Summary The dynamics of
managing diversity. A critical
approach
Chapter 1 – what is diversity?
There are 6 dimensions of diversity = gender, race/ethnicity, age, disability, sexual
orientation, religion.
Class mediates these six dimensions
Gender and race are the primary identities
Diversity is used in 3 different ways:
1. Diversity as descriptor of the workforce
As a descriptor of the workforce, diversity can refer to a huge array of differences, from
those that are social group-based and therefore collective – gender, race/ethnicity, age,
religion, disability, sexual orientation – to individual characteristics, including qualifications,
lifestyle, personality, personal interests, talents and competences, values and beliefs, and
many others. Some authors refer to visible differences, to describe what some perceive as
the main social group-based differences – i.e. gender, race/ethnicity – and invisible
differences, to describe individual and personal variation. Others refer to surface-level
diversity, to describe demographic differences such as gender and race/ethnicity, and deep-
level diversity, to describe personal differences.
The list of possible individual characteristics that differentiate people could obviously be
infinite. For the purposes of studying diversity, for managing people at the workplace or for
equality and diversity policy making, it would be necessary, but difficult, to identify salient
individual characteristics that require attention or action.
2. Diversity as a policy approach to managing the workforce
This relates to the term; managing diversity. Traditionally, equal opportunities policies
reflected a need for legal compliance, but also a deeper moral concern for social justice
which acknowledged the existence of social-group-based discrimination and disadvantage.
Therefore policies were designed to protect the right of individuals not to be discriminated
against, and sought to implement measures to eliminate or at least reduce disadvantage.
However, one of the main criticisms of the early 1980s-style equal opportunities policies was
that they were viewed by many employers and other critics as negative.
The cornerstone of diversity management is the belief that it will deliver benefits to the
organization, in other words that there is a business case for workforce diversity. It is argued
that organizations can gain in a number of different ways from workforce diversity, and
diversity policy is charged with developing initiatives to leverage the benefits. Diversity
management emphasizes individual difference over social group-based difference and
downplays discrimination and disadvantage, while being upbeat about the positive value of
group-based difference.
3. Diversity as a theoretical paradigm highlighting the significance of socio-
bio-demographic differences
As a theoretical paradigm, diversity shifts towards ideas of human difference and away from
the more familiar and conventional ideas of human sameness reflected in the traditional
equality paradigm. To achieve equality for all it is important to acknowledge and value group
difference; to see the expression of difference as carrying emancipatory possibilities through
the confronting and challenging of social asymmetries of power, of group domination and
oppression.
,The social construction of identity
The world as constructed and experienced by humans can be best understood as three
distinct orders (Richard Jenkins):
1. Individual order: human world as made up of embodies individuals, and what-
goes-on-in-their-heads (why people make certain career choices)
2. Interactive order: human world as constituted in relationships between individuals,
in what-goes-on-between-people (relational, interactive aspects of working life)
3. Institutional order (context): the human world of pattern and organization, of
established-ways-of-doing-things (wider context in which individuals operate)
Social group membership (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) influences both how individuals
perceive themselves and how others perceive them. This means that identity can be
imposed (ascribed by others) and consciously assumed (achieved by self-identification)
Social identity theory: individuals are attracted to groups that enhance their self-esteem and
less attracted to groups they perceive as potentially esteem damaging. Once an individual
has achieved group membership, there is a tendency to perceive groups that are different
negatively and as sharing undesirable characteristics. These processes are at the root of the
construction of negative stereotypes held by dominant groups of minority groups.
Gender and race are especially salient in the construction of identity, because they fix people
in an immutable and (usually) visible category. Other sources of identity are more fluid and
often less visible, but not necessarily less salient, particularly for subjective employment
experiences. For example, disability takes many different forms: it can be temporary or
permanent; it can occur to anyone at any stage in the life course; it is infinitely graduated.
Similarly, sexual orientation is not necessarily fixed, and age discrimination affects people to
different extents and in different ways over the life course. It can be argued that these other
sources of identity and the experiences arising from them are mediated by gender and race.
Social construction of inequalities
Diversity and identity are both consequential for the labour market outcomes and
employment experiences of individuals. Gender and race can be regarded as the major
organizing principles of the labour market, with disability, age, religion and sexual orientation
all being factors which also influence employment patterns and outcomes. Therefore, we can
still say that these six dimensions of diversity are main sources of employment discrimination
and disadvantage.
Neo-classical economics: employment outcomes simply reflect a combination of individual
merit, preferences and choices (men who wants to work as a nurse).
The concern from an equality and diversity perspective is that people are not always able to
exercise free choice. For example, throughout the developed world society does expect
women to take primary responsibility for the family and this gendered ideology influences the
behaviour of institutions, organizations and individual women and men. Further, winners and
losers in the labour market competition are not randomly distributed throughout the working-
age population; rather, they are concentrated in certain segments of the population. The six
groups we identify – women, black and minority-ethnic people, certain religious minorities,
disabled people, older people, and lesbians and gay men – are often the ‘losers’ in the
competitive market and an ideal of social justice would demand that we are concerned about
this. An alternative, sociological explanation is that employment discrimination and patterns
of inequality do not simply happen; they occur because of the actions of organizations and
individuals and therefore are not inevitable or insurmountable. From this point of view, policy
making can make a difference. The question for policy makers Is how organizations can
change to become more inclusive of diverse groups.
,There are salient differences in the political, social, economic, legal and historical contexts of
countries and these differences shape employment policy and practice at macro labour
market and organizational levels, as well as impacting on the employment patterns and
experiences of diverse social groups. Consequently, we argue that the study of workforce
diversity must be spatially contextualized if the patterns and experiences uncovered are to be
understood correctly. We have chosen to situate our discussion of equality and diversity
largely within the UK and European contexts. The meaning of diversity depends on the
context it takes place.
We cannot escape the fact that many organizations can meet their objectives either without
workforce diversity or without actually valuing diversity. Therefore, we and other critics of
diversity believe that it is necessary to continue to recognize inequalities and to develop
policies to redress discrimination and disadvantage. Thus, it remains important for diversity
policies to grow from and onto existing equality policies, rather than replace them.
Part One: Context and Concepts
Chapter 2 – diversity in the labour market
Gender and the labor market
Employment rates of women and men
In the post-Second World War period, it is widely acknowledged that one of the major social
and economic changes in many countries within and beyond Europe has been the increase
in women’s employment, especially that of married women and mothers.
The reasons behind these enormous gendered social changes are complex and they vary
across countries. There are both demand- (including employer strategies and needs) and
supply-side (including employee preferences and choices) dimensions which contribute to
the contemporary patterns. It is striking that women’s increased employment participation
has not necessarily led to increased equality for women within the labour market. Women
across the EU tend to be found in the lowest-paid, lowest-status and most vulnerable jobs.
The higher numbers of women in part-time work in some member states is an important
policy issue because part-time jobs are typically lower level and lower paid and have
implications for women’s lifetime earnings, pensions, future prospects, etc.
Gender segregation
Occupational sex segregation or gender segregation (occupational/sex segregation) = terms
used to describe the tendency for men and women to be employed in different occupations
and sectors of the economy. Broadly speaking women’s jobs involve caring, nurturing and
service activities, while men monopolize management and manual and technical jobs.
- Horizontal gender segregation = different occupations or services (women and men
doing different types of work)
- Vertical gender segregation = difference in level (glass ceiling) (men continue to be
over-represented in the higher levels of organizational and occupational hierarchies)
It is worth noting that women are more likely to be found in professional than in managerial
occupations. This is partly because a greater number and a wider range of professional than
managerial jobs are available on a part-time basis or offer flexible working arrangements.
The general pattern is that women have increased their share of professional and managerial
occupations, albeit at the lower levels, at the same time as increasing their share of low-paid,
low-skill jobs. The consequence is that women as a group have become more polarized, with
some highly educated/skilled women gaining access to higher-status, higher-paid
occupations, while the vast majority remain concentrated among the lower-status, lower-paid
The gender pay gap
, Gender segregation is an important policy issue as it has more negative consequences for
women, restricting their access to career opportunities and to higher-paying jobs. The gender
pay gap = difference between men’s hourly earnings and women’s hourly earnings as a
percentage of men’s hourly earnings. This is a global phenomenon.
Explaining women’s labour market positions
- Social changes (changing gender roles and expectations)
- Structural factors (such as the availability of jobs)
- Institutional factors (such as access to education and childcare)
- Perspectives of employers and choices of women themselves
All the evidence shows that gendered family roles still exist: women continue to take the
main responsibility for running the home and caring for the family, whether they work full- or
part-time and whether or not they have children. Therefore, even in the contemporary period,
domestic work can still constrain women’s availability for paid work outside the home.
Structural changes such as the shift across Europe from a manufacturing to a service
economy shape the labour market participation patterns of both men and women. Overall,
these structural changes have meant that men’s participation in full-time employment has
declined, although they are presently employed in greater numbers than women.
Accompanying these structural changes were labour shortages in some
industries/occupations, compelling employers to adopt new strategies to recruit and retain
previously under-utilized labour sources, especially women. In many European countries, the
increased demand was largely for part-time workers to fill low-skill, low-paid jobs.
In the longer term, the employment rates of men and women are expected to move even
closer together as men’s rate stabilizes and women’s rate increases further, as a
consequence of further economic growth in the service sector. However, what this means for
social and economic change (e.g. the economic empowerment of women; women’s equality)
must be interpreted cautiously, because the overall employment rate is measured by a
simple headcount and does not distinguish between full- and part-time status. We can see
from the evidence that part-time work does not offer the same (hourly) pay or prospects for
future advancement and therefore it can rarely offer women economic independence and
security.
Because most women still juggle paid work with family responsibilities, the employment
‘choices’ open to them are in many countries limited by the high cost of childcare and they
often work part-time by necessity. Therefore, when we talk about women who ‘choose’ to
work part-time because of family responsibilities, we need to consider whether part-time
working might actually be involuntary. Without doubt some women prefer to stay at home to
look after their dependent children, but for others the lack of affordable childcare and lack of
access to flexible working arrangements are also likely to be barriers in many countries.
Whilst flexible work is often assumed to have increased, it is mostly part-time work that is
available (usually in low-paying, low-level jobs) rather than more creative forms of flexible
work (flexitime, job sharing, term-time working, etc.) in higher-level jobs that might encourage
and enable more women to continue working full time through the childrearing years.
Changes in the structure of households also play a role in shaping women’s employment
patterns. Family size is important; for example, the general trend across Europe towards
smaller families means that women spend a smaller proportion of their lives caring for
dependent children than did previous generations. Also, marriage rates have fallen and
divorce rates have risen, with the consequence of an increase in lone-parent families, the
majority of which are headed by women. While we might infer that being a lone parent might
push women into employment out of financial need, until fairly recently the rise in women’s
paid employment has actually been concentrated within households in which there is a
couple living in partnership. Even though there may be a stronger financial need for paid
work among lone mothers, their lower level of labour market participation is related to the
