Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris, Nottingham Business School, Notdngham Trent University Human Resource Management Joumal, Vol 15, no 3,2005, pages 4-17

This article examines how operational managers are interpreting the management of diversity in practice. It is explicitly concerned with the way in which managing diversity was understood and applied in one large, long-established British retailing company. The findings suggest that while the business benefits attributed to diversity management are appealing to employers, it is a concept that lacks clarity for line managers both in terms cf what it is and how it should be implemented within the anti-discrimination legal framework. Line managers, familiar with the value of demonstrating a common approach in their decision-making as the key means of defence against claims of discriminatory treatment, regarded a diversity management agenda concerned with recognising and responding to individual differences as more likely to lead to feelings of unfairness and claims of unequal treatment. It will be argued that, in the implementation of organisational diversity initiatives, employers need to take greater account of the tensions facing line managers, their interpretation of diversity management and perceptions of fair treatment as well as the operational context.

Contact: Carley Foster, Nottingham Trent University Business School, Burton Street, Nottingham NGl 4BU. Email: carley.foster ntu.ac.uk

hanges in the composidon of the UK's working populadon and employment patterns have resulted in considerably greater diversity in the economicaUy acdve workforce compared with only 20 years ago (Mavin and GirUng, 2000). Jamieson and O'Mara (1991) observe that these changes, combined with labour shortages and the increasing purchasing power of 'minority' consumer markets, have led to the emergence of a business case argument for greater workforce diversity. Its essendal radonale is that recognising people's differences in organisadonal pracdces can bring HR and marketingrelated business benefits through maximising available talent, creating business opportunides by drawing on vwder perspecdves and having the capabUity to thrive in different cultures (Robinson and Dechant, 1997). The suggesdon is that employers that promote an image of the organisadon as an 'indusive' place to work by encouraging applicadons from 'diverse' individuals posidon themselves to become 'employers of choice'. This enhances their abUity to recruit the most talented/skUled appUcants (Cox and Blake, 1991). A weU-pubUdsed example of such an approach is the DIYretaUerB&Q, which attributes part of its business success to a poUcy of employing older frontline workers who are more Ukely to be skiUed in offering DIY advice to customers than younger staff (B&Q, 2004). In prindple, diversity management encourages the development of more innovadve HR poUdes and pracdces which offer greater redprodty in the employment reladonship by addressing individual needs. As lies et al (1998) argue, it is an HR approach that appears more relevant to the flexible behaviour required of employees in the less
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

predictable workrolesthat are a feature of contemporary working Ufe. PotendaUy, it offers tangible beneflts to employers: for example, if costs associated with staff turnover and absenteeism reduce as a result of increased employee commitment. Notwithstanding these identified advantages, a more diverse workforce presents fresh challenges to govemment, employers, employees and trade unions (Taylor, 2002). This is pardcularly evident at organisadonal level among HR spedaUsts and Une managers responsible for the implementadon of poUdes aimed at addressing issues of fair treatment at work. Yet, the diversity management literature concentrates on the potendal business beneflts and sodetal ar-guments for employing a diverse workforce but pays less attendon to issues of the appUcadon of diversity management in pracdce. How managers combine approaches to equaUty that promote sameness of treatment as a means of addressing disadvantage with the growing requirement to address the needs and rights of speddc groups in the workplace remains under-explored and is the focus of the research reported in this ardde. WhUe the absence of one universaUy accepted definidon of diversity management may have an attraction to employers in that it can be moulded to suit the prevailing organisadonal priorides, a lack of darity about what 'managing diversity' means can lead to inconsistencies and the dominance of expediency among those required to put the concept into pracdce. Acknowledging its definidonal limitadons, for the purposes of this ardde diversity management wiU be interpreted as an approach to fair treatment that encourages employers to harness and value a wide range of visible differences in their employees. These may indude age, gender and race as weU as non-visible characterisdcs such as sexual orientadon, work experience and some aspects of disabUity (Kersten, 2000). The growth of and-discriminadon legisladon on gender and race in both the US and the UK shifted attendon away from distribudve jusdce in the workplace to a concentradon on procedural jusdce as the essendal means of employers proving demonstrably fair processes in their decision-making (Thibaut and Walker, 1975: 78). The result has been to estabUsh an approach to equaUty of opportunity in the UK based on the consistent application of employment procedures designed to provide sameness of treatment, described by Jewson and Mason (1986: 312) as the 'liberal perspective'. A growing recognidon that the workforce consists of diverse social groups with different but stUl valuable contribudons to make to organisadonal performance has led to a change in emphasis in HR debates. The emphasis has moved from providing equality of opportunides in order to address sodal injusdces to encouraging and managing diversity in order to gain wider business and sodetal beneflts. As a concept. Noon and Ogbonna (2001: 1) observe that managing diversity 'in both theory and pracdce offers a new challenge to conceptualising and tackUng the issues of equaUty, discriminadon and injusdce in employment'. Managing diversity theoredcaUy addresses an enduring cridcism of 'tradidonal' equal opportunides poUdes (EOPs), that these canreinforcea negadve view of difference because they are based on the promodon of sameness of treatment to reduce inequaUdes (Ehnud, 1993; Iiff, 1997). In contrast, a central principle in managing diversity is that individual differences should be both recognised and valued as a source of compedtive advantage. It is this fundamental difference that leads Gagnon and ComeUus (2000) to observe that diversity management stems essendaUy from organisadonal irudadves based on a business case radonale rather than on a radonale driven by legal compUance. One perspecdve is that the concept of diversity management introduced a signidcantly different approach to equality which could even be viewed as being in opposidon to the estabUshed 'rights-based' equal opportunides approach (Webb, 1997). Another is to view diversity management rather as a progression and broadening of earUer equaUty concepts,
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005 5

Easy to say. difficult to do: diversity management in retail

a position evident in the interpretation of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (then the IPD) that it presents a departure from traditional equal opporturudes policies to 'an approach which requires equaUty to be dealt with in a strategic, co-ordinated way...broadening the concept of equality beyond the issues covered by the law' (IPD, 1996: 2). Dickens (1999) proposes a third perspecdve where the business case strategy combines with legal and social reguladon strategies to create a stronger basis for supporting equaUty acdon. A key requirement of this muld-pronged approach is that the different strategic elements are mutually suppordve of one another, but the responses from the managers in this study suggest this was frequendy not the case. Managerial thinking continues to be dominated by legal compUance through an institutional emphasis on demonstrable procedural fairness as the best means of defending managerial decisions rather than the business case for diversity. Despite a requirement for greater knowledge to aid managerial decision-making, FuUerton and Kandola's survey (1998) of 445 organisadons found that sUghtly fewer than 10 per cent conduded diversity training spedficaUy for their line managers even though their HRresponsibiUdeswere likely to have increased in recent years due to devolved organisadonal structures. While a rather more encotiraging picture is provided by the CIPD's 2004 annual survey of training and development - which reported an increasing number of employers identifying diversity training as important - it was sdU regarded as the least important of any of the training provided, and 10 per cent saw it as being of no importance at aU.
THE IMPACT OF LEGISUVnON j

HistoricaUy, organisadonal approaches to equaUty in the UK have developed in response to the legisladon introduced by successive UK governments since the mid-1970s to address unfair discriminadon in the pursuit, obtaining and retaining of employment as weU as other workplace pracdces. Fredman (2002) observes that the ideal of equaUty that has informed the development of UK and-discriminadon law has been one of freeing individuals from stereotypical group characterisdcs as a means of supporting workplace decision-making on the basis of individual merit. The result is a legal framework developed around a dednidon of inequality described by Chryssides and Kaler (1996: 89) as 'discriminating against people on grounds that are irrelevant to the jobs they are doing or for which they are applying', a definition that is evident across the range of anddiscriminadon laws. To reduce the potendal for disparate treatment by managers, the HR profession has focused on establishing procedures to ensure legal compliance and demonstrate equal treatment (Harris, 2005). Thus, the 'neutral treatment' principle of much and-discriminadon legisladon has become the very comerstone of organisadonal poUdes and processes designed to achieve sameness of treatment in resourcing decisions which can, as already acknowledged, be regarded as at odds with the nodon of a diversity management approach based on recognising differences. PotendaUy this creates a confusing state of affairs for Une managers accustomed to demonstrating fair treatment through their adherence to procedures designed toremovea consideration of social group characteristics. An attraction for Une managers of the tradidonal 'equal opportunides' approach (Harris, 2002) is that it offers a certain simpUdty and ease of appUcadon by reducing the scope for exercising discredon and providing the essendal means of defending their decisions in the face of any daim of less favourable treatment (Wilson and lies, 1999). Its limitation is that it has led HR specialists and operational managers alike to focus on consistency of process as a means of demonstrating fairness even though consistency is a reladve principle whose pursuit
6 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

alone will not act as a catalyst for progressive employment pracdces. Relying on a prindple of consistency alone does not require individuals to be treated weU, only aUke which, as Fredman (2001) observes, could be equaUy badly. EquaUty legisladon in the UK has expanded to take account of a growing number of specidc groups in the workforce. In this way, it reflects the needs of the increasingly diverse labour force. Much of this expansion has resulted direcdy from EU law and, in pardcular, from the EU's And-discriminadon Framework Direcdve 2000. This led to the introduction of rights that relate to personal circumstances rather than to personal charaderisdcs: for example, parental rights and dme off to arrange care for dependants. The resultant increased legal complexity has meant that operadonal managers need to not only be sufdciently informed about individual rights at work but also responsive to individual circumstances in their decision-making. ; THERESEARCH ]

The UK diversity management Uterature has tended to focus on its implementadon in the pubUc sector (GUI, 1996; Wilson and lies, 1999) rather than in the commerdal sedor. HicksClarke and Ues's work considers the Unks between gender diversity and organisadonal performance in both retaUing and the Nadonal Health Service but found that 'survey analysis was not the most appropriate way of exploring diversity climates in the retaU company' (2003:186). In this study we set out to explore through quaUtadve methods the understandings, percepdons of fair treatment and reported acdons of a group of managers who were responsible for the appUcadon of organisadonal equaUty and diversity poUdes in theretailingindustry . The research was primarily based on in-depth interviews conduded with managers, HR spedaUsts and employees across the three disdnd business units of a long-estabUshed UK major high-streetretaUerof stadonery and books. InidaUy, the study developed from an approach from the UK high-street operation which was seeking to create more innovadve HR pracdces to support a marketing strategy of appealing to a more diverse customer base. The decision to parddpate in the study suggests that not only are diversity issues growing in significance for UK retailers but, arguably, point to an absence of guidance on how to achieve diversity management in pracdce. TheretaUerhad three distind businesses: the UK high street, its orUine business and the USretailingchain. AU had very different operadonal contexts, although aU sold products relating to entertainment, information and education. The online business, selling products through its website and other interacdve channels, employed approximately 100 people aU centraUy located in one UK premises. In contrast, the UK high street and US businesses were much larger and more widely dispersed. Both businesses had simUar structures (head ofdce, regional level and store level) andreUedon formal documents to disseminate company poUdes. The UK high-street business had approximately 530 stores and 17,000 staff, and has occupied a dominant posidon in UKretaUingsince its incepdon more than 200 years ago. EstabUshed in 1985, the US business employed 3,600 staff and had a total of 570 stores in airports and hotels, predominately in North America. A case study approach was selected as the most Ukely means of gathering insights into understanding the concept of diversity management and how managers appUed this in their working environments (Ym, 1994). Over 12 months, 40 semi-structured interviews were conduded with individuals holding managerialresponsibiUdesin the UK business operadons and with a smaU number of senior HR spedaUsts from therelevanthead office who were the architects of the equality and diversity policies and procedures. The majority of the sample were store managers but a number had wider regional or general
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005 7

Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail

managerial roles and not only had aresponsibiUtyfor diversity issues but also experienced these as employees. Although an important consideration was the diversity of respondents, and every effort was made to ensure that they reflected a wide range of visible charaderisdcs, the main priority of the study was to obtain the views of those staff Vk^th an organisadonal responsibUity for the interpretadon and appUcadon of equaUty and diversity poUcies. This meant that the diversity of the sample was constrained by the composidon of the populadon in such roles. The result was a sample that was 70 per cent female and 30 per cent male, with an age composidon ranging from mid-twendes to late dfdes, although the majority were in their thirdes or earUer fordes. There was only one non-white manager in the UK sample, and one with a visible physical disabUity. It was difficult to select respondents on the grounds of their non-visible diversity, such asreUgionand sexuaUty, as these 'differences' were not made known unless during the interview the respondent provided the informadon that they were, for example, Chrisdan. The large numbers employed in the UK high street and US businesses, combined with the fluid nature of job roles in the onUne btisiness, meant that snowbaU sampUng was employed to select interviewees. This technique reUes on respondents to idendfy other suitable people to interview (Bryman and BeU, 2003). It is recognised that such an approach could have resulted in some bias in the selecdon of respondents. To try to minimise this, the Ust of interviewees and their roles were verifled with the HR funcdon both before and after the interviews took place as weU as being checked against the documented organisadonal structures, fri addidon to exploring the mariagers' percepdons of equaUty and diversity poUdes, both in their company and more generaUy, each respondent was asked about their job role and supervisory responsibiUdes, their previous experience and working environment. During the interviews individuals were each asked to comment on a couple of scenarios describing emplojonent situadons where people could be treated either the same (an equal opportunides approach) or differently (a managing diversity approach). For example, one scenario related to an organisadonal beneflts scheme where respondents were asked to consider the advantages and disadvantages of providing benefits for specific groups of employees, such as working parents, or for aU employees, such as reduced rates for membership of a local gym. These scenarios were designed to be a supplement to the interviews, and each attempted to Ulustrate the essence of managing diversity and the equal opportunity approach as described in the Uterature. Providing an example of how these might operate in pracdce was intended to assist the interviewee to reflect more easUy on the different approaches that could be taken to equality issues. Respondents were asked during the interviews to identify not only what they would do in pardcular circumstances but also to describe cridcal incidents that Ulustrated their own approach to managing diversity or their experience as employees from the perspecdve of their own working context (Burgess, 1982). Each UK operadonal unit had a manual issued by the head ofdce which set out the formal poUcy on mariaging diversity as weU as procedures on issues such as recruitment, selection, health and safety, disciplinary issues, employee grievances and time off arrangements. This manual was routinely referred to by managers when making employment-related decisions. Equal opportunides and diversity policies were also induded in the employee handbook issued to aU staff at their inducdon. Although the specialist HR staff had mostly received individual training in diversity and equal opportunides, Une management training consisted of informadon on legal requirements and updates provided at briefings undertaken by theregionalHR managers. Complementary quaUtadve research methods were used to support the interviews (Bryman, 1989). Day-to-day operadons were observed and recorded, which induded the
8 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

interactions between staff, recruitment processes and any training events. Company poUdes and other documentary evidence, such as recruitment procedures, annual reports and job adverts, were also analysed and used to inform the interviews. The fleldwork for this study was carried out in both the UK and US but, in view of their different legal and nadonal contexts, this paper does not set out to compare and contrast the interpretadon and implementadon of diversity management in these two countries. Any findings discussed in this ardde relate to the UK high street and online businesses and, as a result, are embedded in the UK's legal and national contexts. Nevertheless, it is worth nodng that the issues of appUcadon reported by US managers and HR staff were essendaUy the same (other than in the matter of degree) as those identided by the managers and HR staff in the UK businesses.
' FINDINGS " i

Before presenting the findings, it is important briefly to darify the extent of managerial responsibiUdes for diversity management within the different operadons. Line managers in the UK high street business (and simUarly in the USA) were directly responsible for daily operadonal matters supported by a central specialist HR funcdon and written company policies and procedures which were devolved to them to implement. The situadon in the onUne business was far more fluid; less formal procedures were in place and the scope for managers to accommodate individual circumstances vwthout breaching .established arrangements was greater.
Different meanings

The diversity statement in the company's employment manual emphasised the radonale for developing a workforce that refleded a wide range of individual differences as part of its business strategy, as foUows: A diverse workforce that reflects the diversity of our customers and the communities we serve will make our company more attractive to customers... by investing in all the avaUable talent we wiU increase our ability to attract and retain the highest calibre employees... people's differences should he valued and recognised in everything that we do. WhUe there was no prindpled objecdon, and a wide acceptance of this concept of valuing and recognising diversity, the findings suggest that implementing diversity management was frequently regarded as problemadc for a number of reasons. The first was that managing diversity meant different things to different people across the retailing operadons. For individuals diredly responsible for employees, such as store managers, it was most frequently described in terms of managing people's personaUdes on a day-today basis - an interpretadon of diversity management that reflects the wider view of individual difference suggested by Kersten (2000), which includes non-visible charaderisdcs and not just issuesrelatingto race, gender and disabUity. These respondents explained how theirrolewas to adapt their supervisory behaviours in accordance with the employee's personaUty in order to get 'the best out of them'. In contrast, a smaUer number of interviewees associated diversity management with recognising that people have a very broad range of 'differences' and interests that need to be managed, Ulustrated by the UK-based senior manager who observed: You could re-dtte managing diversity as 'managing uniqueness' because that's what you are talking about, whether that uniqueness is a radal thing, a sex thing or whether the uniqueness is an interest in naked water-skiing!
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005 9

Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail

Although a number of respondents felt that diversity management was about managing people's differences, there was a sizeable minority who believed that diversity management did not differ meaningfuUy from an equal opportunides approach and was Uttle more than rebranding. The comments of two such managers suggest that they viewed itreaUyas a quesdon of semandcs: My interpretation is that managing diversity is equal opportunities a posher name for equal opportunides. It's just soundbites, isn't it? Window dressing for the same thing. In summary, the concept of managing diversity emerged as iU defined and open to different interpretadons despite formal diversity management statements in company documents. The lack of a common understanding contributed to the difficulties observed and reported in the interpretadon of poUcies that offered managers the scope to address individual differences. This situadon was exacerbated by contextual factors, as the study's findings suggested that the implementadon of diversity policies was highly influenced by different variables. These induded managerial capabUity, the extent of HR poUcies and procedures and, in pardcular, anxiedes about employment rights and discriminadon claims.
Concems about litigation

While there was no identided lack of support at a theoredcal level for the concept of diversity management and differendal treatment as reflected in company poUcies and , procedures, these could be contradictory both in terms of organisadonal documentadon and what was frequently described as happening in pracdce. For example, despite the UK high street business's formal diversity statement encouraging the recognidon of individual differences, the same document warned that 'discriminadon means simply treating one person differendy', implying that the organisadon equated 'fairness' with treating people the same. Referring to applicants with disabUides, the recruitment 'best pracdce' guide stated that: Managers need to ensure that every employee or applicant for a job is treated fairly and consistently - in other words, the same. The fact that someone has a hearing impairment or is pardaUy sighted or has mobiUty problems is irrelevant to your selection and promotion methods. Such guidance meant respondents were very aware of the need to demonstrate consistency and adherence to organisadonal procedures, a message that was reinforced by the very limited training, if any, that supervisory management received on equal opportunities and diversity. In common with many other organisations, few line managers had received formal trairung in equaUty or diversity management (CIPD, 2004). Where training was reported, it had been provided by the speciaUst HR funcdon and had focused on the and-discriminadon law and potendal pitfaUs, as explained by this store manager: HR managers have probably explained to us what the Acts are about and about our responsibiUdesrelatingto it and things to be aware of.. .we've had sessions in the past where theregionalHR manager has updated us on the poUcy and how it relates to the running of the business day to day. Operational managers and HR specialists alike regarded centrally developed HR procedures as the best method of ensuring managerial consistency to minimise the risk of Udgadon when devolving operadonal HR responsibiUties. This was despite familiar complaints about the HR funcdon's rules and bureaucracy (Legge, 1995). Being able to
10 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

demonstrate fair treatment through a visible document traU as a means of defending managerial acdons was regarded as the first priority. This was partly due to the increasing finandal penaldes for making a mistake, as Ulustrated by one HR manager: We had some redundandes last year. I was quite consdous that some of the people who were in the pool for the redundancy were Asian. I just wanted to make very sure that the selecdon criteria were appUed properly. I went back and chaUenged those decisions just so that I was confident that the criteria used were robust, fair and consistent. The dominance of anxiedes about legal repercussions was pardcularly evident when a comparison was made between how interviewees had responded to the scenarios and what they experienced, observed happening or what they had themselves done in pracdce. In response to the scenarios, virtuaUy aU the interviewees identided the beneflts of adopting the differendal dieatment approach that took individual needs into account. All but one interviewee acknowledged this approach to be 'fairer' than treating every employee in the same way. Yet, actual organisadonal examples revealed a different reaUty. Busy managers, faced with balancing the pressures of demonstrating care for the individual and defending the robustness of their decision-making, opted for the tried and tested 'sameness of treatment' approach reinforced by much of the UK and US anddiscriminadon legisladon (Liff and Dickens, 2000). In other words, the need to defend managerial decision-making against potendaUy expensive Udgadon lent support to a traditional defensive/compliance-based approach to equality issues aimed at demonstrating a metaphorical 'level playing field' and neutrality (Webb, 1997) in individual treatment. This response supports Leighton's view (2004: 36) that antidiscriminadon legisladon is in danger of becoming an obstade to employers progressing diversity management pracdces if fear of the law leads Une managers to a defensive and negadve atdtude to diversity issues.
Consistency of treatment works best

Despite having idendfled a strong preference for meeting individual needs in their reflecdons on the scenarios, respondents did not appear to be consdous of any apparent contradiction when providing examples from their own pracdce or experience that promoted a 'sameness of treatment' approach. They defended this approach on the groimds that it was ultimately fairer to the largest number of individuals. This was exempUfled by the views of this store manager: WeU, it's fine [managing diversity] in theory hut it is better to make sure that we don't treat anybody differently. In this store we treat everybody the same - it's certainly the same for the other stores I have worked in... Despite some advocates of diversity management suggesting that diverse workgroups can enhance dedsion-making through the generadon of different ideas (Copeland 1988), the perceived wisdom for the majority of managers in this study was that managing a more diverse team was not only more difflctilt but that too much diversity could be divisive and have a negadve impad on team cohesiveness. As Kossek et al (2002) reported in their study of increasing diversity through hiring over dme, there was a concern that an increase in the propordon of minority groups could reduce consensus and agreement, Ulustrated by this UK general manager's comment: It could he more difficult to get a team of a broader background to work together as a team. It is easier to have a team of Uke-minded people because there's a hond there straight away but...it is a narrow perspective.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005 11

Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail

Personal beUefs about fairness influenced managerial responses to individual differences; the tension between providing equal opportunity and equaUty of outcomes was an issue recognised by supervisory management. There was a discomfort, for example, that recent legisladon introduced rights for speciflc groups that would not be available to others. What emerged was a perceived dUemma for managers created by the introducdon of employment rights that relate to specifled individual circumstances rather than social group charaderisdcs: for example, parental rights to dme off for the care of young chUdren whUe the non-parent with caring responsibUides for an elderly dependent reladve had no comparablerights.Furthermore, confusion was created by a situadon whereby employees could seek to be regarded by their employers as both the same and different with resped to different aspects of their Uves: for instance, to be treated the same as aU other appUcants during recruitment but then to be recognised as having pardcular needs as a parent of young chUdren when requestingflexibleworking arrangements. Busy Une managers required to meet operadonal performance targets had a marked preference for minimising differences in outcomes for their staff. Increasing their discretion might well provide more leeway and individual autonomy but it was recognised as more dme-consuming and Ukely to lead to confUcts. This supports Kochan and Katz's observadon (1988: 7) that it can 'debUitate efforts to promote uruty of purpose'. Managerial acdons supported Paauwe's (2004) argument that extemal regtiladon may weU be regarded as a constraint but it can actuaUy be preferred if it simpUfles dedsionmaking as well as reducing costs. This may partly explain the observed gap between prindple and pracdce evident in the managers' responses.
Organisational context

The extent to which individual differences were recognised and valued in employment practices was affected by the size and structure of the organisadon and its extemal operating environment. This was evident in the responses of those who had experienced workforce diversity at first hand - for example, in the comments of one HR regional manager who looked beyond intemal concems to consider how the composidon of the store's workforce did not always refled the diversity of the customer base it served: The store staff affect what customers think of us. At the weekends you go into our stores and all the staff are spotty 14-15 year olds but they don't reflect our customer base. TypicaUy, most of our customers are 30-40... An earUer study conduded by Harris (2000) into selecdon pracdces in local govemment found that the size of the organisadon, combined with the presence of a strong trade union and the need for pubUc accountabUity,reinforceda regulatory and bureaucradc approach to deaUng with employee differences. A simUar situadon was observed in the UK highstreet operadons, whichreUedheavUy on formal, prescripdve employment procedures to ensure consistency of appUcadon - an approach that was reinforced by any reported managerial training which, where provided, focused entirely on legal compUance rather than on managing and promoting workforce diversity. In contrast, the onUneretailerhad more in common with the more informal processes of a smaU business (Maday, 1999) with less formalised poUcies that defined how staff should be treated. Managers felt able to apply more ad hoc arrangements to meet employment-related demands as they arose, freer to exercise judgement, and saw more scope for differendal treatment. The very riature of the onUne business also meant that the outcomes of such decisions were less visible and, arguably, less Ukely to be chaUenged as a result. This less formaUsed approach was commented on by one senior general manager working in the onUne business:
12 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

In terms of trying to make employees' Uves easier, we probably do go out of our way here. I think you'd he horrified at some of the things we do, and I'm not sure that we'd get a favoured response from the group. But ifs within our discretion, I think. The abUity to employ a diverse workforce was not only dependent on the diversity of the avaUable labour pool but also on how the general pubUc perceived theretaUeras a place to work and shop. Remarking on the company's limited ability to attract Asian job appUcants and customers even in Leicester, a dty where more than half the populadon is Asian, a senior HR manager explained: I asked some Asian people why Asians don't apply to work in our stores. They said, 'WeU, you've got nothing for us. The store is typically middle England, a white-dominated store. You cater for them, even though it isn't the majority of the community you serve.' This suggests that intemal organisadonal inidadves wUl do Utde to progress diversity unless attendon has been paid to the diversity messages conveyed to any potendal pool of appUcants about the organisadon as an employer.
CONCLUSIONS AND POUCY IMPUCATIONS

WhUe there are obvious Umitadons in a study conduded only in the retaU industry in terms of offering widely appUcable condusions, it does provide insights into some of the operadonal reaUdes identided by Une managers responsible for implementing equaUty and diversity poUdes. Three main issues emerge from its findings which have a relevance for the practical application of diversity management: these are the different understandings managers can hold about the meaning of diversity management, the dominance of their concems about legal compUance and potendal Udgadon, and the confusion that stems from an agenda that appears to require them to deUver sameness of treatment on the one hand but to recognise and respond to individual difference on the other. Put another way, despite the argument for more organisadonaUy-based diversity strategies, these present pardcular dUemmas for Une management in terms of how to respond to individual differences, comply with anti-discriminadon legislation and promote a general feeUng of fair treatment among the workforce. Our findings support the condusion of MaxweU et al (2001: 480) that Une managers may weU play the pivotal role in implementing diversity inidadves, but as a category of staff they are also 'under pardcular pressure in the organisadonal interpretadon and appUcadon of managing diversity'. The lack of darity surrounding the concept of 'managing diversity' and the variable mix of contextual influences meant that for many operational managers managing diversity became whatever was deemed to be the most expedient soludon at the dme. Just as MaxweU (2004) foimd in her longitudinal study of diversity inidadves at BBC Scotland, for Une managers the conceptual reladonship between diversity and equal opportunides is frequently blurred. In practice, this can result in inconsistencies of treatment which undermine the very poUcy inidadves intended to promote diversity and fair treatment. The findings suggest that regarding managing diversity as a logical development of equal opportunities underestimates the complex reality it presents to managers responsible for its transladon into pracdce. At the heart of this perceived complexity is the contradicdon that Iiff (1999: 72) idendfles in combining an approach that daims the cause of equaUty is best served by ignoring differences with one that daims it is better served by
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005 13

Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail

acknowledging and responding to difference. There was some recognition of this analydcal muddle by the managers in the study who chose to place greater importance on preserving the beneflts stemming from an estabUshed equal opportunides orthodoxy than risk eroding these in favour of a less tested, more vague diversity orthodoxy even though they recognised, theoredcaUy, the benefits this might offer. Growing numbers of organisations have corporate diversity statements that acknowledge the importance of employing a diverse workforce and valuing individual difference. Yet the reported line management pracdce revealed that a standardised approach to deaUng with employee differences was widely regarded as more sustainable and workable within the framework of the UK's present and-discriminadon legisladon than more 'customised' approaches designed to accommodate individual diversity in the employment reladonship. Despite complaints about excessive rules and bureaucracy, Une managers aware that fair procedures are as important as substandve issues in tribunal decisions are ultimately likely to prefer the comfort zone of operating within clearly prescribed boimdaries. This is an observed preference that may go some way towards explaining the paradox identifled by Gagnon and Comelius (2000) that workplace equaUty acdons, though weU intended, can faU to generate 'felt fair' equaUty soludons for those at the receiving end. The implementadon problems of 'managing' diversity highUghted in this ardde wUl become even harder to resolve if the growth in anti-discrimination law leads line managers to feel more vulnerable, defensive and lacking in expertise. This situadon vdU be exacerbated if there is a continuing devolvement of HRresponsibiUdesto operadonal management (MUlward et al, 2000). Implementing innovadve diversity pracdces that require the appUcadon of personal judgement and discredon may weU seem unattracdve to Une managers preoccupied vth their own performance against funcdonal operadonal targets and concerned about the increasing complexity of emplo5TTient law. Furthermore, as the potendal grounds for and assodated costs of Udgadon escalate so, arguably, wiU the importance managers attach to risk avoidance by adhering to prescribed soludons in their HR dedsion-making. HR spedaUsts wUl need to provide more support and guidance to Une management faced with the demands of meeting the requirements of external reguladon, desired organisadonal and individual outcomes as weU as possible conflicts between what is perceived as demonstrable fairness and felt fairness. If, as this study suggests, diversity management has different meanings for individuals, approaches to diversity are required that reflect a shared organisadonal understanding from the very managers who apply them. The architects of diversity policies need to take greater accoimt of the pressures and dynamics of a range of contextual factors that can have an impact on their deUvery. Conducting an audit that includes all the parties in the employment relationship, and addresses such basic quesdons as 'where are we now?', 'where do we want to be?' and 'what do we need to do to get there?', is a useful starting point for employers seeking to develop appropriate and achievable diversity pracdces. WhQe these quesdons may suggest an over-simpUsdc framework, they do apply an element of radonaUty to the implementadon process in what is frequently an imder-developed and under-regarded dimension of strategic HRM. The argument is that employers need to adopt a much more contextually informed and organisadonaUy reaUsdc view of diversity management than is aU too often suggested by the equaUty Uterature. This study's evidence lends support to the view that 'home-grown' solutions to managing diversity that indude the cridcal coaUdon of operadonal management are likely to be the best way forward. It reinforces BoxaU and PurceU's (2002) wider message for strategic HRM to focus on 'good pracdce' thatreflectsextemal and intemal organisadonal
14 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

'fit' rather than pursuing a best pracdce model that may be at odds vnth the business context and organisadonalreaUty.This is not to argue against the value of best pracdce in equality and diversity strategies that provide examples of innovation and guiding prindples, but for the importance of taking accotmt of spedflc organisadonalreaUdesto move forward the oiganisadonal diversity agenda. The difdculdes in trying to be 'aU things to aU people' without aUenating certain groups of individuals were evident in managerial concems that accommodating the needs of a diverse workforce could reduce group cohesiveness and present conflicts of interest. Rajan and Harris (2003:19) observe that those companies reporting the beneflts of diversity advocate a culture of inclusion through implementing employment poUdes that reflect corporate values such as 'respect for individuals, the right to be heard and the need to balance work with personal demands'. One way of reducing such tensions is not to limit beneflts to any one defined sodal group, as evident in the approach taken by theretaUerASDA (ASDA, 2004), nominated as one of the top 10 companies in the UK for which to work by the Sunday Times for three successive years. The company's diversity strategy is based on 'opportunides for aU'. For example, in support of cultural tolerance, its poUcy onreUgiousfesdval leave aUows coUeagues to take up to two days' unpaid leave to attend any reUgious fesdval. Such an inclusive approach avoids the perceived unfairness created by one group enjoying a beneflt not available to another. However, it is an approach likely to be less of an option for smaller or less wellresourced organisadons as formal poUcies that recognise individual differences not only require HR experdse but signiflcant flnandal resources. Diversity training and education is recognised as playing an important role in avoiding the potendal faUure of diversity inidadves (WentUng, 2004), yet the reported experience was that very little had been provided and, where it had been, it concentrated on legal issues. It is unlikely that a posidve view of difference, as diversity management advocates, is promoted where there is a narrow emphasis in training on 'what not to do' to promote legal compliance. Although diversity training is not the focus of this ardcle, the interviews interestingly revealed possible Umitadons of using ficdonal situadons as illustradons for broader diversity training. This was because respondents largely suspended their own organisadonal reaUdes in considering the examples. One interpretadon is that relying on prepared scenarios or case studies as the main method of exploring people's atdtudes and behaviours could result in an unrealisdc view of how diversity management wUl reaUy be approached in pracdce. Clearly, this is an area that warrants further examinadon. Our findings lend further support to the inherent difflculdes in operadonalising diversity management (MaxweU et al, 2001), not because of any objecdons in prindple from supervisory management. Barriers to its implementadon are explained rather more by the confUds and complexides it is seen to present, a conceptual confusion about how it differs from equal opportunides and the demands of other work priorides. Based on the evidence from this study, it is argued that an approach to developing diversity inidadves that involves managers and employees examining them from the perspecdve of their operadonal reaUty wOl lead to more durable and relevant work-based soludons than poUdes handed out for implementadon without the engagement of the very individuals charged with turning these into reaUty.
Note

This ardde was awarded the Ian BeardweU prize for the best research paper at the CIPD Professional Standards Conference, June 2004.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005 15

Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail

REFERENCES ASDA. Cited 17 April 2004, www.asda.co.uk B&Q. Cited 16 April 2004, www.diycom BoxaU, P. and PurceU, J. (2003). Strategy and Human Resource Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Bryman, A. (1989). Research Methods and Organization Studies, London: Roudedge. Bryman, A. and BeU, E. (2003). Business Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, R.G. (1982). Field Research: a Source Book and Field Manual, London: Allen and Unwin. CIPD (2004). Training and Development Survey, London: Chartered Insdtute of Personnel and Development Chryssides, G. and Kaler, J. (1996). Essentials of Business Ethics, Maidenhead: McGraw HUI. Copeland, L. (1988). 'Valuing diversity, part 1: making the most of cultural differences at the workplace'. Personnel, 65:6,52-60. Cox, T. and Blake, S. (1991). 'Managing cultural diversity: impUcadons for organizadoral compeddveness'. Academy ofManagement Executive, 5:3,45-56. Dickens, L. (1999). 'Beyond the business case: a three pronged approach to equaUty managemenf. Human Resource Management Joumal, 9:1,9-19. Elmud, D. (1993). 'Managing diversity in the workplace: an immense chaUenge for both managers and workers'. Industrial Management, 35:4,19-22. Fredman, S. (2001). 'EquaUty: a new generadon?'. Industrial Law Joumal, 30:2,145-168. Fredman, S. (2002). The Future of Equality in Britain, Working Paper Series no.5, Manchester: Equal Opportunides Commission. FuUerton, J. and Kandola, R. (1998). Diversity in Action: Managing the Mosaic, 2nd edidon, London: Chartered Insdtute of Personnel and Development. Gagnon, S and ComeUus, N. (2000). 'Re-examining workplace equaUty: the capabUides approach'. Human Resource Management Joumal, 10:4,68-87. GUI, P. (1996). 'Managing workforce diversity - a response to skills shortages?'. Health Manpower Management, 22:6,34-37. Harris, L. (2000). 'Procedural jusdce and percepdons of fairness in selecdon pracdce'. Intemational Joumal of Selection and Assessment, 8:3,148-157. Harris, L. (2002). 'Achieving the balance in approaches to human resourcing between the "employee rights" agenda and care for the individual'. Business and Professbnal Ethics Joumal,2l: 2,45-60. Harris, L. (2005). 'Employment law and human resourcing strategies' in J. Leopold, L. Harris and T.J. Watson (eds). The Strategic Managing of Human Resources, Harlow: Pearson Educadon. Hicks-Clarke, D. and Ues, P. (2003). 'Gender Diversity and Organizadonal Performance' in G. MaxweU and S. Fielden (eds). Individual Diversity and Psychology in Organizations, Chichester: John WUey and Sons, lies. P., Wilson, E. and Hicks-Clarke, D. (1998). 'Diversity dimates and gendered aUhires: a cross sedor analysis' in C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark (eds). Experiencing Human Resource Management, London: Sage. Insdtute of Personnel and Development (1996). Managing Diversity: an IPD Position Paper, London: Insdtute of Personnel and Development. Jamieson, D. and O'Mara, J. (1991). Managing Workforce 2000: Gaining the Diversity Advantage, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986). 'The theory and pracdce of equal opportunides poUdes: Uberal and radical approaches'. Sociological Review, 34:2,307-334.
16 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

Kersten, A. (2000). 'Diversity management: dialogue, dialecdcs and diversion'. Joumal of Organizational Change Management, 13:3,235-248. Kochan, T.A. and Katz, H.C. (1988). Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations, Homewood, Dl.: Irwin. Kossek, E., Markel, K. and McHugh, P. (2002). 'Increasing diversity as an HRM change strategy'. Joumal of Organisational Change, 16:3,328-352. Legge, K. (1995). Human Resource Management - Rhetorics and Realities, London: MacmiUan. Leighton, P. (2004). Discrimination and the Law: Does the System Suit the Purpose?, London: Chartered Insdtute of Personnel and Development. Iiff, S. (1997). 'Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or sodal group characterisdcs'. Employee Relations, 19:1,11-26. Iiff, S. (1999). 'Diversity and equal opportunides: room for a construcdve compromise?'. Human Resource Management Joumal, 9:1,65-75. Liff, S. and Dickens, L. (2000). 'Ethics and equality: reconciling false dilemmas' in D. Winstanley and J. WoodaU (eds). Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Management, London: MacmiUan. Matlay, H. (1999). 'Employee reladons in smaU flrms - a micro-business perspecdve'. Employee Relations, 21:3,285-295. Mavin, S. and Girling, G. (2000). 'What is managing diversity and why does it matter?' Human Resource Development Intemational, 3:4,419-433. MaxweU, G. (2004). 'Minority report: taking the inidadve in managing diversity at BBC Scotland'. Employee Relations, 26:2,182-202. MaxweU, G., Blair, S. and McDougaU, M. (2001). 'Edging towards managing diversity in pracdce'. Employee Relatbns, 23:5,468-482. MiUward, N., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2000). All Change at Work, British Employment Relations 1980-1998, As Portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey Series, London: Roudedge. Noon, M. and Ogborma, E. (2001). Equality, Diversity and Discriminatbn in Employment, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and Performance - Achieving Long-Term Viability, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rajan, A. and Harris, S. (2003). 'The business impact of diversity'. Personnel Today, 2 September, 18-21. Robinson, G. and Dechant, K. (1997). 'BuUding a business case for diversity'. Academy of Management Executive, 11:3,21-31. Taylor, R. (2002). Diversity in Britain's Labour Market, ESRC. Thibaut, J. a n d Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: a Psychological Analysis, HUlsdale: Erlbaum. Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1978). 'A theory of procedure'. Califomia Law Review, 66, 541566. Webb, J. (1997). 'The poUdcs of equal opportunity'. Equal Opportunities, 4:3,159-169. WentUng, M. (2004). 'Factors that assist and barriers that hinder the success of diversity inidadves in muldnadonal corporadons'. Human Resource Development Intemational, 7:2,165-180. Wilson, E. and Ues, P. (1999). 'Managing diversity - an employment and service deUvery chaUenge'. The Intemational Joumal of Public Sector Management, 12:1,27-48. Ym, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

17