BookPDF Available

Managing Diversity and the Business Case

January 2008

Publisher: cipd

Authors:

Mustafa F Ozbilgin

Brunel University London

Titles for diversity officers

…

How did you gain the expertise required for your current role in diversity management?

…

Which skills do you need most in your job in diversity management?

…

Figures - uploaded by Mustafa F Ozbilgin

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Mustafa F Ozbilgin

Content may be subject to copyright.

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND

THE BUSINESS CASE

Mustafa F. Özbilgin

Gary Mulholland

Ahu Tatli

Dianah Worman

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM1

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development is the leading publisher of books

and reports for personnel and training professionals, students, and all those concerned

with the effective management and development of people at work.

For full details of all our titles, please contact the Publishing Department:

Tel: 020 8612 6204

E-mail: publish@cipd.co.uk

To view and purchase all CIPD titles:

www.cipd.co.uk/bookstore

For details of CIPD research projects:

www.cipd.co.uk/research

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM2

MANAGING DIVERSITY

AND THE BUSINESS

CASE

Mustafa F. Özbilgin

NORWICH BUINESS SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

Gary Mulholland

YORK ST JOHN UNIVERSITY

Ahu Tatli

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT, QUEEN MARY COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

Dianah Worman

CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM3

system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise

without written permission of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 151 The Broadway, London

SW19 1JQ

First published 2008

Cover and text design by Sutchinda Rangsi-Thompson

Typeset by Paperweight

Printed in Great Britain by Short Run Press, Exeter

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN-13 978 1 84398 223 4

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,

151 The Broadway, London SW19 1JQ

Tel: 020 8612 6200

Website: www.cipd.co.uk

Incorporated by Royal Charter. Registered charity no. 1079797.

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM4

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements viii

Foreword ix

Executive summary xi

1Introduction 1

2Diversity management and the link with business performance 3

3The business case for diversity – how prevalent is it in practice? 9

4The business case for diversity – how much difference is it making? 13

5Driving diversity progress – how much power do those in the driving seat have? 17

6Managing diversity better – making more of what we know 21

7The business case for diversity – what action research shows us 25

8Pepping up the pace of progress – some ideas 31

References 33

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM5

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The CIPD is very grateful to all those organisations and

individuals who gave their time to take part in the State of the

Nation survey, the Diversity Action Research Network. We

should also offer our special thanks to individuals and

organisations who have contributed to this report in other ways.

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM6

FOREWORD ❚

vii

FOREWORD

During the first half of 2008 conversations babbled that the

‘credit crunch’ could damage the progress of diversity. The

gloomy prognosis predicted that diversity had had its day and

was doomed.

This negative view lays down the gauntlet to those who wish

to defend managing diversity and provide evidence of its

importance in sustaining high-performance working.

A CIPD diversity conference in May 2008 featured testimonies

from organisations that have embedded diversity into

everything they do. They continue to ‘red thread’ it in all

activities – not just people management and development

policies and practices – because they see that diversity should

be viewed as an enabler to cope with stiff commercial

competition, not an administrative overhead.

The tough global economic climate emerging at the time of

going to press, as well as pending changes regarding UK

discrimination law, makes this report timely – in refreshing

understanding about the

business case

for diversity and its

relevance for influencing change and adding value.

Using information drawn from a range of different and unique

research studies that we carried out to explore the business

case for managing diversity, we describe its inclusive nature,

how it can add value to business performance and how it

differentiates leading-edge diversity organisations from the

followers: those who are essentially preoccupied with legal

compliance.

We show how managing diversity is a dynamic process and a

way of doing things, rather than a collection of discrete

initiatives. We provide evidence that the main business driver

for managing diversity is currently the need to tackle the global

‘war for talent’.

This leaves huge potential for organisations to

add even more value to business performance by paying more

attention to a range of other recognised business drivers as well.

The evidence we have gained from the various research

studies undertaken shows that the preoccupation with

compliance, limited understanding about the nature of the

business case and underinvestment in resources (in terms of

specific diversity budgets and expertise to drive change) all

prevent organisations from maintaining momentum on

managing diversity and driving it to the heart of business

activity. This can make managing diversity superficial and less

capable of making an impact and fuels doubt about its

relevance to the bottom line.

Our work shows that for managing diversity to have a higher

profile in the UK, public awareness-raising is vital, making it

clear that managing diversity is about inclusion and goes

beyond issues covered by discrimination legislation. It is

certainly not about exclusion and should not marginalise

people who cannot be ‘labelled’ according to law. Rather it is

about everybody because everyone is different. This will

improve knowledge and understanding and stimulate

employer engagement. It should be based on making

information about the business case for managing diversity

coherent and robust and the provision of easily accessible

practical guidance to remove the fear and paralysis that the

focus on compliance feeds on.

Organisations need more than information about their legal

obligations. They need case study examples of evolving good

practice, practical tools to help them craft contextually

appropriate business cases for action, a facility to help them

interact with others striving to make managing diversity central

to all business activity and access to people with diversity

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM7

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

viii

FOREWORD

expertise. Such help and support needs to be made available

through a one-stop, well-signposted helpline with links to

good-quality, reliable websites, for example those of the

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the CIPD, the

Trades Union Congress (TUC), and so on.

The model that supports the Government’s Age Postive

initiative and the reputable Acas helpline are excellent building

blocks for such an information and support facility, but the

challenge is how to improve and continue to improve the

provision of quality information, help and support, for which

we see a growing appetite.

In our view key stakeholders and authorities in the

management of diversity should be encouraged by the

Government to work in partnership to share knowledge,

understanding, perspectives and experiences and learn from

each other rather than focusing on reinventing wheels – time is

too short for this. Such players need to be encouraged to be

two-way communication brokers to get messages about

managing diversity down to the grassroots of their own

constituencies where actions can have a real impact – and

capture learning about what works and what does not and

why. This information should be captured and fed back to

policy-makers and information providers to update and re-

inform practical guidance.

It is clear from the extensive research carried out by the CIPD

that far more work is needed to inform good practice to facilitate

the progress of diversity. And, we predict that it will continue to

be needed as organisations progress the diversity agenda and

expose yet more challenges and uncharted territories.

Managing diversity is a pervasive issue that touches most

activities in business. Far from diversity experts or champions

aspiring to work themselves out of a job by helping everyone to

see how it is relevant to what they do, they will need to be

helped to be expert change agents, influencers and engines to

power up progress on a continuous basis and keep the

momentum going.

Our research and experience throws up the need for more

research to be done to identify the kinds of top-team

leadership behaviours that will affect the organisational culture

change those working in the diversity field recognise as vital to

enable diversity benefits to flourish.

It is also clear that we need to spell out how diversity is

relevant to issues such as talent management, total reward

management, work–life balance and flexibility, branding,

performance management, acquisition management, well-

being, mentoring, learning and training, and so on, as the

connections don’t seem to be automatically made.

We need to understand diversity issues not covered by law

much better than we do, for example, generational diversity.

Regarding behaviour, we need to improve the design of

interventions to foster respect and dignity in the workplace

and the removal of all forms of intimidation, which has a

deleterious effect on individual and business performance. We

also need to identify the kinds of positive and desirable

behaviours we should nurture to create an open, creative

workplace. We can’t afford to limit our attentions to the

negative behaviours we need to stamp out, but neither can we

ignore them.

This is a huge but not exhaustive list of issues for attention. But

it is a truism that the more you know about managing diversity

the more you realise how little you know. As already made

clear, managing diversity is not a series of discrete initiatives. It

is a dynamic process capable of building quality into all

business practices, addressing the circumstances businesses

operate in, the people employed to deliver goals and

objectives and the customers and clients organisations aim to

please and satisfy to be successful entities.

The evidence we have gained from the CIPD research on

diversity shows that ignoring diversity is dangerous. Behaving

like an ostrich – burying your head in the sand – is to deny

opportunities to sustain competitive advantage. Rather than

shying away from managing diversity, organisations need to

find the courage to go for it.

The CIPD’s future research programme for 2008–09 includes

studies on generational diversity and a focus on respect and

dignity and leadership behaviours.

Based on the learning from the CIPD research findings on

managing diversity and the business case, an interactive

practical tool has been designed for CIPD members to help

them develop a business case for appropriate action in their

organisations. Entitled

How to build your own business case

for diversity and inclusion

, it is available on the CIPD’s website

[www.cipd.co.uk/subjects].

Additionally, to facilitate learning about the practical

challenges organisations face in progressing diversity and to

inform the CIPD’s diversity research agenda and public policy

positions on diversity, a Senior Diversity Network has been set

up. This learning and thought-leadership forum of senior

experienced professionals in managing diversity provides a

rich opportunity for the Institute and the Forum members to

exchange information, experience, thoughts and ideas and

take into account research findings to consolidate and develop

new thinking about good practice.

For more information about CIPD materials on managing

diversity, see the References section of this report.

Dianah Worman,

OBE, Chartered FCIPD

CIPD Adviser, Diversity

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ❚

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A rigorous review of hard evidence reveals that diversity

management makes business sense and has the potential to

contribute to better business performance.

This is the conclusion from a raft of research on managing

diversity in the UK undertaken over the last decade by the

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)

using various research methods to

✜investigate and assess the evidence related to the

business case

✜find out if and why organisations value diversity

✜find out what generic progress has been made

✜scope methods and tools for measuring diversity

✜produce good practice guidance and practical tips to help

employers implement change and make progress by

translating rhetorical arguments and words into actions.

This report reflects on and synthesises various evidence about

managing diversity including fresh evidence from various CIPD

findings. This evidence includes a five-year CIPD action

research project in which nine public, private and voluntary

sector organisations took part, case studies, a literature review

and a unique CIPD survey on the state of the nation regarding

managing diversity, as well as general developments in the

field of managing diversity and other academic studies.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that diversity makes

business sense, the CIPD national survey shows that

organisations in the UK are failing to make the full use of

the potential that diversity management offers – as there is

a gap between this evidence and the way managing

diversity is practised.

Organisations can close this gap and gain more benefits from

managing diversity by making it central to business progress

through:

✜giving attention to the diverse needs and preferences of

people as employees, customers and clients so that it

becomes a coherent business issue

✜planning, implementing, monitoring, assessing and

revising effective strategies for managing diversity in ways

which contribute to organisational goals, performance

targets and strategies

✜aligning diversity management and business strategy to

capitalise on diversity related opportunities

✜taking advantage of the different drivers for progressing

diversity which include those related to business, legal,

social and moral arguments

✜effecting progress by recognising and rewarding good

practice and the achievement of diversity goals

✜promoting diversity by showcasing, advocating and

supporting work that is done.

A CIPD executive briefing,

Diversity management: words into

actions

, includes a range of examples to show how organisations

can make diversity integral to their business activities, and

another,

Managing diversity in practice: supporting business

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

goals,

includes various case studies to show how organisations

customise what they do to deliver success.

These reports show how organisations can use both subtle

approaches and more structured and transformational change

initiatives to tailor how they incorporate diversity into what

they do to support business goals.

Taking the focus away from organisation-specific progress in

managing diversity to supporting more generic progress, this

report highlights how academic–practitioner collaboration can

encourage academic advances in diversity management to

influence, inform and support diversity policy and good

practice developments.

In our experience academic–practitioner collaboration in the

field of managing diversity can lead to the design of more

sophisticated and focused approaches to organisational

progress based on evident links between diversity

management and business performance.

The range of academic–practitioner collaboration described in

this report includes partnerships between academics and

diversity practitioners, trainers, consultants, advocates,

champions and policy-makers.

An examination of the processes and tenets of academic–

practitioner collaboration shows that tacit and explicit

knowledge transfers can support the design of practical ways

of implementing and achieving benefits from managing

diversity and the development of academic knowledge and

theories. Collaboration enables academics to provide

organisations and practitioners with robust evidence-based

insights to apply and test in real situations.

To achieve successful outcomes from academic–practitioner

collaboration we have designed an action research method

based on our experiences of carrying out the CIPD diversity

action research programme. This report describes how we

designed and applied an action research method to build new

knowledge about managing diversity which in our view could

be more widely adopted to speed up diversity progress.

Prelims.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM10

INTRODUCTION ❚

INTRODUCTION 1

This report explores the business case for managing diversity

and draws on various research evidence to show the links with

performance improvement including:

✜academic literature

✜anecdotal case studies

✜CIPD action research

✜a unique CIPD national electronic survey showing the

state of the nation on diversity management.

The report points out that while the main business case

arguments for managing diversity focus on organisational

(micro) level issues, clear business case arguments also exist at

the national (macro), and personal and professional (meso)

levels. Adding all these together shows the real importance of

managing diversity and the integral links it has in terms of

performance generally. Managing diversity can help to shape,

influence and inform the better design and delivery of

products and services to diverse societies and deliver

improvements to the quality of life for everyone through

increased personal choice and opportunities to be

economically independent.

Despite a range of convincing evidence, reasoned arguments,

and evolving regulation about diversity there continues to be a

gap between rhetoric and reality. Far more resources need to

be invested in the provision of information and guidance about

how to design ways of improving performance through good

practice and how to show what added value it can make. The

CIPD has set out ideas about measurement to track the impact

of diversity practice in a survey report called

Diversity in

business: a focus for progress

(2007),

in which both

quantitative and qualitative techniques are discussed as ways

of making diversity progress more transparent.

Based on the CIPD’s experience of carrying out action

research on making diversity progress, it is clear that more

academic–practitioner collaboration could help to improve

knowledge and expertise and provide evidence-based

approaches to deliver successful outcomes. It is therefore

recommended as a way of helping to build new knowledge to

speed up the progress of managing diversity.

Chap1.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM1

Chap1.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM2

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE LINK WITH BUSINESS PERFORMANCE ❚

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE

LINK WITH BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

The evidence shows there are elements to the business case

for diversity that go beyond the more narrow focus that

generally prevails in practice and that better ways of tracking

the impact that managing diversity can deliver to performance

improvements will make the existing business case arguments

more powerful.

The CIPD has set out the main elements of the ‘business case’

for diversity in its core free guide,

Managing diversity: people

make the difference at work but everyone is different

(2005),

and makes it clear that the main elements include:

✜customer care and marketplace competitiveness

✜corporate image, brand, ethics and values

✜recruitment and retention of talent

✜designing and delivering products and services

✜increasing creativity and innovation

✜being an employer of choice through effective people

management and development

✜complying with legislation

✜corporate social responsibility.

The main arguments and drivers related to these elements are

explored in the CIPD’s state of the nation survey reports,

Diversity in business: how much progress have employers

made?

(2006)

and

Diversity in business: a focus for

progress.

(2007).

FROM EQUALITY TO DIVERSITY TO

INCLUSION

Over the last three of four decades much has changed about

the way unfair discrimination and exclusion are addressed.

This evolution has taken place against the background of new

thinking about the implications of a person being

different.

This new way of thinking about diversity is gradually changing

the prevailing negative perceptions about difference causing

problems to recognising that difference offers opportunities –

bringing new ideas and perspectives about ways of doing

things and answers to challenges.

This evolved thinking about the value of difference is taking

place against growing social and political acceptance of the

importance of tackling unfair discrimination for moral, social

and economic reasons, and the need for public policy

provisions and social interventions and business activities to be

based on

inclusion

to reflect the needs, aspirations and

expectations of an increasingly diverse society and diverse

global market place.

The more recent developments about diversity have sprung

from the acceptance of the need to protect people against

unfair discrimination based on ethnicity, gender and disability

by giving them legal rights to take complaints through the

courts to get redress and compensation.

But commentators (for example, Cockburn, 1991) have

challenged the effectiveness of law in delivering significant

change because of inadequate levels of legal compliance.

✜An inspection of the business case for managing diversity using various research

methods, points in the same direction – there is one.

✜As shown in the CIPD executive briefing,

Diversity: stacking up the evidence

(2003)

there is extensive academic literature on the causal link between the

effective management of diversity and business success. However this evidence is

patchy in terms of the diversity issues covered and the perspectives taken about

performance measures.

Chap2.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM3

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE LINK WITH BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

And, in terms of equality of opportunity for everyone

regarding jobs and training, CIPD evidence drawn from a

unique national level survey on the state of the nation on

diversity management (published in the two reports referred

to above),

provided clear evidence that while law is a key

driver for tackling unfair discrimination, it is not enough to

deliver the progress that is needed to create an inclusive

society and equality.

In the mid 1990s, the concept of diversity management

developed and drew attention away from legal compliance. It

focused on the strategic value of diversity across a wider range

of personal characteristics than were covered by law at the time,

which were essentially gender, ethnicity, and disability. Issues

now covered by law that were known to cause unfair treatment,

for example, age, sexual orientation, religion and spiritual

belief, were given a focus in terms of business case reasons for

the development of good practice to achieve more inclusivity.

Others issues not covered by law, such as weight, accent,

social class and educational background also began to be

recognised as potential causes of unfair exclusion from jobs

and training as well as goods and services.

Diversity management is based on the premise that everyone

is a unique and complex mix of different personal

characteristics. It is not based on the assumption that everyone

is exactly the same and must therefore be treated in a uniform

way, but it does recognise that people have things in common

with each other and that these things create group identities.

The fact that people are the same, but different, means that

responses to diversity that are based on treating everyone in

exactly the same way in relation to perceptions about group

norms or a group

label or identity, fail to recognise true

individuality and responses to personal preferences, needs

and choices, and can therefore be argued to be

exclusive

and

unfair. In effect, it holds back on difference over and above

what is regarded as normal. It

caps what is perceived to be

beyond what is comparatively normal while it compensates for

anything that is perceived to be less than comparatively normal.

The use of a comparator model informed by group norms

therefore, falls far short of what is needed to deliver inclusion

for everyone regarding economic independence and access to

goods and services. People need different kinds of provisions,

help and support even to reach the much espoused level

playing field associated with equality of opportunity. As an

aspirational goal, this is in effect a default position. It stops

people going beyond what is regarded as normal and reaching

their full individual potential and inhibits marketplace

provisions and services which address niche requirements.

In this way the true celebration of difference is blocked as it

cuts off the positive aspects of difference and focuses on the

negative aspects using a compensation model to make up for

any shortcomings in what is regarded as

fair.

This approach

itself acts as a barrier to the full potential that a focus on

celebrating diversity can deliver as a source of new insights,

perspectives and opportunities. These can help to build

improvements in the way organisations run their businesses

and deliver better designed products and services to reach

more diverse audiences and societies effectively and

efficiently.

So a new approach to the agenda of managing diversity is

needed to support the new thinking or mindset about diversity

and inclusion.

Key and highly provocative is the need to reposition the vexed

issue of ‘positive discrimination’.

To date the UK regulatory framework for tackling unfair

discrimination has positioned positive discrimination as

unlawful while positive action is permissible within certain

constraints. (Positive action is aimed at encouraging job

applications from more diverse groups in the labour market or

enabling people from under-represented groups to take part in

specially designed exclusive training to help them compete for

jobs more successfully).

To explain the concept of positive discrimination more fully: it

is currently unlawful to recruit people for jobs based on

personal characteristics such as gender or ethnicity except in

circumstances where it can be proved that there is a genuine

occupational requirement – for example where for a doctor to

deal properly with predominantly female patients whose

religion or faith require them not to be medically examined by

a male doctor. In other words, the need for a job candidate to

possess a particular personal characteristic has to be related to

job requirements that are essential for satisfactory performance.

This is because the conventional view about equal opportunities

is that it is unfair to select for jobs on the basis of personal

characteristics such as gender, even when a job candidate

possesses all the other job requirements. Merit must be the key

factor in selecting people for jobs and merit has not, so far –

except in circumstances where there is a genuine occupational

requirement for the job as described above, been seen to include

personal characteristics such as gender, and so on.

But this stance runs counter to the business case arguments for

building diverse workforces: better delivery to diverse

customer needs and preferences and more inclusive societies

and the value that diversity can deliver in terms of ideas,

perspectives, creativity and innovation. And, when law aims to

drive greater diversity and inclusivity it is illogical to include

dubious barriers which are counterproductive to progress.

Certain forms of individual differences such as educational

qualifications, personal experience, skills, competences and

work performance have been traditionally considered as

legitimate criteria for assessing a person’s suitability and merit

for employment and career progression, while other forms of

difference such as gender and ethnic origin have been

considered inappropriate and irrelevant.

Chap2.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM4

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE LINK WITH BUSINESS PERFORMANCE ❚

New ways of thinking are urgently needed about what

personal forms of individual differences, abilities and traits,

constitute ‘merit’ because ‘merit’ is rightly the cornerstone of

fairness regarding equality, diversity and inclusion. This will

enable good practice in diversity management to be refreshed

and give more confidence to those making decisions about

employment and training and more scope to trigger faster

change in overturning the tables on outdated and misguided

interpretations that currently inform good practice.

In fact, developments in thinking about diversity management

are beginning to turn the tables on this and suggest that, rather

than being considered irrelevant, personal characteristics such

as gender and ethnicity and so on, should be taken into account.

Literature reviews show that diversity management scholars

argue that individual differences are essential ingredients for

high performance, creativity, innovation and competitive

advantage. They explain that there are legal, moral, business,

social and economic case arguments which illustrate that while

diversity may contribute to business performance, ignoring it

would have high-cost consequences for organisations and that

the perception that diversity management is singularly a cost

burden, is unfounded.

Such scholars see tensions between the current legal

framework for diversity and the business case drivers which

are often polar opposites that need to be reconciled to

facilitate diversity progress.

In our view, the evidence shows that the business and legal

case arguments for diversity management can and should be

reconciled.

Some diversity scholars have argued that the main reason why

diversity management has been adopted is its potential to add

value to business performance and indeed the various CIPD

research evidence about diversity and the business case show

that it is the business case that drives interest beyond mere

legal compliance and makes the difference between the leading-

edge players in the field of equality, diversity and inclusion.

According to Cassell and Biswas (2000), the shift from equal

opportunities to diversity management was triggered by

individualised and performance-driven business case

arguments. These marked a move away from the focus on

emotive and moral case arguments associated with equal

opportunities and the removal of unfair discrimination and has

given diversity management and equal opportunities

distinguishing characteristics based on the business case and

legal,moral or social cases. However, we would argue that

diversity management embraces legal,moral and social case

arguments as part of the overarching business case.

There is of course cynicism about the business case for

diversity. This has been fuelled by the increasing number of

diversity issues that are surfacing for attention and the fact that

there are many different definitions of diversity in use.

‘

Diversity means many things to many people

’ is now a

common caveat that precedes discussions on the topic.

‘

“Diversity means many things to many

people”

is now a common caveat that precedes

discussions on the topic.’

The existence of multiple definitions is cited as a stumbling block

for diversity progress and the credibility of the business case that

arguably inhibits uniform diversity progress. Descriptions of

diversity are crowded with forms of difference which many

organisations have yet to acknowledge or include in their

diversity policies and practices. This is shown in the CIPD’s state

of the nation survey reports on diversity management.

In our view it is the failure to take into account the inclusive

nature of diversity to enhance the benefits of difference that

serves to undermine the business case for diversity, not the

inclusive nature of diversity itself.

As defined and promoted by the CIPD, diversity management

is about

‘valuing everyone as an individual – valuing people as

employees, customers and clients’.

‘…diversity management is about

“valuing

everyone as an individual – valuing people as

employees, customers and clients”.’

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS

PERFORMANCE

Diversity management literature suggests there are strong

organisational reasons for adopting diversity management and

the associated philosophy and approaches. In fact, the

empirical evidence of a positive correlation between effective

diversity management and improved organisational

performance has been overwhelming in recent years.

For example, Barkema, Baum and Mannix (2002) position

diversity as one of the main challenges facing management in

the 21st century, and highlight evidence about a clear link

between positive organisational outcomes and effective diversity

management. Additionally, they refer to studies that examine

the negative outcomes of diversity, and argue that the effective

management of diversity delivers positive results and eliminates

potential negative repercussions such as conflict in teams.

Recent international research from the Boston Consultancy

Group shows that diversity is one of the top global issues for

management attention (see box opposite).

Chap2.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM5

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE LINK WITH BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

Top five future challenges for companies in Europe

1managing talent

2managing demographics

3becoming a learning organisation

4managing work–life balance

5managing change and cultural transformation

Source

: Boston Consulting Group 2007

Our literature review shows there is growing evidence about

the business benefits of diversity management at this level, too.

Raatikainen (2002) reviews case study evidence in support of

the interplay between diversity management and business

performance, showing a number of advantages, including

improved creativity and customer focus through competitive

practice of multiculturalism in the workplace.

Complementing this, Ozbilgin and Tatli (2008) argue that

managing diversity in the headquarters of the global firm, is an

important strategy through which global companies can gain

strategic advantages from using their diverse local

competencies in coordinating international operations.

GOING UP A GEAR WITH DIVERSITY

MANAGEMENT TO MAKE MORE OF A

DIFFERENCE TO PERFORMANCE

As we have noted earlier in this report, diversity has the

potential to deliver both negative and positive impacts in

organisations and, unless diversity is managed well the

potential benefits will be missed. Controversially, this adds

weight to the argument for the business case for diversity

management rather than the legal, moral and social cases for

simply becoming more diverse.

But managing diversity in organisations is in its infancy and an

overview of various academic studies presents a complex

picture of the challenges we face in aiming to pinpoint what

good practice needs to address in the future to make sure we

make the most of the increasingly diverse nature of the talent

organisations need to sustain economic viability.

As we take the diversity and inclusion specialism up a gear to

add value to performance we will need to move beyond the

introduction of workplace policies and practices that focus on

recruiting, rewarding and retaining diverse talent and

responding smartly, effectively and efficiently to diverse

customers and global customers. The responses we know are

imperative to make progress such as more flexibility, work–life

balance, removal of unfair discrimination and bias, stamping

out intimidating behaviour, bullying and harassment and the

creation of open and harmonious workplace cultures will not

be enough.

We will be searching for new management techniques and

interventions that help us to enable people to work better

together because of their diversity and not in spite of it. That is

why insights we can gain from academic research will give us

important clues about what to do next and why we are

suggesting greater practitioner–academic collaboration

through action research.

In brief, this chapter sets out some of the findings from a range

of academic studies researched in the literature review carried

out as part of our study of the business case for managing

diversity.

Current research shows that different types of diversity have

different impacts on performance and that time has a

moderating effect.

Govindarajan and Gupta (2001) suggest there is an optimum

level of diversity in teams and that the difference between

cognitive and behavioural diversity should be taken into

account.

They point out that while cognitive diversity is about the

substantive differences in how individual members perceive

the challenges facing teams and the behavioural diversity is

about differences in language and culture. In their view

cognitive diversity injects strength into teams, while

behavioural diversity creates challenges that are a necessary

evil to be minimised by careful management to reduce

negative impacts on outcomes. Unfortunately, their study does

not show how cultural differences stemming personal identity

differences can be recognised and valued.

Research shows that time has an important impact on diversity

management and outcomes and this influences the business

case. While the negative effects of diversity may be short-term

they are capable of being transformed into organisational

benefits in the long term.

Watson, Kumar and Michaelsan (1993) illustrated this in their

examination of the impact of diversity on interaction process

and performance. Their research showed that although

homogeneous teams performed better in the short term,

heterogeneous (diverse) teams started performing much

better after 17 weeks. This research highlights the way time

influences diverse team behaviours and the importance of

allowing time for diverse teams to learn how to work together

in ways that can deliver added value to performance through

their potential to be more creative than homogeneous teams.

Homogeneity reinforces ‘groupthink’ which is directly

counterproductive in terms of innovation, creativity, flexibility

and team effectiveness.

Chap2.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM6

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE LINK WITH BUSINESS PERFORMANCE ❚

Looking at two different ways of managing diversity – one

from an inclusive approach and one from an exclusive group

identity approach, Svyantek

et al

(2002) discovered that time

influenced both. Inclusive approaches based on merit

delivered better performance in the longer term. This supports

our view that the inclusive nature of diversity beyond the

exclusive issues protected in law on a group identity basis does

not weaken the business case for diversity as long as such

additional diversity issues are taken into account and

integrated into the way organisations behave and develop

their working processes and systems as well as their policies.

Larkey (1996) highlighted

categorisation

and

specification

two processes that inform the way people stereotype each

other and anticipate certain types of behaviours and how these

expected behaviours are changed as a result of meeting and

interacting with each other. So, the categories of gender and

ethnicity for example may raise a person’s expectations about

the way a woman or an Italian might behave before they have

met them. However, after meeting them the process of

specification takes place as they get to know the person and

make different observations about them on a piecemeal basis

depending on what they talk about and how they actually

behave. The difference between these two processes is that

the categorisation process is based on preconceptions and

misguided assumptions associated with the stereotype or

assigned group identity. The research conclusion is that it is

only when people meet and interact with each other that there

is a reality check, albeit on a piecemeal basis, about the nature

of diversity and that it is the specialisation process that has the

greater potential to foster a more positive attitude to

recognising diversity.

Taking diversity beyond the issues covered by law, a study of

the value of knowledge-sharing and structural diversity by

Cummings (2004) involving 182 work groups in the list of

Fortune 500 companies reveals that the organisational value of

knowledge-sharing increases if the work groups are

structurally diverse, and the members have different

affiliations, roles and positions.

‘…the organisational value of knowledge-

sharing increases if the work groups are

structurally diverse, and the members have

different affiliations, roles and positions.’

In their study of the international construction industry, Dadfar

and Gustavsson (1992) argue that, while there was evidence

that cultural diversity delivered an advantage in management

level project teams, there was no evidence of advantage at the

workgroup level. However, when homogeneous cultural teams

were put in competition with one another, the bonding

influence of national pride meant they

did

deliver performance

advantage. They also found that people with bicultural

backgrounds were useful moderators in multicultural groups.

Despite the evidence that diversity can jeopardise workplace

harmony and interactive processes, in a review of empirical

evidence in literature, Hopkins and Hopkins (2002) reveal that

cultural recomposition – the process by which the

homogeneity of a team alters through the integration of new,

culturally different, members – can be effectively managed

without damaging the processes of team interactions if the

professional attributes of the new member are emphasised,

rather than social differences. This is a significant finding that

may help to counter the initial potential difficulties found in

work reported earlier in this document, suggesting that team

heterogeneity may be characterised by problems with team

harmony and employment relations in the initial stages.

Hopkins and Hopkins found that culture change can be effected

in ways that deliver positive outcomes and, Mannix (2003) points

to studies that show the relationships between different types of

diversity and conflict, explaining that further research is crucial to

find out how to use conflict associated with diversity in positive

ways and tackle negative conflict and that exploring diversity and

conflict in multiple forms will be more productive then seeking

tenuous links between diversity strands and conflict.

Even though, as we have noted earlier, the evidence for the

business case for diversity management remains patchy,

nevertheless there is growing recognition that effective

management of diversity can certainly generate performance

improvements, both in the short and long term and in teams

and organisations.

Beside the above specific studies, a large body of literature

(see Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2008 for a comprehesive review) has

also identified a further wide range of benefits from diversity

management including:

✜reducing the potential for backlash impact as associated

with affirmative action

✜meeting diverse customer demands more effectively

✜improving understanding and ability to succeed in the

complex globalisation of markets

✜delivery of the

psychological

contract,

improved

employee relations and reduced labour turnover

✜improvements in the quality and performance of internal

workforce in terms of skills, creativity, problem solving and

flexibility.

SOCIAL, ORGANISATIONAL AND

PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS OF THE

BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY

The current literature on the business case for managing

diversity is well developed, but suffers from an exclusive focus

on organisational issues.

Chap2.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM7

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE LINK WITH BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

Unfortunately this misses the value it adds to performance in

macro, social and political contexts. In a complex socio-political

context, it is a mistake solely to focus on diversity issues at the

micro/organisational level because this fails to take account of

the way diversity impacts in these wider areas and undermines

comprehensive understanding of the business case arguments.

We also notice from our literature research that there is a gap

in the focus on the organisational level business case for

managing diversity. This misses consideration of a secondary

analysis of the links between resources, processes, personal

relationships, power and influence and performance outcomes.

We also suggest there is a need for a further level of analysis

related to the impact that diversity professionals can deliver on

successful diversity management.

Diversity professionals are key change agents in organisations

regarding diversity progress, but the literature review we have

carried out does not highlight the impact they can have.

In our research on diversity and the business case we have

taken this into account in a multi-level approach to explore

diversity management as:

✜a negotiated prescription across a wide range of actors in

the diversity industry of the contemporary social-political

context of Britain

✜a management approach that promotes difference in

order to improve performance

✜a process in which diversity professionals act as agents of

change and seek to mobilise organisational resources in

order to realise performance improvements through

diversity management.

The next chapter uses this three-pronged framework in order

to expose the state of the nation in the UK regarding the

business case for diversity management.

Chap2.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM8

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – HOW PREVALENT IS IT IN PRACTICE? ❚

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY –

HOW PREVALENT IS IT IN PRACTICE?

WHAT WE FOUND

Our research shows that there is a wide range of understanding

about the business case for diversity and what it comprises,

and various views about its status and importance in

influencing progress. Taking into account the views expressed

by academics, government agencies, professional bodies,

trade unions, trainers, diversity experts, specialists and

consultants as well as professional bodies, it is clear that while

there are keen advocates on the one hand, others depend on

legal and moral case arguments which they see as separate

from the business case rather than part of it.

WHAT WE THINK

Aspects of the business case:

✜customer care and marketplace competitiveness

✜corporate image, brand, ethics and values

✜recruitment and retention of talent

✜designing and delivering products and services

✜increasing creativity and innovation

✜being an employer of choice through effective

people management and development

✜complying with legislation

✜corporate social responsibility

Source

Managing diversity: people make the difference

at work but everyone is different

(CIPD, 2005)

In our view, separating legal obligations and behaving morally

from the business case is pedantic nonsense. Making sure

legal duties are upheld and behaving ethically have serious

cost implications if things go wrong – avoiding legal costs,

ethical business behaviour and protecting corporate reputation

are serious bottom line issues – and we would therefore

include them as aspects of the generic business case.

Table 1 on page 10 sets out the key drivers for diversity in

terms of business benefits.

WHAT THIS MEANS

Getting this message across will be vital to speeding up diversity

progress as the evidence detailed later in this chapter shows.

Overall, the understanding of the business case is still weak

and it therefore punches below its true weight in effecting

progress. This calls for considerable effort in education and

awareness-raising about the inclusive nature of the business

case and the development of tools and guidance to inform and

influence good practice and organisational behaviour.

✜While evidencing the business case for managing diversity we also wanted to find

out how well it is understood and what significance it has in influencing

organisations.

✜In the next two chapters we draw from a range of field studies we carried out and

a unique national level diversity survey undertaken by the Chartered Institute of

Personnel and Development.

Chap3.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM9

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – HOW PREVALENT IS IT IN PRACTICE?

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

WHAT WE FOUND

From the interviews we carried out, even though there is wide

reference to the business case for diversity – which is good news

– the rhetoric we heard was not supported by significant relevant

action customised to benefit individual organisations. Rather,

organisational responses appear to mimic the predominant

approach adopted in the particular economic sector.

WHAT THIS SUGGESTS

To enable organisations to move forward using the business

case they need to understand and be able to contextualise the

generic arguments, in order to make sure that the actions

taken support the delivery of organisational objectives, visions

and values.

This suggests that to help people with responsibility for diversity

to be more effective in what they do they need to have:

✜an appreciation of the national level diversity scene and

what drives change

✜familiarity with the different national level stakeholder

interests regarding diversity management

✜up-to-date knowledge of the way thinking about diversity

management is evolving

✜access to networks to share knowledge and

understanding and to increase personal learning

✜communication and influencing skills and a willingness to

share knowledge and experience about both the internal

and external diversity scenes

✜a sophisticated appreciation of the diversity business case

and how to use it appropriately to influence change in the

way organisations do things.

THE BUSINESS CASE NEEDS MORE

SUPPORT

It is clear from research that the business case for diversity

management is an important driver for change yet there is

Percentage of respondents

Table 1 ✜Key drivers for diversity in terms of business benefits (respondents ranked their top five on a scale of 1–5, with 1

being the most important)

Drivers

Source

Diversity in business: a focus for progress.

(CIPD, 2007)

Overall

importance

Least

important

Less

important

ImportantVery

important

Most

important

To recruit and retain best talent

Because it makes business sense

To improve business performance

To address recruitment problems

Desire to improve customer relations

To improve products and services

To improve creativity and innovation

Desire to reach diverse markets

To improve corporate branding

To enhance decision-making

To respond to the competition in the

market

To respond to the global market

............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Chap3.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM10

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – HOW PREVALENT IS IT IN PRACTICE? ❚

huge potential for it to make a bigger difference than our

research evidence shows it currently does.

‘…the business case for diversity management

is an important driver for change yet there is

huge potential for it to make a bigger

difference…’

To support this statement we draw on the unique national level

survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and

Development to explore the state of the nation on diversity

management and the influence of the business case for

diversity at organisational level.

This survey has generated 285 completed electronic

questionnaires by people responsible for diversity

management in organisations across the UK. The sample

included a representation of organisations by size, region and

economic sector. Twenty-one per cent of respondents were

female. The median age of respondents was between 41 and

50 and most were in middle and senior management posts

with unit- or organisation-wide responsibility for diversity.

WHAT ARE THE ORGANISATIONAL

DRIVERS FOR MANAGING DIVERSITY?

Some academics argue that diversity management and equal

opportunities are driven by different external and internal

pressures.

While diversity progress is seen to be driven by voluntary

responses related to internal business case arguments and

everyday business realities the pressure for equal opportunities

progress is seen to be compliant with the external pressures

imposed by regulation (McDougall, 1996, Thomas, 1990).

This influences two prevailing assumptions about the drivers

for diversity management

✜diversity management is driven by business case arguments

✜diversity management is not driven by legal enforcement

But while the literature on diversity management suggests that

progress is dependent on business case arguments rather than

law, the CIPD survey shows that legal compliance pips the

business case arguments to the post in having a major influence.

Diversity management is significantly influenced by law.

‘Diversity management is significantly

influenced by law.’

Table 2 ✜Top-ranking drivers for managing diversity

Percentage of

respondents citing as

‘most important’

Legal pressures

Because it makes business sense

To be an employer of choice

To recruit and retain best talent

Because it is morally right

Corporate social responsibility

To improve products and services

Belief in social justice

To address recruitment problems

Desire to reach diverse markets

To improve business performance

To respond to the global market

To respond to the competition in the

market

To improve creativity and innovation

Desire to improve customer relations

To improve corporate branding

To enhance decision-making

Trade union activities

...................................................................................................

Source

Diversity in business: how much progress have employers made? First

findings.

(CIPD, 2007)

...................................................................................................

The CIPD survey results show that the most important

motivation for managing diversity is ‘legal pressures’, with 68%

of the respondents ranking it among the top five drivers included

in the survey. These were ‘to recruit and retain best talent’ (64%),

‘corporate social responsibility’ (62%), ‘to be an employer of

choice’ (62%), and ‘because it makes business sense’ (60%).

Nevertheless, the survey shows the business case for diversity

is important, too, with the main arguments relating to the

recruitment and retention of talent. This aspect of the business

case is primarily a human resource management driver and while

Chap3.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM11

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – HOW PREVALENT IS IT IN PRACTICE?

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

it is very important, this predominant but narrow focus exposes

the way in which organisations are failing to grasp the wider

aspects of the business case and the way in which managing

diversity can deliver further benefits to business performance.

The CIPD survey findings show how the concept of managing

diversity as a guiding business principle is not integrated into

the logic of other business functions such as marketing,

product development and customer relations. Not enough

organisations are making the connections between the impact

of demographics and the supply of talent and those which

influence the markets for products and services even though

the importance of recognising diversity in the marketplace to

improve business performance is recognised. This lack of

’joined-up’ thinking is letting business performance down.

‘Not enough organisations are making the

connections between the impact of

demographics and the supply of talent…’

Based on our research findings we maintain that that the

rhetorical polarisation of the drivers for managing diversity

between legal compliance and specific bottom-line business

issues is not only unhelpful but is also artificial, inappropriate

and an unnecessary distraction. In fact, rather than trying to

argue the supremacy of any one individual driver for managing

diversity it makes more sense to embrace a diversity of reasons

as components of the business case. This case for diversity

management is strengthened by including:

✜a wider range of diversity management drivers

✜business, legal, moral case and social responsibility

arguments

✜a wide range of organisational stakeholder interests and

benefits related to progressing diversity management.

Chap3.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM12

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IS IT MAKING? ❚

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY –

HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IS IT MAKING?

The focus on managing diversity has attracted cynical responses

from exponents of equal opportunities who argue that the

explosion of diversity issues will result in less attention on equality

rather than more. However, this criticism is not substantiated

by our examination of organisational policies and practices.

Evidence from the CIPD national level diversity survey shows

the extent to which employers take into account a broad range

of diversity issues – including diversity issues that are not

covered by discrimination law.

As can be seen from Table 3 on page 14, a wide range of

diversity issues are covered by organisational policies. Issues

with legal protection are cited more frequently than those

which are not and are given fairly similar attention although,

strikingly, disability is mentioned the most often.

We know that having written policies is not enough to drive

diversity progress into mainstream activities, so the CIPD diversity

survey asked respondents to say how they make sure their

diversity policies are taken into account in organisational practices.

Awareness raising and diversity training for employees comes

top, being mentioned by 65.6 % of respondents. Employee

attitude surveys (61.8 %) are the second most common

activity. But responses showed only a small minority of

organisations undertake activities that would make diversity

management systemic. For example, diversity is a performance

criterion in only 18.6 % of the organisations covered by the

survey and only 15.8% include diversity-related goals in

managers’ performance assessments. Furthermore, 95.1% of

the organisations represented in the survey do not reward or

recognise diversity achievements, 70.5% do not build diversity

objectives into business goals and only 20% use diversity

standards, while 69.8 % do not set diversity objectives.

✜Do employers measure the impact of what they do?

✜Leading-edge organisations in diversity management have been encouraged to

take into account a broader range of personal characteristics which can cause

unfair disadvantage. This development has been influenced by the extension of

legal protection in the UK to meet EU requirements on discrimination. For

example age, sexual orientation, religion and belief and the growing interest in

and increasing knowledge about diversity and inclusion.

From the range of activities reported in the CIPD survey it

appears that diversity management in UK organisations is

generally superficial. This points to the need for:

✜greater understanding of the external and internal drivers

that make diversity management an essential business

process

✜better implementation to move policy aspirations into

practice

✜wider adoption of customised business case arguments

✜the inclusion of diversity objectives into performance

management systems

✜the wider adoption of monitoring and evaluation processes.

A diversity sophistication index was developed from the CIPD

survey results and organisations can make a broad reference to

this to see how well they are doing themselves.

The index incorporates 146 variables based on macro-level

and organisational-level drivers and organisational-level

diversity policies and practices. The most sophisticated

organisation represented in the survey scored 122 marks out

of a highest possible score of 146 while the lowest score of

zero was achieved by five organisations. The average

sophistication score was 52.

As can be seen in Table 4 on page 14, there is considerable

variation across organisations in terms of levels of

sophistication. The differences relate to organisational size and

economic sector. Large organisations and public sector

organisations have higher scores than smaller organisations in

Chap4.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM13

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IS IT MAKING?

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

the private and voluntary sectors. Table 4 illustrates the

frequencies of sophistication scores.

The diversity sophistication index points to the need for:

✜more information and guidance about how to make a

customised business case to bring about diversity

progress, taking into account contextualised

circumstances

✜organisations to look beyond custom and practice in the

same economic sector to inform what they do, as the level

of sophistication in diversity management generally

appears to be low

✜organisations to draw on a wider range of good practice

guidance and case study material to be more successful in

managing diversity, taking advantage of sources such as

networks, conferences, training and education

opportunities and web-based information for examples of

good practice.

DO EMPLOYERS STRIVE TO SHOW THE

IMPACT OF MANAGING DIVERSITY ON

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE?

To be successful in influencing diversity progress,

organisations need to be able to show that what they do makes

a difference and adds real value. But the CIPD survey suggests

that organisations generally need to be much smarter at doing

this than they appear to be.

While they use indicators and measures of change such as

employee attitude surveys, complaint and grievance and

labour turnover statistics, tools such as a balanced score card

and impact assessments, which can show the links between

diversity management and customer satisfaction and business

performance are used less frequently (see Table 5, opposite).

Based on the CIPD survey findings, it is clear that there needs

to be a greater focus on evaluating approaches to managing

diversity and much more attention needs to be paid to:

✜the wider use of key diversity performance indicators

✜balanced scorecards mainstreaming diversity objectives

into business goals and objectives, related to product

development and service delivery targets, for example.

For more detailed information about the CIPD diversity survey

results see

Diversity in business: how much progress have

employers made?

(2006)

and

Diversity in business: a focus for

progress.

(2007).

Table 3 ✜Diversity issues taken into account by

employers

Number of respondents

Accent

Postcode

Weight

Political ideology

Physical appearance

Mental health

Social and economic background

All forms of difference

Trade union membership

Criminal convictions

Parental status

Marital status

Age

Nationality

Sexual orientation

Religion

Gender/sex

Ethnicity/race

Disability

...................................................................................................

120

130

138

159

160

165

166

170

...................................................................................................

Table 4 ✜Business case and legal case cross-tabulation

(in percentages)

Legal case

Business case

Total

Base: 277 respondents

TotalYesNo

Yes

040

060

100

...................................................................................................

Source

Diversity in business: a focus for progress.

(CIPD, 2007)

Chap4.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM14

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IS IT MAKING? ❚

Table 5 ✜Which of the following measures do (or would)

you use to monitor diversity in your

organisation?

Measures Count

Employee attitude surveys

Number of complaints and grievances

Labour turnover

Employee perfomance appraisals

Absenteeism

Ability to recruit

Number of tribunal cases

Impact assessment

Level of customer satisfaction

Employee commitment surveys

Business performance

Balanced scorecard

Diversification of customer base

Improvements to problem-solving and decision-making

Psychological contract issues

206

161

159

132

129

114

089

077

067

055

053

048

037

019

016

...................................................................................................

Chap4.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM15

Chap4.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM16

DRIVING DIVERSITY PROGRESS – HOW MUCH POWER DO THOSE IN THE DRIVING SEAT HAVE? ❚

DRIVING DIVERSITY PROGRESS –

HOW MUCH POWER DO THOSE IN THE

DRIVING SEAT HAVE?

Literature on diversity management tends to overlook the

contributions that individuals make to helping organisations

realise the business benefits of diversity. Nevertheless, Parker

(1999) and Meyerson (2001) have argued the importance of

senior management support while others have focused on the

pivotal role of diversity practitioners and the importance of

their status and legitimacy (Lawrence 2000; Jones, Jerich,

Copeland and Boyle 1989).

In practice the evidence from the CIPD diversity surveys shows

that the people given responsibility for diversity in organisations

have diverse roles, employment status and contractual hours

and come from very different functional backgrounds. Not all

are in HR positions and those that are tend to be in employee

relations – a discipline with a big focus on employment

regulation and terms and conditions of employment.

As shown by our research, job titles vary enormously and

reflect the roles played and the status they have. For example,

diversity manager, diversity expert, diversity officer, diversity

specialist, diversity champion, diversity trainer, diversity

scholar, diversity consultant, among others (see Table 6).

Working in the diversity field is not renowned for being easy

and, unsurprisingly, the CIPD survey shows that those that do

don’t generally feel they receive support and encouragement

from senior management; neither do they feel diversity

management is regarded as integral to all aspects of work.

Nevertheless, respondents said their roles require them to act

as change agents (see Table 7 on page 18).

To convince colleagues of the business relevance of change

requires an understanding of the business case arguments for

diversity, an ability to operate as a business partner and

influencing and change management skills, all in equal measure.

✜In this chapter we look at the way in which people with responsibility for diversity

in organisations affect what is done and explore how much power those behind

the steering wheel have and what would give them better traction on the road to

change things?

Table 6 ✜Titles for diversity officers

Area Diversity and Equality Manager

Assistant Director Equality and Diversity

Diversity and HR Policy Director

Diversity Development Manager

Diversity Leader

Diversity Manager

Diversity Officer

East Midlands Diversity Group Member and National Member

Employee Relations and Diversity Manager

Equal Opportunities Adviser

Equal Opportunities and Diversity Manager

Equal Rights Officer

Equalities and Disabilities Adviser

Equality and Diversity Adviser

Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator

Equality and Diversity Manager

Equality and Diversity Officer

Head of Diversity

Head of Equal Opportunities

HR and Diversity Consultant

HR Consultant/Diversity Project Manager

HR Project Manager – Equality

VP Talent Management and Diversity

When we asked people how they developed their job skills

(Table 8, on page 18), most referred to on-the-job experience.

This was followed by external training courses, diversity

networks, in-house training and formal education.

While work experience exposes diversity professionals to the

daily challenges related to managing diversity, it does not

provide the background understanding available from formal

Chap5.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM17

DRIVING DIVERSITY PROGRESS – HOW MUCH POWER DO THOSE IN THE DRIVING SEAT HAVE?

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

learning which can support and enable more effective and

confident performance in such roles.

The research we have carried out shows that people working

in the diversity field feel that an understanding of law and

human resource management is very important as well as skill

in translating business case arguments into practice.

Additionally, they feel an understanding of the perspectives of

diverse groups of employees, negotiating and influencing

skills, communication skills and consensus-building skills are

important (see Table 9).

The reward and recognition given to employees is an important

indicator of the way they are seen as adding value to an

organisation for what they do, how they are valued and the

status they are given. It is interesting to compare the rhetoric

about the importance of managing diversity with the reward and

status of those charged with responsibility for taking it forward.

The CIPD diversity survey results show that the majority of

respondents (66.3%) earn between £21,000 and £40,000 a

year. Considering their age and expertise, these salary levels

are relatively low, suggesting that organisations do not recognise

diversity to be as important as their rhetoric might suggest.

Table 7 ✜Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements

Percentage of respondents

Statement

In my organisation senior management encourage diversity

It is very important for my diversity role to know the names

and faces of senior staff and being able to approach them

easily

My organisation aims to make sure that diversity and

equality are at the heart of everything it does

Strongly agree

Strongly disagree

1432

4.3

0.0

4.0

16.5

01.8

25.3

35.6

09.2

32.5

27.3

41.5

27.1

16.2

47.4

11.2

Table 8 ✜How did you gain the expertise required for

your current role in diversity management?

Source of expertise Count

Work experience

External training

Diversity networks

In-house training

Formal education

185

145

106

099

091

...................................................................................................

Table 9 ✜Which skills do you need most in your job in

diversity management?

Skills Count

Understanding of law

Understanding of human resource/personnel

management procedures

Understanding of the perspectives of the diverse groups

and individuals

Sense of fairness

Negotiating and influencing skills

Communication and consensus-building skills

Understanding of business environment

Coaching, mentoring and facilitating skills

Networking

Leadership skills

Understanding of inter-group relations

Analytical and critical thinking skills

Chairmanship

225

202

195

192

177

166

154

144

131

118

110

107

030

...................................................................................................

This is corroborated by the lack of evidence of dedicated

financial resources for driving diversity progress. Only 30 per

cent of the participating organisations had a budget dedicated

for diversity management. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue

that, as yet, understanding about the business case benefits for

managing diversity is a long way from being put into practice

and is largely at the discursive and superficial level.

Chap5.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM18

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

DRIVING DIVERSITY PROGRESS – HOW MUCH POWER DO THOSE IN THE DRIVING SEAT HAVE? ❚

Based on the CIPD survey findings it is clear that diversity

progress could be speeded up by :

✜promoting the business case arguments for managing

diversity and the inclusive nature of the business case

✜helping people to contextualise business case arguments

and be confident in doing this

✜addressing ways of helping those given responsibility for

progressing diversity to acquire the knowledge, expertise

and relationship management, negotiating and influencing

skills to do this well, so that progressing diversity becomes

a mainstream business issue and part of everyone’s job

✜positioning the change agents given responsibility for

progressing the diversity agenda at appropriate levels in an

organisation to give them the necessary authority and gravitas

Figure 1 ✜Annual salaries of respondents working in diversity management

✜gaining and communicating senior management support

for diversity progress

✜allocating budgets to help drive change

✜giving those with responsibility for diversity access to

appropriate formal training and skills development

opportunities

✜encouraging participation in facilitated external diversity

networking to keep up to date with good practice in

diversity management and practical learning.

Chap5.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM19

Chap5.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM20

MANAGING DIVERSITY BETTER – MAKING MORE OF WHAT WE KNOW ❚

MANAGING DIVERSITY BETTER –

MAKING MORE OF WHAT WE KNOW

In this chapter we argue that closer academic–practitioner

collaboration could make a significant difference. Based on our

own experiences of running an action research programme on

managing diversity, we explain how this can be done. First we

turn to the literature on academic–practitioner collaboration to

show why we think going down this avenue is enticing.

ACADEMIC–PRACTITIONER

COLLABORATION: THE WAY FORWARD

A schism between academic- versus practitioner-orientated

research is noted by Tranfield and Starkey (1998).

Management researchers promote their own approaches to

knowledge creation and transfer. Some focus on the

development of theoretical knowledge and the identification

of generic principles which can be universally applied

regardless of contextual circumstances (for example, Hitt,

1998). Others focus on identifying applied knowledge and the

adoption of variables that easily relate to organisational goals

(Thomas and Tymon, 1982).

WHAT IS THE RESEARCH/PRACTICE GAP?

The research/practice gap is rooted in the different frames of

reference and basic assumptions academics and practitioners

make about such things as the types of information believed to

constitute valid bases for action, the ways in which information

is analysed and categorised, the past experience used to

evaluate the validity of knowledge claims, and the metaphors

used to symbolically construct the world in meaningful ways.

So we ask, how can we ‘mind the gap’?

The role of learning

Our response is rooted in shared learning. Learning is

conceptualised as a virtuous circle in which new information is

used to challenge existing ideas in order to develop new

perspectives and understanding and better ways of doing things.

What we need to engineer is academic–practitioner dialogue

to speed up the learning that is needed to inform more quickly

the responses we need to make to take advantage of the

opportunities offered by diversity and overcome the negative

consequences of ignoring it. In our view, better collaboration

between academics and practitioners will arm practitioners

with the knowledge they need to address the challenges and

opportunities more effectively and efficiently if the implications

of this knowledge are made explicit in practical terms.

‘…better collaboration between academics and

practitioners will arm practitioners with the

knowledge they need to address the challenges

and opportunities more effectively…’

A VISION FOR THE FUTURE

In our view, working together is an essential way forward to

expedite the evolution of good practice in managing diversity.

For this reason we recommend the way forward is facilitated

networking rooted in solution-focused problem-solving, and

we set out our thoughts and experiences below.

✜Linking theory and practice to make more of what we already know about

managing diversity makes sense. Since the concept evolved in the mid-1990s

much has been learned and observed by practitioners and academics. Yet, so far

we have failed to pool this expertise in a working relationship to deliver

exponential learning and enhanced knowledge which can then be shared with

wider audiences, using a well-designed communication strategy. This is a national-

level challenge for public policy-makers.

Chap6.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM21

MANAGING DIVERSITY BETTER – MAKING MORE OF WHAT WE KNOW

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

Setting the scene for learning

Learning involves the transfer of knowledge among different

communities – mainly through inter-community cooperation

and collaboration – that stimulates the creation of new

knowledge and contributes to the ability of communities to

innovate and change. At the same time, inter-disciplinary

learning needs people with different expertise to be prepared to

challenge the tenets of their own disciplines. Paradoxically, the

very disciplines they are schooled in can be both a barrier to

knowledge transfer and learning as well as a bridge. People who

have different perspectives will seek to defend these in the face

of challenges to preserve the validity of what they know and their

personal comfort with their frames of reference. The process of

letting go and moving on takes convincing evidence and

personal confidence, but these defensive processes are also the

fuel for driving common understanding.

Knowledge transfer and learning takes place best in a shared

context based on cooperation and trust. This helps multi-disciplinary

communities to modify their knowledge and understanding,

gain critical competencies and challenge their collective

definitions of their organisational and professional identities.

So how can a collaborative knowledge-sharing and

learning about managing diversity be fostered? We set out

our ideas below.

Knowledge creation about managing

diversity through collaboration

Diversity practitioners do not exist in isolation. They operate in

macro-structural, meso-organisational and micro-relational

contexts. Their multi-level engagement with different sets of

stakeholders makes it possible for them to benefit from

knowledge creation through collaboration.

Diversity practitioners do not exist in isolation.

They operate in macro-structural, meso-

organisational and micro-relational contexts.

In Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) model and other similar

models (for example, Choo, 1998; Leonard-Barton, 1995), new

knowledge is seen as being created most rapidly when there is

continual conversion from tacit to explicit and from explicit to

tacit knowledge. According to Nonaka and colleagues,

knowledge creation increases through four interactive

methods of knowledge conversion: socialisation (tacit to tacit),

externalisation (tacit to explicit), combination (explicit to

explicit) and internationalisation (explicit to tacit).

Nonaka and Takeuchi suggest that unless successful

socialisation occurs between academics and practitioners –

with each side truly understanding and empathising with each

other – attempts to transfer explicit knowledge across

boundaries are likely to fail. In the absence of effective

intergroup socialisation, the independent social identities of

academics and practitioners are likely to strengthen (Ashforth

and Mael, 1991), with associated increases in in-group and

out-group thinking reducing the motivation for each side to

learn from the other (Weick, 1995). The current situation

regarding diversity–scholar and diversity–practitioner

collaboration mirrors this. Neither turns to the other routinely

or in a structured way, even though there are rare examples of

academic–practitioner partnering generating collaborative

learning about managing diversity.

In socialisation, tacit knowledge is exchanged through joint

activities, such as individuals spending time together or

learning together, in order to produce some form of shared

mental model, frame of reference, or culture that can then

serve as a framework for moving forward. Because

socialisation involves acceptance of the beliefs, feelings and

emotions of others, it is very difficult to achieve without some

form of shared face-to-face experience. In this sense, because

knowledge transfer is fundamentally a social process, the

power of increased interaction between academics and

practitioners for generating new knowledge should not be

underestimated, even when such interactions are not explicitly

research-oriented.

‘…the power of increased interaction between

academics and practitioners for generating new

knowledge should not be underestimated…’

Tacit knowledge is transferred from person to person by being

‘externalised’. For example, ‘know-how’ needs to be made

explicit in ways that make it accessible by someone else, possibly

by being written down, so that it can be absorbed or ‘internalised’.

During the process of internalisation, explicit knowledge is

converted to tacit knowledge through learning by doing.

Action research is a process based on learning by doing which

can be used to help transfer explicit academic and practical

knowledge about managing diversity between academics and

diversity practitioners, and to develop new shared knowledge

which can influence both academic theories and good practice.

‘Most published academic research relating to

managing diversity fails to take account of

practitioner perspectives.’

Most published academic research relating to managing

diversity fails to take account of practitioner perspectives. It

combines explicit knowledge from different academic disciplines

and produces new syntheses about how to do things by

translating academic findings into practitioner language.

Chap6.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM22

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

MANAGING DIVERSITY BETTER – MAKING MORE OF WHAT WE KNOW ❚

Published academic research which fails to take into account

the practical aspects of managing diversity is not likely to

respond to the needs of practitioners. Furthermore, it requires

readers to be sufficiently well-informed to be able to evaluate

the findings rigorously and objectively, the research methods

used to explore the issues identified for investigation and to

judge what practical application they might have.

Additionally, practitioners may find it difficult to face up to

results that expose indications of poor practice. This could

raise concerns about how to implement any desirable change

– especially where a practitioner has little influence or power.

Such de-motivating experiences do not generally serve to

build interest in academic material.

For academic–practitioner collaboration to be successful in

supporting organisational change it is important to take into

account the demoralising effects of ‘fear of failure’.

It is difficult to pre-judge the level of practitioner appetite to

implement research findings. Personal, cultural and

organisational factors will influence this. In any case, the

implementation of evidence-based research findings is

associated with two closely linked problems. The first involves

decisions about the value of the findings and the second is

how to implement them if they are valuable.

Those who publish research seem to take it for granted that

practitioners will fall over themselves to adopt the findings and

act on them. Nothing could be further from the truth and, until

the stakeholder interests of practitioners are taken into account

in the way research is carried out, the efforts made by

academics will remain just that – academic. We need new

ways to enable research to be put into practice so we can

reinforce the worth they have by tracking what difference they

make and sharing this learning. Such an approach will provide

a powerful way of progressing diversity management in ways

that add value for all stakeholders.

Table 10 below shows how the features of professional and

academic knowledge are polarised and contribute to the

challenges for academic–practitioner collaboration on

managing diversity.

It does not make sense to ignore the knowledge gap between

academic research findings related to diversity and the practice

of diversity management. Addressing it could help to create

new knowledge about diversity management much more

quickly and bring benefit to all stakeholders.

In the next chapter we explain how we carried out a diversity

action research programme to bring together the knowledge

of academics and practitioners regarding the business case for

diversity and create new understanding about issues relating

to driving progress.

Table 10 ✜Features of professional and academic knowledge on managing diversity

Features of academic knowledge and practices

Features of professional knowledge and practices

Social

Tacit (based on training and experience)

Situational: ability to understand a specific context

Credibility is judged by good actions, how well you manage people

and produce reports

‘Just-in-time’ practice, expedient decision-making

Ability to make judgements

Local knowledge valued over scholarly and academic knowledge

Concern with relevance

Impersonal

Explicit (systematic/supported)

Universal: ability to look for global characteristics

Credibility is judged by written discourses, research output and

teaching responsibilities

Considered and thoughtful decisions

Ability to discuss and debate ideas

Scholarly and global knowledge valued over local knowledge

Concern with rigour

Source

Intersecting worlds: inherent tensions and new practices in doctoral study.

(Jane Malfroy, 2002). Fourth International Biennial Conference on Professional Doctorates.

Chap6.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM23

Chap6.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM24

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – WHAT ACTION RESEARCH SHOWS US ❚

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY –

WHAT ACTION RESEARCH SHOWS US

As part of the CIPD’s agenda to research the business case for

managing diversity in 2002, Dianah Worman, the CIPD’s

Adviser for diversity commissioned Drs Gary Mulholland and

Mustafa Ozbilgin, academics specialising in business and

marketing and employment relations, to lead a diversity action

research programme to explore why and how organisations

drive the diversity agenda, to support them in doing this and

help them focus on business objectives to add value to

business performance.

The action research is described in detail in two published

CIPD reports. One is in the CIPD change agenda,

Managing

diversity: learning by doing

(2005), and is available free from

www.cipd.co.uk. The other,

Managing diversity: words into

action

(2006), is an executive briefing available from the CIPD

bookstore at www.cipd.co.uk/bookstore.

To run the CIPD diversity action research programme a diverse

team of different specialists was set up. It included diversity

specialists, human resource practitioners, business

management consultants as well as academics with

backgrounds in marketing, employment relations and diversity.

This team worked with people with different levels of

understanding and experience in managing diversity, recruited

from 12 diverse organisations – both large and small – from

the public, private and voluntary sectors of the economy.

The action research programme set out to explore the business

case for diversity in these different organisational contexts and

inform the progress and shape of organisational diversity initiatives.

Targeted organisations were invited to an explanatory event

designed to engage interest and commitment in taking part.

The event put people in the picture about the purpose of the

action research, the benefits of taking part and what they

would be expected to do. To protect sensitivities, encourage

the free exchange of information and sustain engagement with

the action research programme a protocol was agreed by all

those taking part to ensure their full participation and personal

contributions, as the success of the programme depended on

this and people’s personal responsibilities to each other.

An initial briefing session took place to introduce those taking

part to a common set of ideas for diversity research topics and

help them to decide what they could do to have an impact on a

relevant business-related challenge in their own organisations.

This briefing session was designed to be informative about

diversity, explanatory about the research and participative to

trigger group discussion.

It included a summary of the findings of the literature review

about the business case for diversity which the academics had

carried out and the propositions they had put forward in a

working paper which we refer to in more detail below. It also

introduced the basic concepts of action research.

We found that action research, which is defined as:

…a participatory, democratic process concerned with

developing practical knowing in the pursuit of

worthwhile human purposes…’

Reason & Bradbury (2001)

is particularly appropriate for solving the complex issues

surrounding diversity management.

✜How we designed and managed an action learning research programme to explore

the business case for managing diversity and how it can add value to business

performance.

✜The issues that surfaced from this process which face the people responsible for

diversity.

Chap7.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM25

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – WHAT ACTION RESEARCH SHOWS US

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

This complexity runs deep, even to the extent of basic

understanding about what managing diversity is about. At the

beginning of the CIPD action research programme, which

lasted for three years, we found it was necessary to discuss this

in detail with participants so all those taking part had a

common understanding and appreciated the legitimacy of

different levels of sophistication regarding the management of

diversity in different organisational contexts.

A working paper was drawn up by the academic team

members to inform the action research programme and those

taking part in it about managing diversity and the business

case. This was based on the prevailing evidence for the

business case taken from a literature review they carried out.

The working paper, examined eight main propositions taken

from the literature review to show the interplay between

managing diversity and business performance, and put

forward the adoption of the balanced scorecard technique – a

business management tool often used to guide and measure

business objectives – as a mechanism for integrating good

diversity practice into all operational activities.

The working paper was refined throughout the diversity action

research programme, taking into account the field-study work

carried out as part of the action research programme, the

organisations taking part in it and additional anecdotal

evidence drawn from a broader range of case studies.

The final published paper provides interesting insights into

what links diversity with business performance and the

techniques that can be used to integrate and mainstream

diversity into operational activities. It is a CIPD Change

Agenda called

Managing Diversity: linking theory and practice

to business performance

(CIPD 2005) and is available free at

www.cipd.co.uk in the research insight series of reports.

The action research field studies explored different aspects of

the eight propositions developed in the working paper, the

relevance they had to the way the organisations taking part

operated and the diversity challenge they faced. The eight

propositions consisted of:

✜Diversity in employment promotes cost-effective

employment relations

✜Diversity enhances customer relations

✜Diversity enhances creativity, flexibility and innovation in

organisations

✜Diversity promotes sustainable development and business

advantage

✜Diversity diminishes ‘cultural relatedness’

✜Flexibility, which diversity encourages, needs to be

financially supported

✜Diversity may jeopardise workplace harmony

✜Organisational slack and tight fit may conflict.

Each organisation focused on one or more of them in their

individual level research programmes and reflected on their

relevance.

Those taking part in the action research had to take into

account and reflect on academic theory, and draw insights

from their own diversity practices in order to behave as

reflexive practitioners.

Unsurprisingly, we discovered that diversity was a sensitive

issue in most of the organisations taking part in the action

research. Consequently, the individuals we worked with had

to learn how to act as change agents and negotiate how to take

forward what they wanted to do. This underlined the importance

of personal influencing and change management skills.

It also became apparent that people needed to develop their

research skills in order to carry out relevant research in their

own organisations to inform their decisions and actions.

They were given guidance in doing this and a modified action

research model was designed to inform and support the

development of new knowledge and understanding about

managing diversity and the effective exchange of ideas

between both the academics and practitioners taking part (see

Figure 2, opposite).

As well as the individual level guidance and mentoring that took

place as part of the field work, there were regular group meetings.

These helped people to learn from each other by reflecting on

group discussions and what they were doing on a personal level.

In this way, new knowledge and understanding were created for

everyone based on both group and individual learning.

The group meetings helped people to get to know each other.

This encouraged private meetings between group members

who wanted to focus on things of particular concern to them in

more detail. These private meetings in turn helped to inform

both the group learning and individual activities.

The views and observations of fellow group members, the

diversity specialists, academics and business consultants

helped to shape and inform the development of personal-level

research and organisational diversity initiatives, as well as the

overarching research by the academics.

The iterative process that formed the basis of the action

research built new knowledge for everyone taking part,

because learning was shared about experiences, problems and

concerns and achievements. People used the shared learning

to reflect on their personal learning. This influenced what they

did in their own organisations to progress diversity and, when

this information was fed back to the group, it enhanced the

group knowledge and understanding.

Chap7.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM26

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – WHAT ACTION RESEARCH SHOWS US ❚

This action research programme helped the practitioners

involved to revise their personal goals in driving diversity and

to deliver better outcomes. It built levels of personal confidence

and helped the academics to identify relevant material that

might support and inform good diversity practice.

WHAT WE LEARNED ABOUT THE

BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY FROM THE

CIPD ACTION RESEARCH PROGRAMME

The CIPD executive briefing referred to earlier,

Managing

diversity: words into action

(2006), details the initiatives

carried out by those taking part in the action research

programme, how they were carried out and what impact they

had. This report also draws lessons and lists recommendations

from the work we carried out.

In summary, the key findings from action research show that

understanding about managing diversity is very varied and that

there is a need to raise awareness. It is clear, however, that

managing diversity does make business sense even in very

different organisations, and that linking actions to business

challenges and objectives ensures that what is done adds

value to business performance.

The business case can be used in both large and small

organisations and in those with sophisticated and less

sophisticated approaches.

However, from the evidence we gained it is very important to

make a business case for action relevant. This can be done by

taking into account the particular contextual circumstances of

an organisation and showing how proposed actions will deliver

benefits that will add value.

Predetermined performance measures or criteria – whether

these are quantitative or qualitative – should be identified to

show how success will be judged, communicated and

celebrated.

A separate CIPD change agenda produced as part of the

research carried out on the business case for managing

diversity gives information about the importance of

measurement and evaluation and discusses the use of the

balanced scorecard which is often used in business as a

mangement tool.

Managing diversity: measuring success

(2006) is available free at www.cipd.co.uk.

As well as strengthening and informing the business case

arguments for diversity, the action research programme threw

up other learning about the issues faced in driving progress.

We refer to these below. Many add substance to the findings

we mention earlier in Chapter 5.

KEY POINTS LEARNED

Key things we learned about the difficulties of driving diversity

progress from those responsible for it and what they

suggested are that different stakeholders have different fears

and sensitivities and different levels of motivation regarding

diversity issues. One organisation we worked with adopted the

mantra ‘reach out, value people, be courageous’ to help

people to speak out.

Figure 2 ✜Diversity action research model

Chap7.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM27

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – WHAT ACTION RESEARCH SHOWS US

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

The action research highlighted the following as important to

support diversity progress:

Change management skills and processes

✜stakeholder management

✜engagement and managing resistance

✜maintaining momentum

✜understanding cultural impacts.

Tactics

✜helping people to feel involved in the training, rather than

subjected to it

✜engaging more people in diversity initiatives to help

develop understanding

✜involving trade union representatives in training and focus

groups so they are engaged

✜running focus groups to gain opinions and involvement

✜organising fun events such as diversity competitions to

encourage participation in order to increase knowledge

and understanding

✜using mixed focus groups to show how relevant diversity

is; for example, including people from the human

resource function in customer focus initiatives

✜piggybacking on any other relevant initiatives

✜recognising that line management motivation is key

✜using ‘quick wins’ to help get buy-in

Getting top management on board

✜senior management needs to be actively involved in

initiatives to get more buy-in from everyone else – aim

high and don’t be satisfied with lip service

✜check senior management is not just ‘caught up’ but

‘signed up’ and that they don’t just find it easier to seek

forgiveness than give support

✜encourage senior managers to take a lead in not tolerating

unacceptable behaviours such as bullying

✜encourage top management to get tough with those

lagging behind agreed actions to progress diversity

✜get top management to understand that key individuals

driving diversity need back-up support from senior

colleagues

✜be wary of hindsight in senior managers when faced with

success or questions like ‘Why weren’t we doing this

already?’

✜don’t be fooled by their acceptance of diversity as a

principle – the going gets tougher when action is required

✜make leaders aware of how important they are in

personally supporting diversity openly and in being well

informed

✜help them to see that good leadership is needed to build

the courage in others to deal with unacceptable

behaviours

✜top executives need to know they are key populations as

change agents

✜leaders should know they need to align customer and

internal behaviours

✜it requires imagination, even sneakiness, to get senior

management on board.

Things go better in progressing diversity when

people lead change

✜balance emotional and business factors

✜learn to manage individuals as well as groups

✜act with patience – hand-holding and teaching where

necessary

✜try to correct ignorance and misunderstanding rather than

being critical

✜acknowledge how scary dealing with diversity is for many

people

✜explore individual views and change approaches

accordingly

✜share their knowledge

Good diversity communications are vital. To get

messages across successfully:

✜take into account workplace cultures

✜it is more successful to use positive language and focus on

diversity opportunities

Chap7.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM28

MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY – WHAT ACTION RESEARCH SHOWS US ❚

✜involving outsiders helps to spot meaningless

organisational jargon

✜note that impersonal communications don’t engage

people

✜using interactive communication is more successful,

especially for dealing with sensitive issues.

Measurement and evaluation observations

✜view progress as distance covered – from the starting

point to the goal rather than the goals achieved – this

recognises effort, time and success

✜increase the number of measures you use and don’t rely

on one set of criteria

✜use the eyes and ears of those involved in diversity

training or other initiatives to assess how the messages are

transforming into new behaviours

✜adopt hard measures to support the business case for

diversity, such as the cost of harassment, employee

retention rates, numbers of complaints, grievances and

court cases

✜carry out well-designed, properly targeted attitude

surveys

✜don’t depend on out-of-date and inappropriate HR

systems

✜use indicators that are specific to an initiative.

Keep going and learn to cope with frustration

caused by:

✜perceptions of slow progress

✜constantly reminding people of why managing diversity is

important

✜the time it takes for the business case to sink in

✜the level of resistance encountered

✜people who profess to have passion but don’t take action.

Take heart from the satisfaction you can get from

success

✜‘I felt rewarded by the success of the diversity initiative

and making a difference.’

✜‘It is wonderful to see the results of my work.’

✜‘It feels great to make a difference – however small.’

✜‘It’s empowering to feel you can make a difference.’

✜‘It’s a real privilege to see change happen, have a direct

impact on others and be adding value to the bottom line

of the organisation you work for.’

Chap7.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM29

Chap7.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM30

PEPPING UP THE PACE OF PROGRESS – SOME IDEAS ❚

PEPPING UP THE PACE OF PROGRESS –

SOME IDEAS

As we show in this report an inspection of the evidence using a

variety of research methods points in the same direction –

there

a business case but it is much broader in nature than it

is often perceived to be. As we argue, the generic business

case includes compliance with legal obligations, moral and

social reasons, because all of these impact on the way

organisations are run. It is, therefore, misleading and

disingenuous to separate them because this becomes a

distraction that gets in the way of diversity progress.

The evidence shows that organisations clearly need to

understand better the inclusive nature of the generic business

case. They also need to know how to contextualise this to

trigger systemic change by taking into account specific

organisational issues and circumstances to design diversity

initiatives that can support business goals and add value.

The CIPD has published and promotes a range of information

about managing diversity and the business case, much of

which we have referred to and list in the References. In the

main, this information is available free on the CIPD’s website

and an interactive business tool entitled

How to build your

own business case for diversity and inclusion

has been

developed to help CIPD members in formulating a customised

business case [www.cipd.co.uk/subjects].

We have already pointed to the importance of raising

awareness about the business case and we recommend that

this should be a key objective for the new Equality and Human

Rights Commission and a cornerstone of Government public

policy interventions related to diversity progress.

We feel a national-level communication strategy would help to

get organisations on board and, drawing on our experience of

facilitated networking which was the basis of the CIPD

diversity action research programme, we recommend that

ideally this should be accompanied by a facilitated networking

opportunity accessible to those charged with driving this

agenda in organisations. This facilitated networking in driving

diversity progress should supplement, not replace, the

activities of the many existing issue-specific diversity networks

that focus on information sharing and benchmarking.

Drawing on the CIPD unique state-of-the-nation survey on

diversity, it is clear that it is the business case that differentiates

the leaders from the followers in diversity management, but

that the comprehensive nature of the business case is not yet

having the potential impact it could. This is why we feel a

national-level awareness campaign could help to make a

difference in closing the gap between the theory and scientific

evidence related to the business benefits of diversity, which

we identified from our review of the academic literature on the

causal link between diversity management and performance

improvements, and the practice of diversity management.

This gap fuels the difference between rhetoric and reality and

could be reduced through academic–practitioner collaboration

using the action research model we adopted for the CIPD

diversity action research. The new knowledge gained from this

collaboration could then be shared with all stakeholders

interested in diversity progress as part of the national

communication strategy we call for.

Because universities are required to contribute to their running

costs in connection with the role they have to generate

knowledge and develop skills, over the last three decades

many have started to work closely with employers on a wide

range of social topics including diversity management. But

✜The evidence that diversity management contributes to business performance

continues to grow. However, this message needs to be communicated better to

raise the level of awareness and gain employer engagement.

Chap8.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM31

PEPPING UP THE PACE OF PROGRESS – SOME IDEAS

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

there is still huge potential for the nature of this collaboration

to increase. For example, in connection with diversity

management, much more use could be made of joint

conferences, meetings and collaborative projects to share

knowledge and develop mutual understanding. And, based on

our experience, there is no doubt that action research has the

potential to make a significant contribution to the growth of

the knowledge we need to support the progress of managing

diversity in practice.

Chap8.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM32

REFERENCES ❚

REFERENCES

CIPD-PUBLISHED RESEARCH ON

DIVERSITY

CIPD (2003)

Diversity: stacking up the evidence: a review of knowledge.

Executive

briefing. London: CIPD.

CIPD (2006)

Diversity in business: how much progress have employers made? First

findings.

Survey report. London: CIPD.

CIPD (2007)

Diversity in business: a focus for progress.

Survey report. London: CIPD.

MULHOLLAND, G., OZBILGIN, M.F. and WORMAN, D. (2005)

Managing diversity: linking theory and practice to business performance

Change agenda. London: CIPD.

MULHOLLAND, G., OZBILGIN, M.F. and WORMAN, D. (2006)

Managing diversity: words into actions.

Executive briefing. London: CIPD.

OZBILGIN, M.F. TATLI, A. and WORMAN, D. (2007)

Managing diversity in practice: supporting business goals.

Research into

practice report. London: CIPD.

TATLI, A., OZBILGIN, M.F. and WORMAN, D. (2006)

Managing diversity: measuring success.

Change agenda. London: CIPD.

THOMAS TAYLOR, W., PIASECKA, A. and WORMAN, D. (2005)

Managing diversity: learning by doing.

Change agenda. London: CIPD.

WORMAN, D., BLAND, A. and CHASE, P. (2005)

Managing diversity: people make the difference at work – but everyone is

different.

Guide. London: CIPD.

OTHER REFERENCES

ASHFORTH, B.E. and MAEL, F. (1989)

Social identity theory and the organization.

Academy of Management

Review.

Vol 14, No 1. January. pp20–39.

BARKEMA, H.G., BAUM, J. and MANNIX, E. (2002)

Management challenges in a new time.

Academy of Management Journal.

Vol 45, No 5, October. pp916–930.

CASSELL, C. and BISWAS, R. (2000)

Managing diversity in the new millennium

Personnel

Review

. Vol 29, No

3, pp.268–273.

CHOO, C.W. (1998)

The knowing organization: how organizations use information to

construct

meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions

. New York: Oxford

University Press.

COCKBURN, C. (1991)

In the way of women: men’s resistance to sex equality in

organizations

Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

COX, T.H. (1993)

Cultural diversity in organizations: theory, research and practice

. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

COX, T.H. and BLAKE, S. (1991)

Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational

competitiveness.

Academy of Management Executive.

Vol 5, No 3,

August. pp45–56.

CUMMINGS, J.N. (2004)

Work groups, structural diversity and knowledge sharing in a global

organization.

Management Science.

Vol 50, No 3, March. pp352–364.

References.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM33

REFERENCES

❚MANAGING DIVERSITY AND THE BUSINESS CASE

DADFAR, H. and GUSTAVSSON, P. (1992)

Competition by effective management of cultural diversity.

International

Studies of Management and Organization

. Vol 22, No 4, Winter. pp81–92.

FERNANDEZ, J.P. (1991)

Managing a diverse work force: regaining the competitive edge.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

GOVINDARAJAN, V. and GUPTA, A.K. (2001)

Building an effective global business team.

MIT Sloan Management

Review

. Vol 42, No 4, Summer. pp 63–71.

HITT, F. (1998)

Difficulties in the articulation of different representations linked to the

concept of function.

Journal of Mathematical Behavior.

Vol 17, No 1.

pp123–134.

HOPKINS, W.E. and HOPKINS, S.A. (2002)

Effects of cultural recomposition on group interaction processes.

Academy

of Management Review

. Vol 27, No 4, October. pp541–553.

JONES, R.T., JERICH, B., COPELAND, L. AND BOYLE, M. (1989)

Four by Four: how do you manage a diverse workforce.

Training and

Development Journal

. Vol 43. No 2, pp 13–21.

KIDDER, D.L., LANKAU, M.J. and CHROBOT-MASON, D. (2004)

Backlash towards diversity initiatives: examining the impact of diversity

program justification, personal and group outcomes.

International Journal

of Conflict Management

. Vol 15, No 1. pp77–102.

LARKEY, L.K. (1996)

Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse

workgroups.

Academy of Management Review.

Vol 21, No 2,April.

pp463–491.

LAWRENCE, E. (2000)

Equal opportunities officers and managing equality changes,

Personnel

Review.

Vol 29. No 3, pp 381–401.

LEONARD-BARTON, D. (1995)

Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the

sources of

innovation

., Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

MCDOUGALL, M. (1996)

Equal opportunities versus managing diversity: another challenge for

public sector management?

International Journal of Public Sector

Management.

Vol. 9, No 5/6, pp 62–72.

MALFROY, J. (2002)

Intersecting worlds: inherent tensions and new practices in doctoral study.

Proceedings of the Fourth International Biennial Conference on

Professional

Doctorates

. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Paper submitted 29 September 2002 (unpublished).

MANNIX, E. (2003)

Editor’s comments: conflict and conflict resolution – a return to theorizing.

Academy of Management Review

. Vol 28, No 4, October. pp543–546.

MEYERSON, D.E. (2001)

Tempered radicals: how people use difference to inspire change at work.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

NONAKA, I. and TAKEUCHI, H. (1995)

The knowledge-creating company: how

Japanese companies create the

dynamics of innovation

. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OZBILGIN, M.F. and TATLI, A. (2008)

Global diversity management: an evidence based approach.

London and

New York: Palgrave.

PARKER, C. (1999)

How to win hearts and minds: corporate compliance policies for sexual

harassment. .

. .

Law and Policy.

Vol 21,No 1, pp 21–48.

RAATIKAINEN, P. (2002)

Contributions of multiculturalism to the competitive advantage of an

organization.

Singapore Management Review.

Vol 24, No 1. pp81–88.

REASON, P. and BRADBURY, H. (2001)

Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. London:

Sage.

SVYANTEK, D.J., MAHONEY, K.T. and BROWN, L.L. (2002)

Diversity and effectiveness in the Roman and Persian empires.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis.

Vol 10, No 3. pp260–283.

THOMAS, K.W. and TYMON, W.G. (1982)

Necessary properties of relevant research: lessons from recent criticisms

of the organizational sciences.

Academy of Management Review.

Vol 7,

No 3, July. pp345–352.

THOMAS, R.R. (1990)

From affirmative action to affirming diversity,

Harvard BusinessReview.

Vol. 68, no 2. pp 107–17.

TRANFIELD, D. and STARKEY, K. (1998)

The nature, social organization and promotion of management research:

towards policy.

British Journal of Management.

Vol 9, No 4, December.

pp341–353.

WATSON, W. E., KUMAR, K. and MICHAELSEN, L. K. (1993).

Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance:

comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.

Academy of

Management Journal.

Vol 36, No 3, June. pp590–602.

WEICK, K.E. (1995)

Sensemaking in organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

References.p65 9/2/2008, 8:35 AM34

Repositioning Organisational Change: From Agency theorisation towards Social Resilience

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022

John Mendy

Despite the plethora of Organisational Change research focusing on agency, there has been no study to date which has developed a framework called 'Social Resilience' to fill the gap between the espoused role of change agents and how their experiences could be channelled for societal and organisational benefit. By using a combination of qualitative case study materials from autistic employees, Change Agency and Positioning Theories and a participatory design methodological approach involving 24 autistic jobseekers, this research found that 1) 'employment brick-walls', 2) 'marginalisation' and 3) 'discrimination' were key thematic experiences that challenged the agency role of autistic employees and jobseekers as they transition into or retain work. Their abilities to be resilient against the odds led to the development of the study's key contribution, namely a 'Social Resilience' framework. By developing this novel framework, I contribute theoretically to the repositioning Organisational Change agency theorisation by introducing the practical relevance of social resilience to address employees' potential loss of agency. The value of Social Resilience, the implications and limitations of the study's findings and an agenda for future research are considered.

Impact of Workplace Diversity on Employee Performance: A Case of Some Selected Private Universities in Ghana

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2022

The authors explore how the milieu of workplace diversity affects the relationship between employee and performance. In particular, we theorize and empirically examine the moderating effects of four (4) categories of diversity context variables: age, gender, ethnicity, and educational background. The authors perform analyses on 175 out of 320 respondents consisting of academic and administrative staff of four selected private universities in Ghana. The results showed, for example, that workplace diversity has an overall influence on employee performance, however, educational diversity has more effect on employee performance in the universities compared to the other competing variables used in this study. Age and educational diversity had a significant impact on employee performance in the universities whilst gender and ethnicity diversity had no influence on their performance. We discuss future research directions regarding diversity, workgroup context, and performance outcomes and outline some recommendations for administrators and university leaders.

The ambivalence of Diversity Management local reinterpretations in the Polish subsidiaries of four international companies: a multi-case study approach Aneta Orlinska, Doctoral thesis

Thesis

Full-text available

Dec 2019

Aneta Hamza-Orlinska

Drawing on diversity management studies from national perspectives (Brabet et al. 2019; Chanlat & Özbilgin, 2017), this thesis aims to examine the cultural and organizational issues that influence the international transfer of Diversity Management (DM), as a polysemic and historically constructed concept. The study contributes to the understanding of the relatively unexplored phenomenon in Eastern European countries by analyzing the rejection and local resistance to classic (i.e. AngloSaxon) forms of DM, traditionally focused on non-discrimination, organizational recruitment and international talent attraction. The results are drawn from qualitative methodology in the four case studies, which are based in the following sectors: pharmaceutical innovation, life quality services, insurance services and energy production. The thesis employs multiple data sources: documentary data, visual data and semi-structured interviews.

Managing diversity, measuring success

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2006

Global Diversity Management: An Evidence-Based Approach

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2008

How do you manage a diverse workforce?

Article

Jan 1989
Train Dev J

Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness

Article

Aug 1991

The recent business trends of globalization and increasing ethnic and gender diversity are turning managers' attention to the management of cultural differences. The management literature has suggested that organizations should value diversity to enhance organizational effectiveness. However, the specific link between managing diversity and organizational competitiveness is rarely made explicit and no article has reviewed actual research data supporting such a link. This article reviews arguments and research data on how managing diversity can create a competitive advantage. We address cost, attraction of human resources, marketing success, creativity and innovation, problem-solving quality, and organizational flexibility as six dimensions of business performance directly impacted by the management of cultural diversity. We then offer suggestions for improving organizational capability to manage this diversity.

Backlash Toward Diversity Initiatives: Examining the Impact of Diversity Program Justicfication, Personal, and Group Outcomes

Article

Dec 2004
INT J CONFL MANAGE

This study used a scenario design to examine whether there are different reactions among whites based on how a diversity program is justified by an organization. A reactive justification (affirmative action) was proposed to result in greater backlash than a competitive advantage justification (diversity management). In addition, this study examined the effects of personal and group outcomes on backlash and explored two individual difference variables, gender and orientation toward other ethnic groups, as potential moderators of the proposed relationships. Backlash was operationalized in four ways: an affect-based measure (negative emotions), two cognitive-based measures (attitude toward the diversity program, perceptions of unfairness of promotion procedures), and a behavioral-intentions-based measure (organizational commitment). Results indicated that the diversity management justification was associated with more favorable support of the diversity initiative, and that unfavorable personal and group outcomes adversely affected backlash reactions. There was no empirical support for the influence of the moderator variables on the proposed relationships, however, a main effect for gender was found. Implications of the study's findings and future research directions are discussed.

The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics Of Innovation

Book

Jan 1995
LONG RANGE PLANN

Japanese companies have become successful because of their skill and expertise at creating organizational knowledge. Organizational knowledge is not only the creation of new knowledge, but also disseminating it throughout the organization, and embodying it in products, services, and systems. Knowledge is the new competitive resource, and its creation and utilization is a dynamic, interactive process. Knowledge is used as the basic unit of analysis to explain firm behavior; a business creates and processes knowledge. Knowledge may be explicit or tacit; this study treats them as complements that form a dynamic relationship. The individual interacts with the organization through knowledge; knowledge creation occurs at the individual, group, and organizational levels. The forms of knowledge interaction (between tacit and explicit, and between individual and firm) produce four major processes of knowledge conversion: from tacit to explicit, explicit to explicit, explicit to tacit, and tacit to tacit. Japanese companies create new knowledge by converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. The book has three goals: to formalize a generic model of organizational knowledge creation, explain why certain Japanese companies have been continuously successful in innovation, and develop a universal model of company management based on convergence of knowledge practices in Japan and the world. First presents a philosophical exposition of knowledge and its application to managemen, then the core concepts of knowledge creation, with four modes of knowledge conversion. The Matsushita company is used to illustrate the process model of organization knowledge creation. The two traditional styles of management (top-down and bottom-up) are shown not to be effective in fostering the dynamic necessary to create organizational knowledge, and a new organization structure considered most conducive to knowledge creation is proposed. (TNM)

Managing diversity: learning by doing

Jan 2005

W Thomas Taylor
A Piasecka
D Worman

THOMAS TAYLOR, W., PIASECKA, A. and WORMAN, D. (2005) Managing diversity: learning by doing. Change agenda. London: CIPD.

Intersecting worlds: inherent tensions and new practices in doctoral study

Sep 2002

J Malfroy

MALFROY, J. (2002) Intersecting worlds: inherent tensions and new practices in doctoral study. Proceedings of the Fourth International Biennial Conference on Professional Doctorates. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Paper submitted 29 September 2002 (unpublished).

Managing Diversity and the Business Case

Figures

Recommended publications

Le sociologue, la raison et l’histoire

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF SMALL BUSINESS LOANS: INDIRECT EVIDENCE

Brand Management Strategies: Luxury and Mass Markets

Entreprise, protection et violence en Russie à la fin des années 1990