality discourse. For example:

 

‘The danger is that equality issues will get submerged beneath.   Diversity seems to cover everything.  It's the next big thing, which wouldn’t be so bad if we had already achieved some of the building blocks…there's all sorts of things that haven’t been addressed, like the pay gap, like the glass ceiling" (GMB)

 

‘The problem is that if you take your eye off the under-represented groups and how they’re doing in the workplace, they slip backwards.  It  [diversity] doesn’t address the specific problems of discrimination that those groups face.’ (PCS)

 

One of the problems with the individualised concept of diversity is that everyone is different from everyone else in an infinite number of ways. It is therefore difficult to see how focusing on the individual could tackle issues such as under-representation of minority groups or the ‘glass ceiling’ in any systematic way. As Cox (1994:56) argues, acknowledging that ‘everyone is different’ can serve to trivialise the topic of diversity and imply that no organisational change is needed.  This was evident in the interviews with union champions when they expressed concerns for example about the potential for individual performance appraisal to perpetuate or reconstruct forms of discrimination. Looked at as members of social groups, people are not equally powerful and so the emphasis on recognising the interests and differences of individuals, may only serve to maintain the power of the dominant groups (Liff, 1997). As the union champions commented:

 

‘Trade unions think very collectively and they think about people as members of groups.’ (TUC)

 

‘I think the biggest problem with the diversity idea is that it's individualised rather than collectivist… it's the idea that management are going to deliver [equality] as opposed to individuals being part of setting the agenda collectively.’ (GPMU)

 

From the union point of view, an emphasis on differences between individuals weakens the ties that people have through common experience, that provide the necessary collective orientation to push for action. Rather than being empowering then, the ideal model of ‘managing diversity’ from this perspective is disempowering, dissolving collective identity and with it collective strength. Again, here the trade union champions pointed to the need for under-represented groups to stand together and gain strength from a shared identity. The CWU champion stressed the important role for the union in highlighting the ‘realities’ faced by members such as bullying and harassment and gender segregation to ensure that these equalities issues were not swept away by the upbeat rhetoric of the diversity discourse.

 

Moving to the organisation champions, there was more ambivalence expressed. However, some of the interviewees clearly perceived it to be important to continue to recognise social groups, and they also saw dangers in individualisation:

 

‘And I think it has its uses as a term, in exploring differences between individuals that have to be taken account of, when you're providing services. But, the difficulty I have with all of that is if you take away the rights perspective, that's all it is - it's just about lots of individuals being treated differently.  And in practical terms what on earth does that mean?  Because nobody can possibly respond to every single individual difference.  You have to have some way of framing that so that you can take effective action.  You can't do everything so what do you do?  And how do you decide what the priorities are?  Probably then you have to go back to collectivity and structures of disadvantage.’ (NHS)

 

‘My view about diversity is, well let me start, I see that there's almost like foundations to diversity.  Which are policies about what you set about in an organisation.  Which it seems to me, about removing discrimination, doing work around say harassment and bullying.  I mean basic policies around equality and fairness on one side.  I think the other big foundation stone is flexibility and flexible working.  And openness of working styles.  I think those are your two sort of pillars.  Then I think what you're building towards is much more an inclusive organisation.  So it is much more about appreciating, it is actually that all the differences that people have, and I know that sounds terribly glib, it is moving away I think from saying and putting people into the sort of stereotype type boxes.  So my definition of diversity is much more about valuing individual difference.  And I think that works both for the employee and for the customer.  And for looking at customer need.  And I think also when you talk in those ways people can engage much more readily because you're not confining people to a certain type.  Which I think people tend to reject against.  I still think there's work to be done in broad terms around certain groups.’ (ServiceCo)

 

Generally though, organisation champions were very positive about the individual difference aspect of diversity:

 

‘It allows people to develop to their full potential if it's taken on board in the right way… And then it throws up things like, how we make assumptions about people.  Because we've got the visible differences that we make assumptions about as soon as we see someone.  But we've got the non-visible differences that we don't know about, so we can make assumptions about things that are there but we don't know about and act accordingly on that.  All these things prove difficult for managers to manage in the business when they have a diverse team.  It's catering for every individual on the team.’ (GovDept1)

 

The ServiceCo and GovDept1 champions referred specifically to working styles, which we might consider to be one of the most individualistic of differences. While the ConstructionCo champion was more persuaded by the equality discourse, she still felt that it was important to recognise individual differences at least in terms of individuals feeling comfortable in an organisation:

 

‘In our last employee opinion survey a lot of the stuff that came out from our people was all around wanting to feel valued, the fact that you're not using my talents as to their best advantage.  So, we know that this is what our people want.’ (ConstructionCo)

 

Even the most critical, the NHS champion indicated that there may be some value in extending the equality approach to consider some elements of individual difference:

 

‘And I think it has its uses as a term, in exploring differences between individuals that have to be taken account of, when you're providing services’ (NHS)

 

Most union champions could see the potential in theory for the diversity discourse to redirect equality initiatives away from a focus on ‘disadvantaged’ social groups towards the individual. However, in practice they were not particularly concerned because a collectivist approach seemed still to be in place in many contexts despite the individualist discourse of diversity.  What is not clear from the study so far is whether the few signs of change in practice are a function of British employers’ commitment to the principles of equal opportunities (yet at the same time their penchant for adopting the latest management buzz words). The alternative is that in unionised organisations the union presence puts a brake on the adoption of individualist policies and practices, as indicated by the comment below:

 

‘I think the fact that there is a very active union in [the company] is bound to have had some influence.  I think it probably has prevented management from thinking everything’s wonderful.  We keep bringing them back to the statistics – hardly any women engineers, for example.  We bring them back to the realities of what’s going on, which I think is one of the functions of the union.’  (CWU)

 

In summary, the organisation champions generally considered the focus on individual difference to be a positive development, whereas the trade union champions expressed concerns that this could lead to failure to recognise group-based inequalities.  Finally the paper explores union and organisation champion perspectives on the involvement of trade union and employee stakeholders in diversity policy making.

 

Union and organisational perspectives on trade union and employee stakeholder involvement

 

As stated earlier, the exemplars of a diversity approach are usually non-union, possibly because a unitarist employment relations style fits best with the individualistic ethos of the diversity approach.  However, in practice many organisations with a long history of trade union recognition and involvement in equality policy-making, particularly in the public sector and privatised industries, have adopted the diversity discourse (see for example, Maxwell et al 2000). Delaney and Lundy (1996) consider the ‘diversity challenge’ in unionised organisations within the US context.  They argue that because the union presence emphasises formal rules and standard procedures to govern the employment relationship – in other words, fairness and consistency - unions have a positive effect on the promotion of diversity.  Here, there is a very clear linkage to the traditional union equality agenda. If diversity policy is formulated along these lines, it need not necessarily constitute a threat to trade union involvement. However, the diversity literature more typically considers top management commitment to diversity and equality as essential (EOR, 2001; Maxwell et al, 2000) and the possible or actual role of unions is ignored or downplayed. 

 

Some of the union champions did not doubt that the most senior managers of many organisations have a genuine commitment to equality, however they feared that the commonplace practice of devolving equality practices to line-managers spelt difficulty in translating policy commitment into actual everyday practice. Therefore the union role was necessary for translating policy commitment into everyday practice. For example,

 

‘I would say that CoX has a genuine commitment to equality – now, I’m talking about the people in charge at national level.  But I think there are real problems when it comes to rolling it out to the field.  When it comes down to putting it into practice in some of the harder areas like call centres, it’s very bad. At the high levels and among training people, there is a commitment to valuing diversity.  But I don’t think you find it on the lips of every manager.  I think it [diversity discourse] can be used as a tool for sidelining equal opportunities.’  (CWU)

 

‘Departments were told to go away and develop their own diversity action plans.  There was no consultation with the unions on what was in those plans, so there was a complete lack of shared understanding and common goals.  There were some elements that were compulsory, but departments had huge scope to set their own goals and priorities.’ (PCS)

 

The responses from the union champions who perceived a conceptual difference between diversity and ‘equal opportunities’ revealed some concern about the possible marginalisation of trade unions. Diversity was commonly perceived as a purely managerialist and individualist discourse with little room for a trade union role. Therefore the perceived appropriate union response was to continue to push the equality discourse, for example:

 

‘We know that using the terminology of equal opportunities has become very outdated but we don't mind that.  If the human resources professionals want to talk about managing diversity, well that's fine, but we'll just get on with what we think is important as before.’ (Connect)

 

The difficulty with this approach is that if unions are to have any impact on the equality and diversity agenda they need to establish a dialogue with management and construct arguments that convince management of the need for action in areas they deem important.  For some officers this involved speaking to management in employer-friendly language, whilst continuing to push old arguments. This echoes earlier contentions that radical equality activists often mask themselves as liberals in order to win their case (Jewson and Mason, 1986).  It also demonstrates that while the rhetoric of diversity is primarily a management one, some unions are prepared to employ this rhetoric to advance their agenda. 

 

It has been argued that the exercise of management discretion is core to ‘managing diversity’ (EOR, 2001).  In contrast, the ‘equal opportunities’ measures promoted by unions attempt to constrain management discretion in the interests of fair and consistent treatment across the organisation, reflecting the view that line-managers are selective in their commitment to equality and diversity (e.g. Cornelius et al, 2000). The unchecked exercise of management discretion was a grave concern of most of the union champions and they believed that union involvement would help mitigate this weakness of the diversity approach.  Related to this, some union officers also felt it was important to recognise that diversity was not simply something that could be dealt with by managers ‘doing something’ to non-management employees. This echoes the view of some academic commentators that diversity is not ‘do-able’ (e.g. Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000; Prasad and Mills, 1997).  In other words from the union perspective, employees are not simply to be constructed as objects of management activity, as suggested by some commentaries on diversity (e.g. Iles, 1995). Rather employees are subjects in the employment relationship, with unions constituting a conduit for employee voice.

 

With regard to the organisation champion view on whether trade union involvement was necessary or desirable, the picture was mixed.  The public sector champions stated that they actively involved the trade unions:

 

‘The union are always consulted in everything so they will have had - although I don't, can't personally vouch for the fact that they've had personal involvement in policies, I can 99% guarantee they would have done.  And I think there is a role for unions…. Because it's about working together.  If we're singing from the same hymn-sheet it's much easier.  And the PCS are very focused on diversity’.  (GovDept1)

 

‘But, we, as a department you have the social partnership forum and you have the negotiating bodies.  So all of us who've worked on the HR side had a lot of exposure to trade unions and the trade unions were very important on equality.  Because they were doing far more, UNISON for instance, GMB.’ (NHS)

 

For the NHS champion, union involvement varied across the organisation and there were some areas more involved with the professional associations (another group of stakeholders) than the unions:

 

‘I'm working with the Chief Executive on this leadership and race plan, which is his.  And he never mentions the trade unions.  Don't think he knows they're there almost.  And he's come from the NHS; he's a Chief Executive in the NHS. And you know I doubt if the trade unions have come to his mind as allies in this. I think there are some very important allies in trade unions.  But he would only think of Royal Colleges you see, professional.’

 

Some organisation champions expressed in principle support for union involvement, even though this had not actually occurred, especially at the more strategic levels:

 

‘I mean I think at the group level, we probably wouldn't have union representation [on the diversity steering group] because we haven't got union representation right across the board in ServiceCo.  I think in terms of the work going on with the brands, I would say that one would have links in to the unions.  Now whether that would mean that they would want to have union representation on the steering group or not, I mean, a number of the brands haven't really developed what they're doing yet so I don't know.  My view would be that it would probably be very useful or if not, that you would have a very direct partnership with the union.  Because my experience from other places that I've worked, is that the union can be incredibly helpful.  Because most of the work that you do around diversity the union supports.’ (ServiceCo)

 

The ServiceCo champion also reflected on positive past experiences where involvement with unions over diversity issues had improved employee perceptions of legitimacy of policy measures.  Therefore she felt union involvement was especially useful if the organisation planned to introduce a policy measure which might prove unpopular with some groups of employees.

 

In contrast, some organisation champions had not even considered involving the unions at the level of policy development at all:

 

‘There's a simple answer to that.  None.  Yet.  On the basis that I work from, ‘here's something we prepared earlier’, when we're talking to the trade unions, rather than getting them to help with the design.  Yes they can contribute to it but this is the way that we will do things around here.  And, frankly I don't think there's anything in our policy and what we're trying to achieve, that the trade unions will have nothing but support for.  Trade unions have been engaged in our disciplinary and our grievance processes.  And normally, from our past experience, it's the solutions process that trade unions are engaged with more than, the cultural change side of it’. (ConstructionCo)

 

Some organisation champions gave examples of non-union employee involvement mechanisms, which fitted with the diversity discourse and its emphasis on the individual, for example:

 

‘I mean we have an employee engagement survey.  And within that we have questions that link it to the diversity agenda.  And in fact what we're building into the next one is to have a diversity index that has certain questions that we put in the diversity policy.  And also there's a free form part of it where people can make any comments. And also the coding on it will have a demographic coding that will enable us to look at it in terms of the diversity policy.’ (ServiceCo).

 

‘We have various focus groups.  We have a disability focus group, a carers' network, LGBT (lesbian, gay bi-sexual, transsexual), race and cultural, and the Diversity and Equality Advisers I told you about before, they all have their own diversity focus group in their own business areas.  So they hold regular meetings with volunteers from their businesses areas who are interested in diversity.’ (GovDept1)

 

 ‘We do encourage consultation, it's one of the questions. We say, it's dangerous, please don't set up a new strategy without talking to people. But we don't necessarily say you must have a network.  What we say, as I say, is one size doesn't fit all.  Find a way of consulting.  Even if it was on a staff survey you could put in a question.’(CampaignOrg)

 

There was some evidence from the interviews with union champions of diversity discourse being used by employers to marginalise the role of trade unions in setting the equality agenda. In some cases though marginalisation had been an ongoing process during two decades of union decline to which joint management-union equality forums had fallen victim. Therefore it was difficult to distinguish cause from effect.   One example of the sidelining or bypassing of unions was the establishment of employee networks in the privatised industries and public sector.  Although the unions were not opposed as a matter of principle to employer sponsorship of employee networks, they were concerned about the accountability and representiveness of such networks, for example:

 

‘One of the problems with them (diversity networks) is that they’re not coming at things from a collective perspective at all.  Also, why should the ordinary admin worker be able to solve policy issues on under-representation, for example?  So it’s quite good that employers want to consult with employees, but not to the extent that they bypass collective bargaining and negotiations with the unions.’ (PCS)

 

Nevertheless the single employer, single industry and public sector unions especially felt that they were still able to shape the diversity discourse.  The situations for the multi-employer, multi-industry unions were considered more varied and complex.  Overall it appears that organisations (e.g. in the public sector and privatised industries) with a longer history of union involvement are not opposed to at least some union involvement in diversity policy development.  However, the diversity approach with its focus on the individual seems to allow for a greater variety of (non-union) employee involvement mechanisms to emerge, some of which might result in a loss of union influence, which the unions clearly find troubling.

 

Conclusion

 

This paper has attempted to gauge the ways in which organisation and trade union diversity champions understand the discourse of diversity and the ways in which they talk about it.  Discourse-based analysis of policy developments is important if talk and action are seen as related (Hamilton 2001), so that an understanding of how different actors in employment relations understand diversity, helps us to appreciate how and why actual policy and practice are formulated, implemented, resisted and challenged.  So, what does an analysis of the ways in which trade union and organisational champions talk about diversity reveal? Is diversity ‘only a dirty D word’?  

A first point of analysis is that union and organisation champions have more aspects of shared understanding about diversity than they appear to realise. At first glance, organisation and union champions appeared to have subtle differences in understanding of what diversity is.  The organisation champions highlighted the difference between ‘equal opportunities’ with its emphasis on social groups and legal compliance, and diversity with its business case.  In contrast the trade union champions felt that the shift from ‘equal opportunities’ to diversity was usually nothing more than a renaming exercise, meaning that there was little positive in terms of progressing the equality agenda. Indeed union champions were concerned that the renaming was significant to the extent that it signalled a desire to break from the negative connotations of ‘equal opportunities’, which might eventually impact on the content of policy, for example abandonment of measures to address group-based discrimination. However, looking more closely and unpicking their ‘talk’ reveals more shared understandings. Resonant with other research (e.g. Maxwell 2004), both organisation and trade union champions agreed that diversity is rooted in equal opportunities. In other words, while much of the conventional managerial rhetoric around diversity is repeated, the organisation champions have not uncritically swallowed this rhetoric wholesale. Most of them are concerned that equal opportunities and legislative regulation underpins diversity policy and even the most positive proponents of the business case for diversity still indicate a personal commitment to equality and combating discrimination. The ConstructionCo champion had gone so far even to move away completely from the language of diversity to equality, recognising it was more appropriate to her organisational context. The NHS champion was the most critical of all, with her views very much aligned to those of the majority of union champions.

That the organisational diversity champions shared some of the more critical understandings of the union champions is perhaps not so surprising. Both sets of people are similarly advocates of policy frameworks that are not viewed as top priority in their organisations. All of the organisation champions admitted to being somewhat isolated in their roles, and commented on how difficult it was to persuade their managerial colleagues to take diversity issues seriously. Here the business case rhetoric was clearly important as a persuasive device for the organisation champions, in the same way that the union champions admitted to using the language of diversity in order to push their equal opportunities agenda forward. With regard to these organisational representatives then, the scepticism of the union champions does not seem to be founded. An objective of the wider research is to look at the ways in which the organisational rhetoric is translated into policy. Clearly organisation diversity champions have much more influence in the development of policy and rhetoric dissemination than in actual implementation, and it may be that union champions’ views are based more on what they see as outcomes than the underpinning rationales for diversity.

In addition, looking at the views of organisation champions on trade union and employee stakeholder involvement reveals a very mixed picture, which may indicate why there is the mismatch between trade union views of managerial understandings of diversity and what the organisation champions actually reveal in their ‘talk’. Many of the organisation champions saw a role for the unions, especially in lending legitimacy to any controversial policy measures.  However, they also favoured other non-union employee involvement practices, for example, employee networks, special groups, attitude surveys, etc, about which the union champions had some concerns, fearing the possibility of loss of union influence on policy and practice.  Indeed, apart from the public sector (and even here the NHS champion indicates the variable levels of involvement in different departments), trade unions are actually involved in a very limited way. While some are not in principle opposed to trade union involvement, it simply has not been seen as of strategic importance, while some organisation champions clearly do not see a place at all for trade union involvement in the development of diversity policy. This can only increase unions’ sceptical view of diversity, and the way in which it threatens to marginalise the union role. Moreover, it means that unions and managers have less awareness about the level of shared understandings between them. Indeed, it is possible that trade union involvement might help to attenuate some of the potential criticisms of diversity to ensure that its roots in equal opportunities continue to underpin policy (Liff and Dickens 2000).  This is one of the questions our research project seeks to address. 

Analysis of the champions’ ‘talk’ also reveals some areas of broad difference. It is clear from the paper that the organisation and trade union champions are drawing on different discourses to construct a rationale for policy interventions in the area of diversity and equality. Diversity and equality policy can be framed either through a lens of individual difference or through one of social group difference and policy measures are likely to take a different shape depending on which lens is chosen.  The individual difference lens is utilised to anchor diversity objectives within a business case rationale.  In contrast, traditionally, the social group difference lens has been used to highlight and address discrimination and inequalities in organisations (Merrill-Sands et al 2000). It is not surprising then to find that the organisation champions were generally more attracted to the lens of individual difference, whilst the trade union champions to the lens of social group difference.   The different actors’ positions within the discourse of diversity will undoubtedly underpin their preferred policy approaches. For Hamilton (2001:445), employment relations can be seen as a ‘process of argumentation through which attempts are made to construct understandings of the ‘real’’.  It is clear that organisation and union champions had different understandings of the ‘real’ issues to be tackled.

The organisation champions were generally enthusiastic about the possibility for a business-driven, individual-focused diversity policy to deliver benefits to the organisation and its members.  However, the caveat is that most positioned diversity policy as building on a longer-standing ‘equal opportunity’ approach, often referring to the latter as a ‘safety net’. In contrast, the trade union champions were suspicious of the motives behind diversity policy and sceptical about whether a diversity approach would yield the expected gains and whether it might prove in practice to be detrimental to tackling discrimination and inequalities.   Some of the union champions believed that it was possible to talk the language of diversity, whilst continuing to push ‘old’ equality issues based on social group difference.  In this way the union champions were advocating use of the diversity discourse as a rhetorical device to resist and challenge management-led policy. 

The paper’s discussion is situated within a changed employment relations context, where unions generally have less influence and have greater difficulty mobilising support for collective action, arguably rendering them more dependent on maintaining a co-operative relationship with management. As some of the union champions indicated, it is possible to work critically with diversity and pursue equality objectives within a diversity discourse (as suggested by Sinclair (2000)).  In conclusion, in order to be invited to the table to discuss what they consider to be ‘real’ diversity issues (i.e. discrimination and disadvantage), in some contexts unions might need to engage reflexively with the diversity discourse, rather than reject it on grounds that it is a dirty D word.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Deborah Dean for all her work on the project.

References

 

Colling, T and Dickens, L (2001) ‘Gender Equality and Trade Unions: A New Basis for Mobilisation?’ in M. Noon and E. Ogbonna, Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Cornelius, N, Gooch, L and Todd, S (2000) ‘Managers leading diversity for business excellence’, Journal of General Management, Vol 25:3, pp67-79

Cornelius, N, Gooch, L and Todd, S (2001) ‘Managing difference fairly: an integrated ‘partnership’ approach’, in Noon, M and Ogbonna, E (eds) Equality, diversity and disadvantage in employment, Basingstoke: Palgrave

Cox, T (1994) ‘A comment on the language of diversity’, Organization, 1(1), 51-58

Cully, M, Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A., Dix, S. (1999) Britain at Work, London: Routledge.

Dale, K. (1998), Book Review Article, Industrial Relations Journal, 29, 1, 92-3

De los Reyes, P (2000) ‘Diversity at Work: Paradoxes, Possibilities and Problems in the Swedish Discourse on Diversity’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 21, 253-266.

Delaney, J & Lundy, C (1996) ‘Unions, Collective Bargaining, and the Diversity Paradox’, in E.Kossek & S.Lobel (eds) Managing Diversity, Oxford: Blackwell

Dickens, L. (1997), ‘Gender, race and employment equality in Britain: inadequate strategies and the role of industrial relations actors’, Industrial Relations Journal, 28, 4, 282-289

Dickens, L (1999) ‘Beyond the business case: a three-pronged approach to equality action.’  Human Resource Management Journal, 9(1), 9-19

EOR (2001) ‘Diversity now the ultimate test of management capacity’, Equal Opportunities Review, No.96, pp11-17

Fairclough, N (1992) Discourse and Social Change, Polity Press

Greene, A.M. and Kirton, G (2004) ‘Views from another stakeholder: trade union perspectives on the rhetoric of ‘managing diversity’’, Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, 74

Guest, D. (1987) 'Human resource management and industrial relations, Journal of Management Studies, 24: 5, 503-21.

Hamilton, P (2001) ‘Rhetoric and employment relations’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(3), 433-449

Humphries, M and Grice, S (1995) ‘Equal employment opportunity and the management of diversity’, Journal of Organizational Change, 8:5, pp17-32

Iles, P (1995) ‘Learning to work with difference’, Personnel Review, Vol 24:6, pp44-60

IPD (1996) Managing Diversity. An IPD Position Paper. IPD

Jewson, N and Mason, D (1986) ‘The theory and practice of equal opportunities policies: liberal and radical approaches.’  Sociological Review, Vol 34:2, 307-334

Kaler, J (2001) ‘Diversity, equality, morality’, in Noon, M and Ogbonna, E (eds) Equality, diversity and disadvantage in employment’, 51-64

Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. (1994) Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action, London: Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD).

Kelly, J (1998) Rethinking Industrial Relations, Routledge

Kirton, G (2002) ‘What is diversity?’ in S. Johnstone (ed) Managing Diversity in the Workplace, IRS

Kirton, G. and Greene A. M. (2000) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Text, Butterworth-Heinemann

Jones, D, Pringle, J and Shepherd, D (2000) ‘Managing diversity’ meets Aotearoa/New Zealand’ Personnel Review, 29:3, pp364-380

Liff, S. (1999), ‘Diversity and equal opportunities: Room for a constructive compromise?’ Human Resource Management Journal, 9: 1, 65-75

Liff, S. (1997), ‘Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics’, Employee Relations, 19, 1, 11-26

Liff, S and Dickens, L (2000) ‘Ethics and equality: reconciling false dilemmas’ in Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Management, Winstanley, D and J. Woodall (eds) Macmillan

Lorbiecki, A and Jack, G (2000) ‘Critical Turns in the Evolution of Diversity Management’, British Journal of Management, Vol 11, Special Issue, pp17-31

Mavin, S and Girling, G (2000) ‘What is managing diversity and why does it matter?’ Human Resource Development International, 3:4, pp419-33

Maxwell, G (2004) ‘Minority report: Taking the initiative in managing diversity at BBC Scotland’, Employee Relations, 26(2), 182-202

Maxwell, G, Blair, S and McDougall, M (2001) ‘Edging towards managing diversity in practice’, Employee Relations, 23:5, pp468-482

Merrill-Sands, D, Holvino, E and Cumming, J (2000) ‘Working with diversity: a focus on global organisations’ in Ely, R, Foldy, E and Scully, M (eds) (2003) Reader in Gender, Work and Organization, Blackwell

Miller, D (1996) ‘Equality Management: Towards a Materialist Approach’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 3:4, pp202-214

Noon, M and Ogbonna, E (2001) ‘Introduction: the key analytical themes’, in Noon, M and Ogbonna, E (eds) Equality, diversity and disadvantage in employment’, 1-14

Prasad, P, Mills, A, Elmes, M, Prasad, A, Managing the Organizational Melting Pot, Sage

Sinclair, A (2000) ‘Women within diversity: risks and possibilities’, Women in Management Review, 15 (5/6), 237-245

Thomas, D and Ely, R (1996) ‘Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity’, Harvard Business Review, September/October, 79-90

Webb, J. (1997) ‘The politics of equal opportunity’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 4, 3, 159-167.