See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222607620

Defining and Dimensionalising Diversity:: Evidence from Corporate Websites

across Europe

Article  in  European Management Journal · December 2003

DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2003.09.015

CITATIONS READS

110 9,307

2 authors:

Seb Point Val Singh

University of Strasbourg 62 PUBLICATIONS   3,915 CITATIONS   
44 PUBLICATIONS   681 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

I am now retired, and will not undertake any further research projects. View project

Discourse Analysis (discours patronal, discours journalistique, discours d'expert) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Val Singh on 05 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Pergamon
doi:10.1016/j.emj.2003.09.015
Defining and
Dimensionalising
Diversity:
Evidence from Corporate
Websites across Europe
SÉBASTIEN POINT, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon
VAL SINGH, Cranfield School of Management
The corporate ‘diversity statement’ is a new tool
increasingly used by large companies to promote
diversity management policies on their websites.
Through an examination of these on-line texts, we
identify how companies construct the meaning of
‘diversity’ through its dimensions. Few companies
actually define diversity. However, dimensions of
diversity cover a wide-ranging set of individual dif-
ferences, not just gender and race but other visible
and less visible differences that might lead to dis-
crimination in the workplace. By comparing state-
ments from 241 top companies in eight countries
(Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland and the UK), we reveal how
the definition of ‘diversity’ and its dimensions as
used on websites varies across Europe.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anti-discrimination, Diversity, Equal
opportunities, Equality, Europe, Corporate web-
sites, Top companies
Introduction
Dealing with diversity is increasingly important. As
workforce demographics in Europe undergo rela-
tively rapid change, with forecast reduction of young
entrants due to falling birthrates, more women
entering and remaining in the workforce, and an
increased proportion of immigrant workers, manag-
750 European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, 2003
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0263-2373 $30.00
ing diversity has become a challenge for companies
across Europe seeking the best talent. There are sev-
eral strong arguments for managing diversity. First,
the war for talent means that companies seek the best
individuals from a global talent pool, and hence they
are changing the way in which they promote their
human resource policies to prospective employees
(Rosenzweig, 1998). Leading companies such as HP,
Johnson & Johnson, General Electric and Shell place
strong emphasis on developing diverse talent pools
and enhancing diversity in their leadership and suc-
cession planning process (Fulmer and Goldsmith,
2000).
Second, rankings of corporate social responsibility
now consider many different aspects of diversity,
including race, gender, sexual orientation, and dis-
ability. Hence companies need to ensure that they
have appropriate policies in place, and report them
to stakeholders. These include present and future
employees, customers and suppliers, as well as share-
holders, who are starting to demand that companies
disclose their commitment to diversity (sometimes
even asking chairmen at annual general meetings).
Some large investors such as pension fund managers
are choosing to invest more in companies with posi-
tive records in community involvement, environmen-
tal management, and employee relations. Diversity
management can be seen as part of that set of good
practices. Moreover, an international image is
important to attract international investors (Heijltjes
et al., 2003). Therefore, diversity management reflects

a proactive business reaction to rapid cultural and
sociological change.
A third point to make is that many companies now
view diversity management as a way of addressing
the need to reflect the diversity of their customers
through having diversity of employees who can bet-
ter understand and communicate with them. This
should result in better customer and supplier
relationships, which in turn could lead to improved
financial performance. Two recent UK exploratory
studies of diversity managers from both private and
public sectors reported that managers believed that
there was a direct link between diversity and
improved business performance, although perform-
ance measurement was at an early stage (Singh et al.,
2002; Schneider-Ross, 2002).
Another strong argument for diversity management
is that recognising and valuing diversity as a
resource for the organisation can create competitive
advantage. By capturing a wider set of opinions and
experiences through a broader lens, more creativity
and better decision-making can be achieved, as diver-
sity generates a variety of thinking across the organ-
isation. However, diversity needs to be managed well
otherwise conflicts are not resolved and voices are
not heard (Kochan et al., 2003). Hence, managing
diversity can enhance the organisational capability
for change in today’s turbulent and complex environ-
ment (Singh et al., 2002; Cox, 1993). The issue is criti-
cal for Europe, given its multi-cultural, multi-lingual,
multi-ethnic population and many internal borders.
Diversity itself is a relatively recent concept in
research terms, gaining in popularity since the early
1990s. However, we are interested in how diversity
management is promoted by companies in their cor-
porate literature, and in particular for this paper, how
diversity is defined and promoted in the latest
medium, the world wide web. Only two studies were
found which explored the discourse around ‘diver-
sity’ presented on-line, a US study of nine consult-
ants’ websites and diversity course materials, by
Kirby and Harter (2003), and a comparison of 38
French and German sites by Bellard and Rüling
(2001). To our knowledge, no academic study has
previously explored on-line diversity statements
made by companies across Europe. Furthermore, no
studies were found which explored corporate defi-
nitions of ‘diversity’, nor the criteria encompassed by
diversity statements, indicating a gap in the literature
regarding empirical definitions of diversity used in
the corporate world, and more importantly, the lack
of international comparisons in this respect.
The aim of this paper is to explore how leading com-
panies across Europe construct and define diversity
and its dimensions in their communications to stake-
holders through on-line web statements. We first con-
sider the literature on diversity and diversity man-
agement. Second, we report on the data collection
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
and analysis of statements gathered from 241 top
company websites across eight European countries
(Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). Next, we report
the definitions of diversity used by these companies
as well as the types of diversity described throughout
the company websites. Finally, we consider the con-
tribution and limitations of our study, and make
suggestions for further research.
(Re)defining Diversity
‘Diversity’ has become a word widely recognised by
policy-makers, social commentators, academics and
the general public. According to the research litera-
ture, ‘diversity’ is complex, and embraces many
definitions with different meanings and contexts. Its
most common meaning in an employment context is
associated with numerical composition, i.e. work-
place demographics (Thomas, 1996), but when asso-
ciated with management, may be to do with inclusive
behaviour (Rosenzweig, 1998). It is important that
companies have a clear working definition of ‘diver-
sity’ in their particular context in order to target
appropriate interventions and monitor progress
(Singh, 2002).
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, diver-
sity means ‘being diverse, unlikeness, different kind,
variety’. Litvin (1997) characterises diversity as hav-
ing six primary dimensions (age, ethnicity, gender,
physical attributes/abilities, race and sexual
orientation) and eight fluid dimensions (education,
geographic location, income, marital status, military
experience, parental status, religious beliefs and
work experience). These vary in degrees of visibility.
Primary attributes are more visible, whereas second-
ary attributes are less visible or even invisible, parti-
cularly those which are more psychological and job-
related. Diversity is not just seen as demographic dif-
ferences. McGrath et al. (1995) see diversity as a clus-
ter of attributes, which are demographic (e.g. race,
gender, age etc.), task-related knowledge and abili-
ties; values, beliefs and attitudes; personality and
cognitive and behavioural styles, and status in the
organisation.
According to social identity theory (Ashforth and
Mael, 1989), individuals categorise themselves and
others by these categories and their various combi-
nations. However, although people have multiple
identities, some identities are more salient than
others in particular contexts such as the workplace.
Inevitably, social categorisations involve the con-
struction of in-groups and out-groups, and the mem-
bers of the out-group are categorised as ‘other’ by the
more powerful in-group. People tend to stereotype
others by such groupings particularly in organis-
ational settings, with enhanced perceptions of in-
group members’ performance, leading to such per-
751
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
sistent phenomena as ‘think manager, think male’
(Schein and Mueller, 1992). However, diversity
research often fails to acknowledge the importance of
contexts within which social identity categorisation
takes place, and Triandis (1995) says that diversity is
a socially constructed issue that must be examined in
a cultural-historical context. Most studies of diversity
appear to have been undertaken in the United States,
where there is a very specific cultural, social and his-
torical context. Whilst the historical context there led
to career disadvantage for people of colour, the issue
of being black may be less important than of tribal
connections or social class as dimensions of diversity
in a country where almost all of the population is
black. Triandis makes an important point regarding
cultural distance, that ‘people who cannot communi-
cate, who come from cultures with different social
structures, different assumptions, religions, economic
situations and standards, will have a very hard time
working together’ (p. 230). Managing diversity
enables interpersonal and cross-cultural understand-
ing to improve communication and cooperation
across groups of difference.
There is a European historical and social context to
this study. Whilst legislation has been implemented
to ensure equal opportunities in many European
countries, in practice there has not been equality of
outcomes, as is evident from the numbers of white
middle or upper class males in senior management,
especially of the larger companies. Hence, diversity
presents a barrier that needs to be dealt with if all
talents are to be recognised, developed and utilised
to the benefit of both the individual and the organis-
ation.
Variety in Approaches to Managing Diversity
There have been a number of approaches to dealing
with diversity issues, ranging from reactive to proac-
tive, with varying degrees of integration (Dass and
Parker, 1997). In the United States, affirmative action
policies were encouraged, with government contracts
going to those companies with diverse workforces
and an appropriate number of women and African-
Americans in management. However, such proactive
policies regarding sexual and racial equality were not
adopted by European countries. In the past, most
European company policies were concerned with
complying with equality legislation and not allowing
discrimination on grounds of difference. Such poli-
cies could be seen as a defensive strategy against
possible litigation, according to Dass and Parker’s
strategic response model.
Whilst the liberal approach of doing nothing to
reduce inequality but letting the market decide who
would rise to management and leadership positions
was common until the 1970s across Europe, this was
followed by an emphasis on equal opportunities
(ignoring and assimilating differences). More
752 European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
recently, the ‘capabilities’ approach has been adopted
by many companies, following the United Nations
Charter for Human Rights, providing a fair environ-
ment within which individuals are respected and
encouraged to develop. At the same time, diversity
management has attracted much interest, particularly
because of the business case for its introduction.
Using a philosophy which includes parts of these
other approaches but with different objectives, man-
aging diversity approaches view diversity as a
resource, and individual differences are positively
regarded and utilised across the organisation. The
objective is to create added value for the organis-
ation, in a process which also benefits each individ-
ual.
Diversity management is now emphasised as an
essential part of strategic human resource manage-
ment for multi-national companies (Rosenzweig,
1998). Individuals have a wide range of talents, skills
and ambitions, but very often, the capabilities of
those in minority groups do not have an equal chance
to develop nor to participate in leadership. The ‘glass
ceiling’ blocks the career paths for women some-
where between middle and top levels of management
(Morrison et al. 1992) and has a similar effect on eth-
nic minorities and other groups (Singh, 2002). Such
hurdles can lead to talented people not developing
to their full potential, leaving their employers, down-
scaling their ambition, and/or becoming less
involved in the company’s success. This is a waste to
the productivity not just of the company but also to
the country. There have been initiatives at govern-
ment and corporate levels to remove these barriers
in many European countries, but progress has been
disappointingly slow. As an illustration, international
diversity in top management teams is a relatively
recent phenomenon in Sweden and The Netherlands
(Heijltjes et al., 2003). Diversity management is
increasingly being implemented in European coun-
tries to address the identified imbalances in opport-
unities for promotion across different groups.
However, the managing diversity approach has been
criticised by several researchers as a smokescreen or
rhetoric which allows subtle discrimination to con-
tinue (Litvin, 2000; Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000). It
presents a universalistic approach which is more
acceptable to males but which may not actually
deliver change, as the social structures which
initiated these long-standing inequities are left intact.
Those who are different no longer have legitimation
to challenge their treatment as all are treated as indi-
viduals. Liff (1999) suggests a compromise between
equal opportunities and diversity management
approaches, through policies designed to achieve
fairness of outcomes, valuing of difference, and
change of cultural attitudes as well as behaviour not
just at the individual level but also at the organis-
ational level.

Promoting Diversity Policies through the Media
As diversity management is adopted by companies,
they often start to promote their new strategies in
their corporate literature, and more recently, on their
corporate websites. Websites can be compared to cor-
porate annual reports, justifying the company’s inter-
national involvement and international competi-
tiveness as part of its public relations strategy to
present a positive image to the company’s stake-
holders (Point and Tyson, 1999). The language used
in such statements conveys meaning to a variety of
stakeholders. As well as annual reports, in the last
10 years mission statements have increasingly been
placed on corporate websites. Bart (2001) found that
45 of a sample of 100 Fortune 500 companies had
made conscious decisions to post the mission state-
ment online, but only 25 had posted these to readily
accessible pages. Bart hypothesises a significant
relationship between use of corporate websites for
mission statement communications and firm per-
formance, indicating the importance of this new
medium for promoting corporate values and policies.
Diversity statements may have a similar impact, but
it is not known to what extent companies are posting
such statements online. Only two studies have been
found which explore online diversity statements.
Kirby and Harter (2003) studied nine United States
diversity consultants’ own websites, as well as text-
books and handbooks. They identified that diversity
management was promoted by emphasising the
benefits to the organisation, but in the process deper-
sonalised the diverse individual who provided the
resource to be exploited. Another relevant study by
Bellard and Rüling (2001) considers how three US-
derived ‘diversity’ discourses were promoted in
annual reports and websites of 19 French and 19 Ger-
man top companies. They found differences in the
diversity discourses presented by French and Ger-
man companies, the French focusing on cultural and
professional differences, whilst the Germans tended
to translate diversity into international experiences.
They reported that the US discourses of diversity
were only superficially adopted by French and Ger-
man top companies. However, the use of annual
reports to explore diversity discourses presents
potential bias if one is examining the presence or
absence of policies on diversity management, as legal
requirements for disclosure in annual reports vary by
country. In the UK, for example, equality on grounds
of sex does not have to be reported, in contrast to
equality on grounds of disability. By exploring on-
line diversity statements, a better comparison can be
made, as these are all voluntary disclosures of policy.
As this is a study of how companies promote diver-
sity in on-line statements on corporate websites, we
take a social construction approach to examine their
discourse of diversity (Phillips and Jørgensen, 2002).
Through an analysis of their texts, we seek to identify
patterns, themes and underlying philosophies of
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
diversity, acknowledging that the findings do not
represent reality, but are constructed by the compa-
nies and deconstructed and reconstructed by us as
researchers. Our interpretations of the discourses
revealed here may not be those intended by the com-
panies, but are interpretations, informed by our parti-
cular backgrounds and interests in diversity as it is
promoted on corporate websites.
Methodology
A desk-based study was undertaken of the top 241
companies by market value in eight European coun-
tries. The French researcher, familiar with the Ger-
manic and Latin culture, took websites from top com-
panies in France, Germany, Netherlands, and
Switzerland; the UK researcher (from an Anglo-
Saxon/Nordic culture) took those in the UK, Nor-
way, Sweden, and Finland. Companies were selected
on the basis of their inclusion at the top of their
respective national stock exchange lists (FTSE top 50,
OMX A-list, CAC40, DAX, AEX, SMI, HEX and Oslo
Børs). The sample was composed of 18 Dutch and
Norwegian, 25 Swiss, 28 German, 30 Swedish, 34
Finnish, 38 French and 50 British companies.
We explored each website to see whether any state-
ments were made about diversity and equality, and
we used search terms on key words (such as diver-
sity, equality, equal opportunities, culture, women,
ethnicity, and disability) in the respective languages
as well as in English. Almost every company in our
sample had national language pages with matching
pages in English. For the Finnish companies, we
examined their English and Swedish language web-
sites, as Swedish is an official language in Finland
and we lacked Finnish language skills. From our 241
companies, there was only one problem with data
collection, from a Finnish grocery company. This had
only one page in English and Swedish, and no men-
tion of diversity-related terms on those pages, but we
were unable to check using the ‘diversity’ search tool
in Finnish, and can assume that no recruitment was
sought from outside the Finnish-speaking com-
munity.
We stored web pages as text files, and logged proper-
ties of the statements in an excel spreadsheet. We
then took diversity statement texts and imported
them into QSR Nudist 5 software for qualitative
analysis. As we were located in different countries
(France and the UK), we had to establish an effective
way of analysing the data. In a face-to-face meeting
over two days, we agreed on a coding framework
with definitions for each node, based on our under-
standing of the research literature and the trends
which we had noted in our data. We each coded the
data from four countries, then merged our files using
QSR Merge to retain our coding. We then each took
strands of coding based on themes such as ‘defi-
753
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
nitions’ or ‘types of diversity’, and fine-coded all
eight-country data, cross-checking on interpretations
and making changes in coding structure as we went
through the task. We were in frequent e-mail contact
during the analysis period. The inter-coding
reliability reached over 80 per cent. Reports were
then made for each of the branches in the hierarchical
tree structure of coding. Whilst any qualitative
method induces bias due to the subjective nature of
the process, we have laid an audit trail which allows
an understanding of how we have reached our con-
clusions from our data, and how we have minimised
potential bias in this process. The diverse nature of
our collaboration has additionally helped us to chal-
lenge our own assumptions and stereotypes of diver-
sity.
Results and Discussion
The purpose of this article is to examine whether and
how companies in eight European countries define
diversity on their corporate websites, and how they
construct ‘diversity’ in terms of identifiable differ-
ences. We found diversity and related statements in
various locations on corporate websites, with most
(95 statements) on careers and employment pages. A
further 57 statements were found on corporate
profile/business policy/corporate values pages, and
53 statements were located within Corporate Social
Responsibility pages. Some companies had state-
ments in more than one location. The frequency of
the CSR page locations was not unexpected, as guide-
lines have been drawn up for companies promoting
corporate social responsibility (Global Reporting
Initiative, 2002), which include diversity and equal
opportunities statements as indicators of corporate
social performance.
Diverse Definitions of Diversity
Companies using diversity management approaches
need to have a clear working definition of ‘diversity’
in order to target appropriate interventions and
monitor progress (Singh, 2002). We therefore sought
to clarify whether companies in this sample used the
word ‘diversity,’ and if so, whether this was only in
relation to human resource management issues. We
also investigated whether they clearly defined their
meaning of the term in their website statements. As
the literature review indicated, ‘diversity’ is a com-
plex term, and embraces many definitions with dif-
ferent meanings.
Out of 241 companies, around half used the word
within their on-line statements in connection with
people issues (A few companies used the word
‘diversity’ to emphasise the wide variety of their
activities, but such usage is not relevant in this
754 European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
paper). Table 1 highlights some differences between
countries. UK company websites were by far the gre-
atest users of the word, with over four-fifths using
the term. In contrast, only one fifth of Finnish compa-
nies used the word ‘diversity’ in their on-line state-
ments. However, this lack of use of the web to pro-
mote their diversity policies may not indicate
unwillingness to value diversity. Indeed, we might
speculate that for some Scandinavian and Dutch
companies, their international business cultures may
be so ingrained that messages about valuing diver-
sity might not seem necessary.
The most interesting issue is not whether companies
used the term, but rather how they made use of it.
Surprisingly, 30 websites (approx. 25 per cent of
those who mentioned diversity) did not state pre-
cisely the meaning nor the type of diversity to which
they referred. For these companies, ‘diversity’ was
presented as a universal notion requiring no expla-
nation.
In an increasingly competitive, diverse and global environ-
ment, diversity provides a better chance of survival and
winning. (Daimler-Benz, Germany)
Crédit Suisse Group’s culture is one of diverse people and
shared values. (Crédit Suisse, Switzerland)
Even though the meaning of the word is not
explicitly defined, from the context it can be seen to
be fairly close to the Oxford Dictionary definition of
‘being diverse, unlikeness, different kind, variety’.
We found that 29 other web documents extended the
meaning of ‘diversity’ to ‘variety’, but relating to
people’s culture or nationality. These companies
tended to suggest cultural (or national) variety, and
the ‘diversity’ word itself referred to a mix of
nationalities, languages and cultures. In this sense,
the concept of diversity becomes a central concept of
the discourse of multi-culturalism rather than fair-
ness and gender equality. This reinforces the com-
mon-sense meaning of ‘diversity’, often used as
shorthand for a multi-racial, multi-cultural and
multi-ethnic workforce (Thomas, 1996).
Respect: We treat all our stakeholders the way that we
want to be treated with consideration for individual and
cultural diversity. (Aegon, Netherlands)
Leveraging the benefits of cultural diversity. (France Tele-
com, France)
We must always hire the best people we can find. By defi-
nition, this includes people of diverse nationalities and cul-
tural backgrounds. (Nokia, Finland)
With its constellation of concepts such as multi-
culturalism, ethnicity, community and so on, the dis-
course of diversity becomes an important way in
which the abstract as well as formal equality is
shown to be valued by the organisation. Moreover,
the discourse is associated with provision of an

Table 1 The Use and Meanings of the Term ‘Diversity’ Across Countries
CH F FI
Use of the word ‘diversity’ or its national language 10 16
equivalent
Percentage of companies using diversity term 40% 42%
Mentioned but not defined 6 5
Definition based on one criterion (culture) 3 5
Equal opportunities mentioned 1 0
Diversity of/about 1 4
Precise definition of ‘diversity’ 0 0
organisational climate where all employees feel fairly
and equally treated in the workplace, valued by and
contributing to the organisation. In this sense, the dis-
course of diversity may be being used as a device for
managing social relations within the organisation, or
as a form of moral regulation of happy co-existence.
We will demonstrate our commitment by working to create
a culture of inclusion and diversity founded on the funda-
mental belief that all employees should be treated with
equal openness, honesty and respect. (Abbey National, UK)
BT has been at the forefront of the evolving equality and
diversity agenda for some time. We have been particularly
active in establishing the business case for equality. In our
view, you cannot be a successful business, competing fier-
cely in global markets, if the way you do business is based
exclusively on a single set of cultural values. The key to
success is a recognition of the power of cultural, language
and behavioural diversity. (BT, UK)
Our employees in all their diversity are equally important
to us, irrespective of their nationality, culture, religion or
sex. (MAN, Germany)
We thrive on the diversity of our people and the breadth
of thinking their experience brings. We offer a meritocracy,
where people are valued and recognized for their contri-
bution, rather than their backgrounds. (Standard Char-
tered, UK)
Only 13 companies (approx. 11 per cent of the 121
companies mentioning diversity provide a clear and
precise definition of ‘diversity’ on their websites. We
consider that a definition is clear when the text
explains the meaning of the word explicitly, e.g.
diversity means/embraces/encompasses, etc.) In the fol-
lowing statements, diversity is defined as valuing dif-
ferences within the company.
(Diversity) means ensuring we truly reflect and serve the
communities in which we operate and create a company
where employees’ different perspectives are valued and
their talents fully employed. (Barclays, UK)
Diversity means that a Ph.D. may be an African-American
or foreign-born naturalized citizen; a union leader may be
a former housewife; and under that accountant’s suit may
be tattoos or other body adornments. Our diversity also
goes beyond the outward differences to include age, edu-
cation, religious beliefs, skills and much, much more.
(Bayer, Germany)
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
G N NL S UK
7 16 10 7 12 43
21% 59% 56% 39% 40% 86%
2 4 3 0 2 2
2 2 2 5 3 7
3 2 0 0 1 22
0 3 3 0 3 1
0 5 1 1 1 5
We define ‘valuing diversity’ as accepting and respecting
individual differences arising out of variation in race, eth-
nicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic
status, physical abilities, religious beliefs, or other ideol-
ogies. (ING, Netherlands)
A further 15 companies provided a rough definition
of diversity, not in terms of valuing differences but
rather by quoting the kind of differences which might
be important, reflecting on the many ways in which
their workforce might vary. The following definitions
highlight statements such as diversity in/of/in terms of.
Such meanings are derived from and are in-keeping
with a language of plurality.
Human ‘diversity’ is characterized by six fundamental fac-
tors: age, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability and
religious beliefs. Other important aspects include culture,
language and family status. (Deutsche Telekom, Germany)
We have a diversity of customers in nationality, age, gen-
der, and ethnic background. In order to serve them well,
we aim to reflect the market. (Electrolux, Sweden)
It also reflects our aim of harnessing diversity — of people,
cultures, viewpoints, brands, markets and ideas — to create
opportunities and strengthen performance. (BAT, UK)
We want diversity in gender, age and cultural background.
(Statoil, Norway)
We identified a number of differences between coun-
tries. Table 1 also highlights the variety in the concep-
tualisation of diversity on websites by country. The
most striking difference is in the very high pro-
portion of UK companies promoting diversity on
their websites, although only five of them actually
defined the term clearly. The most precise definitions
came from German and UK companies, with 31 and
12 per cent respectively defining the term. In contrast,
most Swiss companies and around a third of French
and Norwegian companies did not specify the mean-
ing of diversity.
When companies did not reveal their practices in
terms of diversity, they nonetheless often wrote
about anti-discrimination and equal opportunities
policies. When anti-discrimination practices were
described, a list of diversity characteristics was usu-
ally presented. Of the 241 websites reviewed for our
755
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
survey, 174 referred to anti-discrimination, equal
opportunity or diversity management practices.
From these statements framing diversity in specific
terms of difference, (e.g. diversity, equal opport-
unities or anti-discrimination), we identified 27 cri-
teria (or dimensions) relating to type of diversity.
Types of Diversity
Of the 174 leading corporate websites where specifi-
cations were given about diversity dimensions, gen-
der (or sex) was mentioned most, by 48 per cent of
the companies. This was closely followed by culture
(45 per cent), race and ethnicity (37 per cent), age (31
per cent), nationality and country of origin (29 per
cent) and disability (28 per cent). The most frequent
categories listed, gender/sex, race/ethnicity, age and
disability, also correspond to the most surveyed cri-
teria in the literature. The following examples show
how companies usually present the complexity of the
word (and all the dimensions it encompasses) in
one sentence:
We will not discriminate between applications for reasons
of gender, race, religion, colour, nationality, ethnic origin,
sexual orientation, marital status, age or disability. (ABN
AMRO, Netherlands)
Our diversity also goes beyond the outward differences to
include age, education, religious beliefs, skills and much,
much more. (Bayer, Germany)
Table 2 presents all the various differences specified
on the websites. The 27 identified criteria can be
reorganised into six categories: geography, visible
differences, opinion/beliefs, social status,
education/personal/professional background and
other. Differences based on geographical diversity
dominated within statements: 108 documents out of
174 highlighted cultural, national or language dis-
crimination awareness. The Charter of the United
Nations refers to the importance of culture and the
constitution of UNESCO also refers to diversity as a
‘fruitful diversity of cultures’. Closely following the
geographical group, visible differences have already
been identified as potential discrimination criteria in
the literature (Litvin, 1997). A third of companies also
revealed their stance on diversity discrimination in
terms of less visible criteria such as employees’ opi-
nions and beliefs, particularly religion and sexual
orientation. Diversity as social status (i.e. marital,
social class, family/parental status and health,
including a recent addition, HIV/AIDS status) was
also featured on many websites.
The dimensions of the ‘diversity’ concept clearly
varied from one country to another (see Table 2 and
Fig. 1). Most of the 27 dimensions were represented
within UK websites, which led on almost all the cri-
teria. These results reflect the current trend for top
UK companies to adopt the managing diversity
756
philosophy of valuing all aspects of diversity. In con-
trast, French companies were least likely to disclose
diversity dimensions. Swiss and Norwegian on-line
statements often mentioned workforce diversity
practices without stating any particular dimensions,
yet Finnish companies tended to give very precise
definitions within their diversity discourse, as is indi-
cated by the Nokia statement given earlier.
Multi-Cultural Diversity
The multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic
meanings of diversity are dominant in many on-line
statements, especially for German companies. Whilst
UK companies strongly feature race and ethnicity (in
83 per cent of the statements) rather than culture,
those from France and Germany tend rather to talk
about the broader notion of culture. The French
companies’ references to multi-culturalism reflect the
slogan ‘black, blanc, beurre’ used during the 1998
football World Cup. For French people, the notion
of ‘cultural diversity’, which encompasses both the
cultural expression (heritage and creativity) and mut-
ual comprehension of culture differences, is of most
importance.
Our people are from all over the world, working for us
means working in a truly multi-cultural environment in
which flexibility and freedom of thought are encouraged.
(Cap Gemini, France)
The increasing involvement of companies in terms of
foreign sales, geographic diversification and cultural
diversification may explain the valuing of cultural
differences on-line. This helps to promote the com-
pany’s adaptability to its environment.
Gender/Sex Diversity
Gender was the most common category of diversity,
appearing on 83 websites in the diversity statements.
Gender/sex equality was shown to be an issue of
particular concern for companies in the UK, Sweden
and Finland. Interestingly, companies referred to
‘sex’ differences in 27 cases compared to ‘gender’ dif-
ferences in 49 cases, reflecting the more commonly
acceptable use of the term ‘gender’ for biological sex
(although a few companies managed to describe gen-
der or sex differences without actually stating either
word). Such usage is in contrast to academic defi-
nitions of sex meaning biological and fixed difference
and gender meaning socially constructed differences
of masculinity and femininity (Calàs and Smircich,
1995). Whilst most companies just mentioned sex or
gender in a list of non-discriminatory practices, some
gave specific attention to presenting a rationale for
recruiting women, of which Alstom is a good
example.
Women now account for 17 per cent of engineering gradu-
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
 DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY

Table 2 Diversity Dimensions by Criteria and Country

F NL G CH UK S N FI Total

Mention diversity or equal opportunity 25 13 19 17 49 22 10 19 174

Geographic 60% 54% 89% 59% 57% 50% 70% 63% 108
Culture 15 6 16 9 11 8 7 7 79
Nationality & country of origin 3 5 6 3 20 6 1 7 51
Language 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 9
Location 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
Visible differences 36% 54% 53% 47% 84% 54% 30% 42% 99
Gender 5 8 8 5 36 10 3 8 83
Race & ethnicity 2 8 3 4 35 7 1 4 64
Age 3 8 8 2 22 7 3 2 55
Disability 5 7 4 4 27 1 0 1 49
Colour 0 5 1 1 14 1 0 0 22
Tattoo/physical difference/life style 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3
Opinion/beliefs/orientation 4% 46% 32% 18% 59% 23% 20% 26% 58
Religion 1 8 5 2 21 3 1 5 46
Sexual orientation 0 4 2 3 17 3 0 2 31
Political opinion 1 2 1 0 6 1 1 3 15
Union affiliation 0 1 0 1 7 2 1 2 14
Thinking types 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5
Social status 0 15% 5% 6% 43% 14% 20% 26% 36
Marital status 0 2 0 1 18 0 0 0 21
Social class/caste 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 8
Parental status 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 4 12
Family status 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 5
Health status 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 5
Education/personal/professional background 28% 15% 42% 6% 37% 18% 30% 11% 46
Experience 6 2 4 1 1 2 1 0 17
Personal background 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6
Profession 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 12
Education 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 8
General background 1 1 3 1 13 2 0 1 22
Other 16% 15% 21% 29% 12% 14% 30% 0 29
Not specified 4 1 1 5 6 3 4 0 24
General other 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 6

ates each year worldwide! More seriously though,
ALSTOM has several reasons to recruit women into its
teams, because it is a company that: is constantly on the
lookout for new expertise, is rapidly developing its service
business, and needs diversity to promote creativity and
decision-making. We have thus decided to actively pro-
mote the recruitment of women. It’s not by chance that the
companies doing best are also the ones that have the most
women in key positions! (Alstom, France)
Women have not yet reached executive roles at the
top of the larger companies in Europe. For example,
only 3 per cent of the UK’s FTSE 100 company execu-
tive directors and 10 per cent of non-executive direc-
tors are female (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2002). The
2002 Higgs Review of corporate governance in the
UK has highlighted the persistent homogeneity of
British corporate boards. Politicians in the UK and
across Scandinavia seek to increase the represen-
tation of women on corporate as well as public sector
boards (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2002). Governments
of both Norway and Sweden have instigated threats
of affirmative action if companies do not appoint
more women to executive and supervisory boards. In
March 2002, the Norwegian government threatened
measures requiring that company boards are com-
prised of at least 40 per cent women by 2005. There
are already increasing numbers of appointments of
senior females to Norwegian boards. In November
2002, the Swedish government followed suit with
threats of legal requirements for 25 per cent female
representation on company boards by 2005. Taking
Scandinavian countries as an example, the French
government is also considering legal requirements
for such change. Sex role stereotyping of manage-
ment and leadership is still evidently continuing, and
gender/sex discrimination remains prevalent despite
legislation and some progress in recent years across
Europe.
Age Diversity
Dutch, German, British and Swedish corporate web-
sites often raise the issue of age when discussing
diversity. Age discrimination is a growing concern
for the coming years. Indeed, Sweden, Denmark, the
UK, Finland, Netherlands and Germany already have
higher than average European rates of workers in the

European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003 757
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
Figure 1 Main ‘Diversity’ Types Mentioned on Website Statements on Equality by Country
55–64 age group (Le Monde, 8/07/2003). As a result
of fast-approaching demographic changes, older
workers will need to remain in the job market for
longer before receiving pensions. Consequently,
managerial action will be needed to adapt recruit-
ment and training practices, as well as ensure a viable
workplace for older workers (in terms of health and
safety etc.). The on-going discussion on age discrimi-
nation may encourage companies to include age
diversity in their diversity statements, ahead of forth-
coming EU requirements in this matter. In the UK, it
has been common for staff to retire by the age of 60,
despite the formal retirement age of 65 for men and
women. Until recently, British women retired at the
age of 60, but this was changed to 65 by sex discrimi-
nation legislation. However, in Scandinavia, the for-
mal retirement age is 67 for both men and women. At
the time we wrote this paper, the French retirement
reform as proposed by the Government, was under
review, and strongly debated in France. Clearly,
older workers form an under-utilised pool of talent
and experience, and some companies are seeking to
758 European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
tap that resource to meet their staffing needs. In
particular, two French companies sought to benefit
from the experience that older people bring to their
work.
Every year, ‘seniors’ join our Units, whether they are 45, 50,
55 years old or more. They contribute unique experience to
which no ‘junior’ can lay claim. (Alstom, France)
Diversité d’âges pour promouvoir l’expérience de chacun.
(AGF, France)
Some companies talked of age in a different way,
recognising that individuals continue to develop
regardless of age, and hence age was not to be used
as a discriminating factor in career management.
Both their career and personal development is an ongoing
process and does not stop at a certain age or upon reaching
a certain position. (Deutsche Post)

Ability/DisabilityDiversity
Like sex discrimination, discrimination against
people with disabilities is generally not allowed,
where they are physically able to do the job, but
many disabled workers are afraid to reveal their dis-
abilities, and many disabled people find it extremely
difficult to get employment. Of the UK companies,
27 had statements regarding disability.
It is the Group’s policy to give all applications for employ-
ment from disabled people full consideration in relation to
the vacancy concerned and their own aptitude and abili-
ties. In the event of existing staff members becoming dis-
abled, every effort is made to move them to suitable work
within the Group if they cannot continue in their present
job. The Group offers suitable training and career develop-
ment for all disabled staff. (Alliance & Leicester, UK)
A significant number of people in our society have dis-
abilities. As part of our diversity policy to ensure we meet
the needs of all our customers, BT encourages applications
from, and supports the professional development of,
people with disabilities. As a ‘two ticks’ employer, BT
guarantees job interviews for all suitably qualified disabled
applicants. (BT, UK)
One of the French websites celebrated their achieve-
ments in managing diversity in terms of disabled
workers.
With the implementation of ‘Mission Handicap’, Carrefour
in France has made a commitment to its social partners to
employ and recognize handicapped workers. In France, at
the end of September 2001, 2325 handicapped employees,
representing 3.18 per cent of the workforce, were working
in our hypermarkets. (Carrefour, France)
Surprisingly, few companies in the other countries
dealt with this criterion within their on-line state-
ments. For instance, out of 18 Norwegian websites
(and ten dealing with diversity issues), none men-
tioned anti-discrimination and equal opportunity
practices concerning workers with disabilities. As
law in many countries mandates against discrimi-
nation on grounds of disability, companies might
presume that it was not necessary to include this fac-
tor on their websites as it was already dealt with by
law and perhaps disability was no longer a cause of
discrimination in employment.
Diversity of Beliefs and Orientation
Opinions, beliefs and orientation (religious beliefs,
political and union affiliations and sexual
orientation) are particularly featured within British
company on-line statements, but these are embedded
in lists of diverse characteristics rather than with spe-
cific explanations about why such diversity should
be valued. Religion is a dimension cited more fre-
quently in countries such as Finland, The Nether-
lands and Germany. However, the absence of these
considerations in French and Norwegian websites
is noteworthy.
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
Other Types of Diversity
British companies also lead in mentioning status
dimensions on their websites. Marital status, social
class and caste were often mentioned within UK on-
line statements. Marital status also seemed to be
important in Finland and Sweden. Surprisingly,
French companies never dealt with any of these
dimensions in their diversity on-line statements.
Anti-discrimination statements about individual
backgrounds were important in German and French
companies, and many of those websites mentioned
experience or education. In these two countries, the
importance ascribed to vocational training and tech-
nical expertise may explain the profile of these
dimensions on their websites. These findings echo
those of Bellard and Rüling (2001). UK companies
focus more on personal background, referring more
broadly to any personal characteristics that might
make the worker be seen as different and might be
a cause of discrimination.
Overall, the dimensions in Table 2 fit the characteristics
suggested by Litvin (1997), rather than the cluster model
indicated by McGrath et al. (1995). Most of the dimen-
sions identified fall into the demographic category in
both models. The opinions/beliefs/orientation group in
Table 2 would fit the values, beliefs and attitudes cluster
of McGrath’s model. In addition, professional experi-
ence might fit into McGrath’s category of task-related
knowledge, skills and abilities, and thinking types
would fit their personality/cognitive/jybehavioural
styles cluster. But the latter two dimensions were not
strongly in evidence in this sample.
Conclusions
The main contribution of this study is to the diversity
discourse field, through an examination of the dis-
course around ‘diversity’ and equality on company
websites, a new medium for corporate promotion of
internal policies. We have revealed how diversity is
constructed differently across Europe through defi-
nitions and dimensions given by 241 top companies in
diversity statements on their corporate websites. Only
Bellard and Rüling (2001) have explored this issue pre-
viously, using a mix of annual reports and websites of
only 19 French and 19 German companies. However,
in their use of annual reports, an element of bias was
introduced, as there are varying national legal require-
ments for particular diversity issues to be reported in
annual reports. As we wished to explore the work
across several countries, we have used only website
material, to eliminate this cross-national bias. There are
no legal requirements to disclose diversity or equality
policies on-line, therefore our findings are based on vol-
untary disclosures in all the surveyed countries. We
would argue that this has more face validity in that the
presence or absence of diversity categories is as
intended by the companies rather than required by law.
Moreover, with the comparison across eight coun-
tries, the results of this survey highlight divergence
759
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY

in the dimensions of diversity as constructed by these dimension, appearing on 83 websites, closely fol-
European companies. As only half of them actually lowed by culture on 79 websites. The UK is the only
mentioned the word ‘diversity’ (or its national langu- country reporting almost all the identified dimen-
age equivalents) on-line, it is clear that this term is sions. In contrast, French companies were the least
not yet automatically used when companies deal likely to disclose diversity dimensions, and where
with this issue. Only 13 websites gave a clear and they did so, they revealed that they valued cultural
precise definition of the word. Diversity management differences, often ignoring personal differences such
is not the dominant discourse in European compa- as gender and disability. The differences found across
nies, except in the UK, where they are by far the most Europe in the way in which diversity is interpreted
likely to want to show commitment to diversity, with and communicated to stakeholders indicate support
almost all the top 50 companies promoting diversity for Triandis’ (1995) argument that ‘diversity’ is soci-
management. In the UK, there is enthusiasm for the ally and historically constructed, and that the parti-
diversity management philosophy. In contrast, cular dimensions of ‘diversity’ are culturally bounded.
around a third of top companies in France, Germany,
Sweden and Switzerland ignored diversity on their Some Limitations and Suggestions for Further
websites, and only just over a third of top French Research
companies promoted diversity on-line, compared to
just over half of German companies. Less than a third There are several limitations regarding this survey.
of top companies in The Netherlands promoted Despite having nothing about diversity on their web
diversity, compared with less than half in Sweden pages, a few companies did have material relating to
and Norway. Not surprisingly, given its more remote their diversity or equality management policies in
location and traditional indus- their annual reports, which
tries, Finland had the highest For global companies like were available on-line in PDF
proportion of companies not format for those willing to
mentioning diversity of any
kind on their websites.
BP, diversity management is a spend the time seeking out
such information embedded in
CEO and director statements.
In defining diversity, compa- question of “commercial We had decided to eliminate
nies tended to reconstruct its annual reports from this study,
meaning to suit their particular survival”, as they compete for as the legal frameworks for the
situation, supporting Bellard content of such reports (and
and Rüling’s (2001) findings. international talent disclosures regarding diversity
For global companies like BP, policies) differ from country to
diversity management is a question of ‘commercial country. Other companies may have reported similar
survival’, as they compete for international talent and information in off-line annual reports and other cor-
have to deal with changing contexts such as porate material. Further research should examine
reduction of expatriate managers. Similarly, inter- how diversity issues are dealt with specifically in
national banks have to operate in a variety of legal annual reports, even though there are differing legal
frameworks and national cultures, and diversity has requirements for such disclosure.
to be respected. Having staff who can understand and
negotiate through such structures is essential, and that We acknowledge that websites are frequently
is likely to be facilitated by diversity of backgrounds, updated, and hence our study is a snapshot of the
experiences and education, as suggested by Triandis situation in early 2003. We found some unexpected
(1995). In contrast, some of the smaller companies are changes in our own survey when checking data.
not operating to the same extent within global markets When the latest annual reports were published in
or with an international and highly educated work- April, Dutch as well as German companies took the
force. For example, the Finnish grocery company opportunity to update their on-line diversity state-
whose careers page was only in Finnish presented a ments. Therefore, the one-shot timing of the survey
very different view compared to Shell or Standard is a limitation for this contribution, and further
Chartered Bank, or even to Nokia in their own country. research is suggested to explore these issues longi-
tudinally to chart changes in a rapidly changing busi-
We also sought to identify how these top companies ness context. Indeed, an extension of the study to
defined the dimensions of diversity. We found a other countries and continents would be revealing as
pluralist notion of diversity, and identified 27 dimen- globalisation increases, putting pressure on talent
sions associated with diversity management, of management and customer relations.
which geographic and visible differences and beliefs
were by far the widest used dimensions. The con- Our search outcomes were determined by our own
struction of diversity was built on dimensions close skills at finding the relevant data. When we failed
to those described by Litvin (1997) rather than the to find anything relating to diversity, we used the
five cluster model of McGrath et al. (1995) as only two company search engines (where available on
of our clusters matched the latter conceptualisation websites) to confirm the lack of information, but our
of diversity. Gender was the most frequently cited findings were on a ‘best efforts’ basis.

760 European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003

Further research is suggested to examine the relation-
ship between diversity and shareholder value, which
was not directly revealed in the discourses of diver-
sity on-line. This might be explored in terms of diver-
sity policies and enhanced corporate reputation. In
addition, as companies start to measure diversity
performance, a number of shareholder benefits may
emerge, such as the impact of increasing inclusion on
individual, team and hence company performance.
Finally, we suggest that triangulating evidence is
sought to see whether these companies actually
implement the policies and enact the values pro-
moted on their websites. It will be revealing to see,
for example, how long it takes for the companies pro-
moting gender and racial diversity so vigorously on
their websites to appoint women and ethnic minority
directors to their corporate boards. Some are on the
way — but most of these European companies seem
to have a very long way to go.
References
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social identity theory and the
organisation. Academy of Management Review 14(1), 20–39.
Bart, C.K. (2001) Exploring the application of mission statements
on the World Wide Web. Internet Research 11(4), 360–368.
Bellard, E. and Rüling, C.-C. (2001) Reflections and projections
of boundaries in the diversity management discourses in
the United-States, France and Germany. In 17th EGOS
Colloquium, Lyon, July.
Calás, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1995) From ‘The woman’s’ point
of view: feminist approaches to organization studies. In
Handbook of Organization Studies, eds S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy
and W. Nord, pp. 218–257. Sage, London.
Cox, T. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organisations: Theory,
Research and Practice. Berret-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1997) Strategies for managing human
resource diversity: from resistance to learning. Academy
of Management Executive 13(2), 68–80.
Fulmer, R. and Goldsmith, M. (2000) The Leadership Investment:
How the World’s Best Organizations Gain Strategic Advan-
tage through Leadership Development. Amacom, New York.
Global Reporting Initiative (2002) Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, MA.
Heijltjes, M., Olie, R. and Glunk, U. (2003) Internationalization
of top management teams in Europe. European Manage-
ment Journal 21(1), 89–97.
SÉBASTIEN POINT,
Université de Franche-
Comté, 45 D, avenue de
l’Observatoire, 25030
Besançon cedex. E-mail: spo-
int@univ-fcomte.fr
Sébastien Point is currently
Lecturer in Human Resouce
Management and Inter-
national Management at the
Université de Franche-
Comté (France). He is also Visiting Fellow at Cranfield
School of Management (UK). His research interests
include diversity management, organisational dis-
course and impression management.
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003
View publication stats
DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY
Kirby, E.L. and Harter, L.M. (2003) Speaking the language of
the bottom-line: the metaphor of ‘Managing Diversity’.
Journal of Business Communication 40(1), 28–49.
Kochan, T. et al. (2003) The effects of diversity on business
performance: report of the Diversity Research Network.
Human Resource Management 42(1), 3–21.
Liff, S. (1999) Diversity and equal opportunities: room for a
constructive compromise. Human Resource Management
Journal 9(1), 65–75.
Litvin, D.R. (1997) The discourse of diversity: from biology to
management. Organization 4(2), 187–210.
Litvin, D.R. (2000) The business case for diversity and the
‘iron cage’. In 16th EGOS Colloquium, Helsinki.
Lorbiecki, A. and Jack, G. (2000) Critical turns in the evolution
of diversity management. British Journal of Management
11, S17–S31.
McGrath, J.E., Berdahl, J.L. and Arrow, H. (1995) Traits, expec-
tations, culture and clout: the dynamics of diversity in
work groups. In Diversity in Work Teams, eds S. Jackson
and M. Ruderman, pp. 17–45. American Psychological
Association, Washington DC.
Morrison, A.M., White, R.P. and van Velsor, E. (1992) Breaking
the Glass Ceiling: Can Women reach the Top of America’s Larg-
est Corporations? (2nd ed). Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Phillips, L. and Jørgensen, M.W. (2002) Discourse Analysis as
Theory and Method. Sage, London.
Point, S. and Tyson, S. (1999) What do French annual reports
reveal about the internationalisation of companies? Euro-
pean Management Journal 17(5), 555–565.
Rosenzweig, P. (1998) Managing the new global workforce:
fostering diversity, fostering consistency. European Man-
agement Journal 16(6), 644–652.
Schein, V.E. and Mueller, R. (1992) Sex role stereotyping and
requisite management characteristics: a cross-cultural
look. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 439–447.
Schneider-Ross (2002) The Business of Diversity. Schneider-
Ross, Andover (UK).
Singh, V. (2002) Managing diversity for strategic advantage.
Report for the Council for Excellence in Management
and Leadership, London.
Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S. (2002) Report on the 2002
Female FTSE index: women directors moving forward.
In Women’s Leadership Summit Conference, Institute of
Directors, November.
Singh, V., Schiuma, G. and Vinnicombe, S. (2002) Assessing
diversity management. In 3rd International Conference on
Theory and Practice in Performance Measurement and Man-
agement, Boston, July.
Thomas, R. (1996) Redefining Diversity. Amacom, New York.
Triandis, H. (1995) The importance of context in studies diver-
sity. In Diversity in Work Teams, eds S. Jackson and M.
Ruderman, pp. 225–233. American Psychological Associ-
ation, Washington DC.
VAL SINGH, Cranfield
University School of Man-
agement, Centre for
Developing Women Busi-
ness Leaders, Cranfield,
Bedford MK43 0AL. E-mail:
v.singh@cranfield.ac.uk
Dr Val Singh is Senior
Research Fellow in Organis-
ational Behaviour, at Cran-
field School of Management.
Her current research includes the annual Female FTSE
Index, women leaders, diversity management, men-
toring and role models.
761