equality and diversity in work place 1000worda
Managing equality in organisations
The ‘liberal’ approach to managing equality: a focus on ‘sameness’ and using organisational policies and practices to create a ‘level-playing field’ (Jewson and Mason 1986)
Importance of bureaucratic policies and practices to ensure legal compliance and to ensure that staff, and prospective staff, are treated on the basis of their ability/suitability, irrespective of their social characteristics (Kirton and Greene 2015)
The development of ‘name-blind’ recruitment techniques
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34636464
‘Some large employers have already embraced the idea. Last year, a group of public and private sector organisations, which employ about 1.8m between them, agreed to use “name-blind” recruitment for graduates and apprentices after a push by David Cameron’s government. They include the civil service, the BBC, the NHS, learndirect, local government and the Conservatives, together with private sector companies HSBC, Deloitte, Virgin Money and KPMG’ (Financial Times, 17th Oct 2016).
https://www.ft.com/content/3d7b6590-9443-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b
Managing equality in organisations
Legal compliance: UK and EU equality law based on ‘liberal’ assumptions; inducing employers to develop formal procedures that, in theory, ensure that all staff are treated as if they are the ‘same’, reducing the salience of social differences (Jewson and Mason 1986; Liff and Wacjman 1996)
The primacy of ‘business case’ arguments for managing equality in organisations, rather than a ‘social justice’ rationale (Dickens 1997; Kirton and Greene 2015; Conley and Page 2016)
Managing equality in organisations
The 2010 Equality Act: consolidated all of the UK’s existing equality and anti-discrimination laws, and in some areas extended the coverage of legal protection. Discrimination is prohibited on the grounds of nine ‘protected characteristics’: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. (Conley 2011; Burton 2014; Kirton and Greene 2015).
Managing equality in organisations
But how effective is such a ‘managing equality’ approach at tackling employment discrimination and disadvantage?
- the legislative agenda: but what about enforcement (e.g. see HoC Women and Equalities Select Committee 2016 report on pregnancy discrimination)?
- too much emphasis on business case arguments to encourage voluntary action by employers; e.g. gender pay reporting (Government Equalities Office 2017)
- at organizational level equality policies as ‘empty shells’ which establish procedural fairness rather than tackling the substance of inequality and disadvantage (Hoque & Noon 2004; Dex & Forth 2009)
- a lack of (line) managerial interest and engagement with equality issues? Perceived as too procedural and bureaucratic (Kirton & Greene 2015)?
- failure of the ‘liberal’ approach to address underlying structural sources of inequality and disadvantage?
4
Manifestations of inequality and disadvantage
‘FTSE 100 CEOs in 2018 were more likely to be called Dave or Steve, than be female….if the current rate of progress remains the same, FTSE 100 companies won’t meet targets for BAME board representation until 2066’ (CIPD 2019: 3)
What do we mean by ‘equality’ and ‘inequality; ‘discrimination’ etc; equality as an aspiration or as an outcome? And all firms ‘discriminate’; inequality is inevitable isn’t it? But see Noon et al (2013) distinction between ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ discrimination, the latter based on unjustifiable stereotypes, prejudice etc.
5
How are inequality and disadvantage produced? Economic explanations
Labour supply: individuals’ choices and behaviours (e.g. Becker’s human capital theory and Hakim’s preferences theory)
Labour demand: employers’ strategies (e.g. Doeringer and Piore on segmented labour markets)
Labour supply – neo-classical economics; rational individuals (workers and employing organisations). An emphasis on individual agency. How does discrimination arise then? Labour market and life choices. But what about structures and institutions? Demand-side approaches have a value in that they recognise the important influence of employing organisations in producing inequality and disadvantage. But how and why does segregation arise? Institutional and structural considerations (e.g. role of the education system – see HRM courses and HR practitioners for example). Also the role of stereotypes (so implies we have to go beyond employing organisations’ behaviours and explore more deep-rooted sources of disadvantage)
6
Psychological explanations: prejudice and bias
Psychological approaches to understanding inequality, disadvantage and discrimination tend to focus on individuals’ negative attitudes (stigma) and how these influence behaviours
How prejudice can engender implicit (unconscious) and explicit bias in organisational settings
- homophobia: an irrational aversion towards people on the grounds of their (perceived) sexual orientation (see later lecture)
- Islamophobia: fear of, hostility towards and prejudice against Muslims (see Allen 2010)
- mental health stigma and employment discrimination (e.g. Brohan and Thornicroft 2010)
Psychological explanations: prejudice and bias
‘A great deal of research demonstrates that obese individuals in Western countries face discrimination and bias in almost all phases of employment…’ (Roehling et al 2018: 105)
Sociological explanations: social structures, power relations, identities
Social structures…
- e.g. ‘patriarchy’: ‘a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women’ (Walby 1990: 20)
- e.g. ‘inequality regimes’: ‘interlocked practices and processes that result in continuing inequalities in all work organizations’ (Acker 2006)
- e.g. the ‘social model’ of disability; ‘disabling barriers’ in society (Oliver 2013)
- e.g. ‘critical race theory’: ‘..racism continues to blight the lives of people of colour’; the relationship between ‘race, racism and power’ (Delgado & Stefancic 2017: 12, 3)
- ‘intersectionality’ (Crenshaw 1991; Hill Collins & Bilge 2016): how different forms and experiences of disadvantage combine to create distinct positions and understandings
Intersectionality: ‘e.g. black women are affected both by their ethnic position, and the racism that attends it, and by their gender, and the sexual discrimination which that provokes…this is not a question of simply adding the disadvantage of race and of gender together: the interplay of race and gender creates very distinct positionings which cannot be reduced to either’ (Williams et al 2013: 190)
9
Sociological explanations: social structures, power relations & identities
"Now, I feel that the value of a man in my life isn’t important for me, before work I depended on men for everything, but after having work, I am less dependent on men and I'm responsible for myself, I help my family. I see myself now stronger than a man."
e.g. the gendered power relations approach (Bradley 1999)
Social identity theory: ‘ascribed’ and ‘achieved’ identities (Jenkins 2014)
‘Choices are enabled and constrained within the limits set by rules, norms and expectations within any given social context’ (Kirton & Greene 2015: 76)
Power relations; not just oppression – but mobilising power resources. See Critical Race Theory and group/community empowerment
Saja Albelali’s PhD research into women workers in the Saudi private sector
10
Managing diversity
A strategic, business-focused approach concerned with recognising and valuing difference, explicitly contributing to organisational business goals (Kandola & Fullerton 1994; Greene & Kirton 2009; Kirton & Greene 2015)
- organisations adapt themselves to individuals rather than the other way around (Dean & Liff 2010; Kirton & Greene 2015; Liff 1999)
- focus on managing employees, realizing their potential and enabling them to contribute makes the approach more attractive to managers (Noon 2007; Greene & Kirton 2009; Kirton & Greene 2015)
- more closely aligned with, and supportive of, the needs of the business (Oswick & Noon 2014)
Managing diversity
Employee networks as a manifestation of corporate diversity management approaches (e.g. Colgan & McKearney 2012)
- promoting and enabling voice and inclusion
- a more positive employee experience
- connecting with customers etc
Critical perspectives on managing diversity
1. Difficulty distinguishing between a managing diversity approach and a conventional equality approach
- line managers prefer to deal with individual differences in a standardized way (Greene & Kirton 2009);
re-labelling conventional equality initiatives to make them more palatable to managers (Kirton & Greene 2015)?
2. The managing diversity approach too often operates in a way that is comfortable for managers, rather than challenge their assumptions(Noon 2007).
- and see Kirton et al (2016) on the limited interest of (male) line managers in ‘ITCO’
3. Focus on individual difference: but what about disadvantage as a collective, social phenomenon? Thus does not challenge long-standing features of organizations that produce discrimination (Liff 1997; Dean & Liff 2010). More about corporate image-building?
See work of Louise Ashley (2010) on failure of initiatives by City of London law firms to widen class diversity; PR?
13
From diversity to inclusion
‘Diversity is about inviting black people to the party. But inclusion is actually dancing with them’ (Pat Younge, former Chief Creative Officer BBC TV)
‘Inclusion is often defined as the extent to which everyone at work, regardless of their background, identity or circumstance, feels valued, accepted and supported to succeed at work’ (CIPD 2019: 3).
Radical approaches
‘“We hardly ever get a chance to talk about race in class,” a business school student recently remarked to me…She was right. In business schools, diversity tends to be ”mere decoration” while the focus stays on the “bottom line”’.
‘Most business curriculums are largely based on knowledge produced by white men from North America and other anglophone countries of the global north. Issues of diversity, racial prejudice, historically-entrenched inequities and underrepresentation are barely considered’.
Dominant understandings of management and organisations, and how they operate – the need for gendered, racialised, reflection and critique; see also Queer Theory and challenging predominant heteronormativity
15
Radical approaches
Structural, institutional sources of inequality and disadvantage. Power and interests. As exemplified by sexual harassment (MeToo movement) – an expression of gendered, male power.
16
Radical approaches
Positive action
e.g. positive ‘duties’ to eliminate discrimination and promote equality in the UK public sector (Public Sector Equality Duty)
UK Ministry of Justice: ‘We have a number of development programmes and projects for BAME, disabled, LGBT and female staff to address under-representation at senior levels, including…Coaching Squared to provide peer-to-peer coaching for BAME, LGBT, disabled and women employees’ https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/equality-and-diversity
Positive discrimination
Gender quotas on company boards, e.g. Norway (Teigen 2012), France; and possible new EU Gender Balance Directive?
Affirmative action in South Africa: the Employment Equity Act 1998 and black economic empowerment
See Noon (2010) on the case for positive discrimination
Measures to rectify historic, deep-rooted structural and institutional sources of disadvantage. A focus on outcomes – substantive fairness – rather than opportunities.
Where it is recognized that in order to alleviate inequality at work, employers need to do more to assist people from disadvantaged groups (Conley 2011; Kirton and Greene 2015).
EA (2010) It also sought to encourage positive action by permitting an employer to take a protected characteristic into account when choosing between otherwise similarly qualified candidates for a vacancy or a promotion. This was a relatively minor, but potentially highly symbolic, departure from the hitherto dominant liberal approach to promoting equality and diversity which aspires to treat people as if they are all the same (Conley 2011; Kirton and Greene 2015).
17
Radical approaches
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/15/its-what-students-look-for-the-dutch-university-thats-only-hiring-women
18
Radical approaches
Yoganathan, N. (2020): how BLM movement challenges existing distribution of (white) power and privilege. A refusal to ‘placate the public and policy-makers through politeness’. Protests, repertoires of contention and resistance. For the purpose of challenging structural racism.
19
Summary: implications for managing people and organisations
| Approach | Implications |
| Managing equality | A ‘bureaucratic’ agenda: prejudice and discrimination can be moderated through the application of policies and procedures to ensure that people are treated the same (equality of opportunity) |
| Managing diversity & inclusion | A ‘strategic’ agenda: whereby employers, by recognising and valuing difference, can benefit from the contribution of a diverse workforce; an increasing emphasis on ‘inclusion’ |
| Radical approach | A ‘transformative’ agenda; in order to alleviate inequality at work, employers need to take proactive measures to support people from disadvantaged groups in order to produce fairer outcomes (Conley 2011; Kirton and Greene 2015); also contention from members of disadvantaged groups themselves |
Managing equality – a traditional EO approach is concerned with fair/equal opportunities; for the MD approach fairness and equality not so much of an issue; radical approach – (demands for) fair outcomes.
20
Muslim women at 'disadvantage' in
workplace
BBC News Online 11 August 2016
Share
Muslim women are most likely to be at an economic disadvantage than other social
groups in the UK, according to a report by MPs.
Demoted or dismissed because of
your weight? The reality of the size
ceiling
Overweight people are less likely to be hired, are lower paid, have fewer
opportunities and are often outright bullied in the workplace. And, as these
stories and studies reveal, women bear the brunt of the discrimination
Renate van der Zee
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/30/demoted -
dismissed-weight-size-ceiling-work-discrimination
Wed 30 Aug 2017
Karen: ‘What happened at that clothing comp any was totally wrong ’.
Why is the curriculum so white in
business schools?
To build the next generation of diverse corporate leaders, we need to stop
ignoring racial inequality
Alessia Contu
Thu 6 Sep 2018 07.30
https://www.theguardian.com/higher -education-
network/2018/sep/06/why -is-the-curriculum-so-white-in-business-
schools