Equality Management — Towards a Materialist Approach

202 GENDER, WORK A N D ORGANIZATION

Equality Management - Towards a Materialist Approach

Doug Miller"

Attempts to redefine equality initiatives to fit squarely within the enterprise culture serve only to mask an ongoing conceptual confusion in the area of equality management. This theoretical article attempts to show that this conceptual confusion lies within the narrowness of approaches which address labour market inequalities from both an equality of opportunity and an equality of outcome perspective. The inability of these perspectives to satisfactorily address systemic causes of labour market inequalities pulls our attention towards a more materialist approach which may be found (this side of a capitalWpatriarcha1 society) within an equnZity of condition frame of reference. This widens the perspective from which equality management can be pursued so that measures to address the differential distribution of resources, rewards, opportunities and treatment in the workplace are informed by all three equalities: opportunity, outcome and conditions. Such a theoretical approach is inevitably limited in that it only provides a framework for addressing those who are in paid employment, i.e. seeks to reform the capitalist/patriarchal system. However, by posing questions of the crucial pillars of such systems notably status, reward and with that power, the 'long' and 'radical' agendas of the equality project may once again be picked up.

Introduction

1 W ) s ha\,e seen a resurgence of T 1 n tercst in t-q u a I i t!. ni a riagcmen t amongst sections of the business and political com- munit\,. Ilri\.cn b!, the shock of the sc)-called 'clemo~raphic timebomb' (NEDO/ TA 1989), the need to ,i\.oid legal penalties (Dickens 1')94a), m d a management de\dopnient in- dustr\, keen to make a fashion out of the business c'ist' for 'equal c~pportunities' (Cameron 1993; Dickens 1994b), employers have ac- cepted equality initiatives as a more routin- ired ( i t somewhat currently tired) aspect of human resource management. A further explanation tor this renewed interest may be attributed to a reorientation within government circles which has seen the state support a number ot initiatives geared towards changing the practice of equality management and Lvhich sit within a political frame- bvork of nen. indi\ridual citi;lenship rights (Je\+.son and Mason 1994). Essentially the neiv business case for equal opportunities re- \.eals a preoccupation with standards and t'irgets \vhich are to be found in a number of prominent current initiatives most notably the Equal Opportunities Ten Point Plan for Employers (1993); Opportunity 2,000 (1991); the N e ~ z Horizons for Women Initiative (1993; the Employers' Forum on Disability Agenda (1992); the Business Charter Against

Aids Iliscrimination (1992); the Government Childcare Initiative (1993); and Race for Opportunity (1995).

I n as much a s the business case for equal opportunities can bc described as a new orthodoxy, i t must, however, be described as both partial and contradictory. It remains partial in the sense that the 'business case' is skewed very much towards addressing the more manageable problem of the 'glass ceil- ing' - the absence of women in managerial hierarchies and certain professions (Employ- ment Department 1993) rather than the 'stone floor' - the proliferation of women in low paid, part-time work. It remains contradictory in the sense that the new found preoccupation with the concept of targets (Ten Point Plan) flies in the face of the newly emerging approaches to 'the management of diversit? which place individual need above thc necessity to redress historical disadvantage suf- fered by a group (Copeland 1988; Greenslade 1991; Ross and Schneider 1992; Kandola and Fullerton 1994).

These inconsistencies are borne out by the extent to which orthodox approaches to equality management continue to ignore critical material inequalities relating to labour market ncccss, r m m f and frentnieiit. In part this is because government driven initiatives derive from a free market business case (Jewson and Mason 1994) whereby division

Volume 3 Niinrber J October 1996 h? Blackwell Publisher:. Ltd. 1990, lU8 Cowle! Road, Oxford OX3 IJF, UK and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. USA.

EQUALITY MANAGEMENT 203

based on competition between workers is a cornerstone of capitalist economic relations (Jenkins and Solomos 1989, pp. 217-18; Hyman 1987; Itzin 199513, p. 150). In part, it is because of a current preoccupation with organizational culture as the level at which employers need to address discrimination and disadvantage (Itzin and Newman 1995). In part, it stems from a failure to grasp the centrality of infrastructural issues such as workplace architecture and job design and childcare and the relationship between paid and unpaid work within the broader equality project. Finally, it results from an ongoing confusion about ends and means in equality management which in turn stems from an inadequate conceptualization of the term equality and equal opportunities (Baker 1989; Edwards 1987; Jewson and Mason 1986; Cockburn 1989; see also Wood 1989). This theoretical article thus has two main aims. Firstly, an attempt is made to unravel and map out the very complex and elusive meanings of equality management in the 1990s. The argument is presented that current attempts to redefine equality management using the vocabulary of enterprise culture serve only to further muddy the waters, shift- ing attention away from labour market disadvantage experienced by particular social groups on to the needs of the individual. This apolitical shift in theorizing betrays three ongoing fundamental problems in efforts to conceptualize and deal with labour market inequalities. Firstly, there is the assumption that management will be an unproblematic agent in the delivery of equality in an organization. Secondly, equality management ac- cepts competition between job seekers as the overriding principle so that broader questions relating to political economy and job creation and the systems of reward to which that competition provides access remain largely unaddressed. Thirdly, there is the inability of equal opportunities theory and practice to adequately incorporate and therefore address the sexual division of labour. A second aim of the article is therefore to review these issues for the purpose of establishing new directions in theory and policy. A conclusion of this preliminary review is that a decisive political shift is necessary towards a more explicitly materialist approach to the management of equality.

Managing equality: from here to diversity

One major consequence of the heightened activity in equality management in the late

1980s and 1990s has been a significant widen- ing of the meaning of equal opportunities and with it more complex and confusing mes- sages for employers and practitioners. As a term ‘equal opportunities’ is still the most common descriptor for much of what passes under equality management in organizations today. Yet the term is as problematic as i t is persistent. In most respects it has outlived its usefulness - its somewhat narrow and confusing focus having served only to muddy an already poorly conceptualized field of public policy (Edwards 1987). A more accurate term - ’equality initiative’ has already been coined by Dickens to describe the subject matter. This she defines as any measure in the workplace which seeks to address ‘the di’er- ential distribution of opportunities, resources and rewards (jobs, wages, promotions, eniployinent benefits) among workers based on their member- ship of a socinl group’ (Dickens 1994a, p. 260). For the sake of completeness it is perhaps necessary to add ’and treatment‘ into the definition given the increasing attention devoted in recent years to the issue of organizational culture and more acutely to the problems of workplace harassment. This much cleaner and focused description of the subject matter provides us with a starting point but it does not exonerate us from the more vexed task of elaborating the principles which might underpin the particular approach any organization or political ad- ministration might take here towards rectify- ing the differential distribution of resources and opportunities at work. In short, what types of equality are informing particular initiatives?

Clarifying such principles requires that the relationship between labour market inequality and the particular mode of production be examined. This has a crucial impact on any meanings attached to the notion of ’equality’. Our starting point must be that a capitalist and patriarchal mode of production remains the dominant framework within which workers are allocated to jobs and the higher rewards (where they exist) which go with them. This mode of production dictates that differences, and in some cases very substantial differences, shall prevail between groups of workers in their terms and conditions and that these are further accentuated along quite complex and overlapping lines of gender, ethnicity, age, physical ability, sexual orientation and status. Addressing such differences has necessitated the conceptualization of different types of equality. We may note four: ontological equality, equdity of condition, equality of opportunity, and equality of ou tcoine (Turner 1986, p. 34).

b Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 7996 Volume 3 Number 4 October 2996


Ontological equality Equality of opportunity

1 Equality of condition

prerecruitment training, mentoring, culturally sensitive workplace arrangements (Com- mission for Racial Equality (CRE) 1993; Labour Research Department 1990; Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) 1991) and racial harassment policies (Industrial Relations Review Report (IRRR) IRS Employment Trends 513 and 514). For workers with disabilities pre-recruitment training, addressing building and equipment design and providing guaran- teed interviews are measures which would fit into this category (Barnes 1992).

However, an ongoing major conceptual problem has been the consistent juxtaposition and confusion of positive action with the term positive discrimination (implying quotas) (Edwards 1987 and 1995). In some quarters, ‘positive action’ as a concept and principle has been viewed as ‘a potential barrier for its own achievement’ (Chater and Chater 1992, p. 6), hence the search, by management con- sultants in particular, for more marketable concepts (Miller 1994). In part the confusion has not been helped by mid-way policies of ’strong’ affirmative action (Nickel 1990) and preferential treatment which use such devices as targets, job redesign and a more flexible definition of the merit principle to assist the position of historically disadvantaged groups (Edwards 1995). The underlying principles, strategies, and methods associated with these fundamental types of equality may be mapped out schematically as in Figure 2.

It will be noted that the schema introduces a mid-way point between the ‘liberal’ and ’radical’ approaches. This ’liberal progressive’ orthodoxy in the management of inequality of [iccess in the UK in the early 1990s was moving tow a rd s ’ strong ’ positive a c t ion (Equal Opportunities Ten Point Plan: Point 2; Meager and Williams 1994). Numerical goals which commit the organization to a target have been drawn up under the Opportunity 2000 initiative (c.f. Hammond 1992, pp. 2-10, Eqiinl Opportuuifir~s ReiJiex 1992, No. 41), and of course, the Fair Employment Act (North- ern Ireland) 1989 places an obligation on employers to engage in this type of activity in terms of religious discrimination.

It is still too premature to fully assess the impact of equality initiatives in the first half of the 1990s on the issue of 17ccess. Evidence of employer action and success is both limited (Coussey 1995) and patchy, Whilst employers are engaging in monitoring, target setting is still viewed as too ’radical’ in the sense that there is a risk of confusion between targets and ‘quotas’. In local government, for example, only 9% of authorities reported setting gender targets and 12% race equality targets (Local Government Management Board

Equality of outcome

Vulunre 3 Niimber 4 Octobrr 1996 0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1996

EQUALlTY MANAGEMENT 205

Figure 2: Mapping equality initiatives ~

Strategy perspective

Method Type of equality

‘Liberal’ Fair equal The level playing field opportunity

Positive action Give positive assistance to historically disadvantaged groups

‘Liberal Strong positive Give positive preference progressive’ (affirmative) to certain groups

action

I ‘RadiCal’ Positive Piecemeal proportional discrimination representation

Systematic Proportional equal positive opportunity discrimination

-

(LGMB) 1993). Similarly only 27% of employers surveyed are using targets in respect of Black and Asian workers (EOR 1993, No. 48; 1995, No. 60). The picture is very contradictory. On the one hand, research reveals that organizations with numerical targets for ethnic minorities, for example, report a higher level of success than those without (Welsh, Knox and Brett 1994) Other studies report target setting as the least successful of equality initiatives (Kandola and Fullerton 1994; Heilmann 1992).

In the USA, where there has been a back- lash against such ’affirmative action’ (EOR 1995, No. 63), a new approach to the management of equality has been spawned. This new paradigm, termed - the management of diversity (c.f. Johnston and Packer 1987; Thomas 1990), has been imported into the UK via the subsidiaries of US organizations and in the consultancy literature by such practitioners as Ross and Schneider (1992) and Kandola and Fullerton (1994) and heralded as a significant new departure in equality management (c.f. ‘Agenda 96’ EOR 1996, No. 65). For others it may signal nothing more than a ’retitling to revitalize’ ploy (Liff 1993).

issue policy statement Equality of Equality proof recruitment opportunity and selection procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Monitoring * Encouragement measures

Pre-entry training In service training

* Special courses *Elevate EO within

management Family friendly policies

‘Culturally sensitive Equality of arrangements opportunity Improve access for disabled Render harrassment a

* Establish targets * Downgrade qualifications * Elevate non-merit factors Equality of * Reclassify jobs outcome? *Remove LIFO in

disciplinary offence

redundancy selection

* Preferential selection on an individual basis Equality of

outcome Quotas

Since it is regarded as an alternative approach and a key element of the new business case for equal opportunities it is important to establish what is precisely meant by the term, examine the ways in which it purports to break new and alternative ground, and locate it within our conceptual map. Certainly the subordination of group interests to those of the individual and the organization suggests that in terms of political perspective we are witnessing the reaffirmation of a ‘neo-liberal’ perspective in which the inaxiinization of individual potential is the overriding principle. For students of trends in perspectives of industrial relations this should come as no surprise. Within this model the underlying strategy is to use diversify to add value to the organization and a range of measures are pursued which essentially address orguniza- tional culture: vision statements incorporating equality as a core business objective (1); organizational audits; systems of communication, accountability, coordination; and evaluation (Kandola and Fullerton 1994). (See Figure 3.)

Within this generic definition, it is possible to identify a range of different approaches.

0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1996 Volume 3 Number 4 October 2996


Political Principle Strategy perspective


Neo-liberal Maximize Use diversity *Vision statement individual to add value ‘Organization audit potential * Business-related objectives Equality =

‘Communication and Profitability

*Coordination *Evaluation ’Change culture

accountability

Firstly, i n its most radical form it implies a new holistic and positive approach which challenges the nature of organizations as they are currently constructed around the expectations and lifestyles of the white male (Dickens 19Y4b, p. 9). Training strategies based on this principle ha\.t. on the one hand confronted managers with an emphasis on difference rJther than sameness in an attempt to expose prejudice before moving on to celebrate differcnce (hlandell and Kohler-Gray 1990). More orthodox Irersions of this approach place emphasis on the concept of a ’learning orpni7ation’ which clra~vs on and develops thc capacity o f e \wy employee to improve organizational competitiveness in the prod- uct/ser\,ice and/or labour market. There is some e\.idence to suggest that this approach has gninecl hold in the ’high tech’ sector (Causer and Jones 1992) and in middle management in banking (Cressey and Scott 1992; Crompton dnd Sanderson 1990, pp. 289-90). This approach has also informed the content of the Ci\,il Service equal opportunities a LV a re n css t r a i n i ng p rogr a m me (C ab i ne t Office 1992) and policies at the BBC (Girnrdinn 25 February 1995). The argument is thus ad\,anctd that the diversity approach is a key part of the process of bringing markets into being: ‘An organization with a diverse work- torce can be better equipped to access wider potential markets for products and services because of a close affinity with and greater recognition of the needs and expectations of an increasingly diverse society’ (Ward 1993, p. 13). Paradoxically, the recruitment of a workforce based on such diversity principles will in operational terms challenge the notion ot merit as ;1 principle of selection (Edwards 1990a).

1 iowever, by far the most significant vari- ant of the di\rersity model is the movement a ~ v n y from the focus on group disadvantage towards the individual and with that the abandonment of the concept of positive or

affirmative action. To quote Ross and Schneider:

the real issue in equal opportunities is not whether any particular group achieves parity but whether this country can compete internationally. As the 90s unfold and work becomes increasingly knowledge based requiring higher levels of skill it is essential that we allow each individual to realise his or her full potential (1992, p. 15).

The theoretical parallels in the juxtaposition of ’managing diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities’ and personnel management and human resource management (c.f. Storey 1992) are quite striking as Figure 4 reveals.

Managing diversity can arguably be classed as the HRM approach to equality initiatives in the workplace. Firstly, the de-emphasizing, i f not abandonment, of the concept of targets and positive action demonstrates the shift in focus from collective to individual in equality management. Similarly, the perceived un- workability of targets (Kandola and Fullerton 1994, pp. 13149) is a conclusion based on a survey conducted during the current recession, whereby employers have been content to manage their Psistiizg diversity rather than e x p i z d i t (Donaldson 1993). It would be simplistic to expect positive action based on targets to be anything less than operationally problematic. This is particularly the case in relation to race where at times it may be falsely assumed that employment patterns are prim- arily the result of directly or indirectly discriminatory practices on the part of employers when such labour market inequalities are the result of a multiplicity of factors of which discrimination is but one (Edwards 1995, p. 226). Notwithstanding this point, finely tuned targets may be a workable form of ’tailored preference’. Secondly, and related to the first point, diversity reveals a very introspective focus preferring to emphasize the movement of people within rather than into an

0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1YY6

EQUALITY MANAGEMENT 207

Figure 4: Managing diversity nnd equal opportunities

Managing diversity Equal opportunities

ensures all employees maximize their potential and their contribution to the organization

embraces a broad range of people; no one is excluded

concentrates on discrimination

is perceived as an issue for women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities

concentrates on movement within an organization, the culture of the organization and the meeting of business objectives

concentrates on the numbers of groups employed

is the concern of all employees, especially managers

is seen as an issue to do with personnel and human resource practitioners

does not rely on positive action/affirmative action

relies on positive action

Source Kandola and Fullerton 1994.

Organization. Thirdly, the management of diversity concerns itself with a particular section of the workforce which is likely to have access to training (Rees 1992). This ought to come as no surprise given existing biascs within human resource management paradigms which place the needs of the organization before those of the disadvantaged group. As Dickens argues, these needs may coincide but this matching is not guar- anteed (Dickens 1994b, p. 14) - for instance certain women’s initiatives may be targeted at high flyers rather than being made avail- able to all women in the organization. This not only forms the central critique of Oppor- tunity 2000, it is also revealed in strategies resorted to by a number of private sector firms during the recession which seem to be content to ‘manage their existing diversity’ rather than broaden it, by refocusing their equal opportunities policies towards employee development to the benefit of managerial grades rather than other groups of workers (Donaldson 1993, pp. 11-16; Bruegel and Perrons 1995, pp. 117-18). Fourthly, the management of diversity is preoccupied with the question of organizational culture. At one level this is to be welcomed for there is already a substantial consensus on this point (Cameron 1993; Dickens 1994b; Liff and Dale 1994; Vogler 1994; Cheung-Judge and Henley 1994; Itzin and Newman 1995). Organ- izational culture is, however, an abstraction (Schein 1984; Meek 1988) and therefore a most difficult variable to manage. Whilst it is within the capacity of an organization (subject to cost and prioritization factors) to achieve substantial tangible changes to those

’artefacts and creations’ (c.f. Schein 1984) as architecture, technology, dress code, office lay- out and public documents which may sustain an adverse organizational culture, addressing workplace values and more fundamental assumptions about human beings is much more problematic as most equality activists have discovered (Itzin 1995, p. 268). Further- more, i t is easier to appear to address organizational culture, which may indeed have some positive outcomes vis ri i~is the treatment of workers in an Organization rather than tackle the ‘harder‘ issues of nccess and rcziinrd and ultimately power within organizations.

It would be erroneous to separate the various diversity models off entirely from more conventional approaches towards equality management since they still borrow quite heavily from some of the more main- stream equality management techniques. Indeed Thomas in his seminal article con- cludes with a reminder that it is not possible to manage diversity until you actually have it! (Thomas 1990) We are, however still some way off from a concept of equality which can incorporate difference and diversity both in its individualized and collective sense (New- man and Williams 1995, p. 122; For a discussion c.f. Liff and Wacjman 1996). Most certainly the ’management of diversity’ approach based on the maximization of individual potential and posited ns nil nlternntizw to equal opportunities threatens to sever the link between organizational strategies and the realities of internal and external labour market disadvantage and therefore cannot serve as such a concept since it is a model which can only reflect the status quo rather



than present us with a framework for changing it . In this respect it falls out with any typology of equalities.

Towards a materialist approach

Where then does this leave us in terms of theory and policy? In order to make some headway here it is necessary to examine a number of assumptions which underpin both equalities of opportunity and outcome. Firstly, i t is taken as axiomatic that the principle of competition in the labour market shall remain paramount (Baker 1987, p. 29; Edwards 1990a; c.f. CRE 1993, p. 5). Secondly, policies and perspectives deriving from the principles of equality of opportunity and outcome have very little to say about the definition of work itself and as such are incapable of embracing the world of unpaid work and in particular domestic labour (Tancred 1995; Glucksmann 1995). Thirdly, management is viewed unproblematically as the key agent acting in a voluntary capacity in the delivery of equality in an organization.

Regulating the competition for advantage It has been argued that rqirality of opportiinity is in effect the means by which workers can compete on the basis of their abilities, talents and effort for positions in the reward system - and remain unequal. However, as Ed- wards has argued, equality of opportunity and competition for jobs and different rewards remain analytically distinct (1990b, p. 22). Thus competition operates on the basis of the ’merit’ principle and notions of merit which are set quite ‘independently of any value we might attach to the talents we pos- sess and which we want equality of opportunity to exploit’ (Edwards 1995, p. 201). Furthermore the pattern of reward is quite independent of the opportunities each individual or group may have to achieve them. Thus achieving a full measure of fair equality in opportunity in internal or external labour markets may still leave us some way off the achievement of any sense of moral justice in relation to the systems of reward within those markets. To quote Jenkins and Solomos:

More generally it must be recognized that the capitalist labour market is a funda- mentally discriminatory . . . social arena; some job seekers are chosen, some are not. Routine recruitment and selection are all about discriminating between competitive candidates on the basis of a variety of criteria; some of these criteria are formally

bureaucratically rational, many more are not. Inequality is an intrinsic part of the system whereby individuals are recruited to jobs. This general inequality based upon class stratification and the wage relationship, is the constraining context of the pursuit of equal opportunity for disadvantaged groups within the population. Without social change on a currently unthinkable scale this situation is to say the least, un- likely to improve (1989, pp. 217-18).

Consequently inequalities in our reward system continue to run rife and deep. Even where attempts are made to address pay discrimination by such methods as job evaluation, the inherent relativity of the concept of value renders such efforts liable to employer manipulation (McColgan 1994). It is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of these fault lines. Income inequality has increased markedly since 1970 and now stands at its highest level in the post-war period (Joseph Rowntree Trust 1995) and the rate at which this is increasing is faster than any indus- trialized country with the exception of New Zealand. The UK is one of the few remain- ing countries in Europe with no minimum wage protection. The gap between richest and poorest has increased since 1966 but most markedly since 1982 for male workers (Gosling, Machin and Meghir 1994). In the mid-l990s, while the salaries of the top 50 directors represent 62 times that of their employees’ average salaries (Trades Union Congress 1995a; Conyon 1995) some 9.97 million workers (some 47.8% of the workforce) were estimated to be in receipt of gross weekly earnings below the Council of Europe’s decency threshold (set at €5.88 per hour) (Low Pay Unit 1995, p. 8). Low pay is now the single most important cause of poverty in the UK. Within this, of course, women are disproportionately hit: 71% of all workers earning less than €4.50 are female (TUC 1995a; p. 1). Moreover the UK has the largest gender gap between mens’ and womens’ earnings in Europe (European Com- mission 1994). Pay differences exist also in relation to race and disability. Labour Force Survey data reveal that black workers on average are paid almost 10% less than white workers (LFS Autumn 1994, see Department of Employment 1995), while an OPCS survey in 1989 found that the average income of people with a disability under retirement age is 72% of the general average (OPCS 1989). Further differences exist for those on the margins. Part-time workers shoulder the burden of low pay with 22% of part-time workers earning less than €3 an hour compared with

Voliirnc 3 Niimber 4 October 2996 0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1996

EQUALlTY MANAGEMENT 209

just 6.04% of full-time workers (TUC 1995b, p. 28). Their position is exacerbated further by the absence of pro rata pay vis-u-vis full timers (Equal Opportunities Review 1996, No.66; Horrell and Rubery 1992; Figes 1994). In the case of homeworkers, again predominantly female, and numbering over 1 million, average pay is calculated to be €46 a week for a 36 hour week. (Huws 1994; c.f. also Felstead, Jewson and Goodwin 1996). Pay discrimination continues to prevail for young workers in this country. Notwithstanding the exploita- tion of young people on Youth Training rates, the average pay of 18-20 year olds as a per- centage of the pay of workers over the age of 21 has fallen steadily in all categories of labour (male and female manual and male and female non-manual (NB the fall has been most dramatic in the female non-manual category) (Hughes 1995, p. 75; Labour Research Department 1995).

Whilst it can be argued that the treizds in pay inequality can be attributed to specific government policies of labour market de- regulation (Employment Department 1992; Dickens 1992a) in which employers have acted as the conduit, the underlying patterns are much more systemic and require therefore more fundamental change. Whereas trade unions and the process of collective bargaining may have been viewed as a key vehicle to tackle competition in the wage system between social groups, more recently it has been litigation or the threat of litigation on equal value which has prompted some re- vision of payment structures on the part of employers. Yet the existing legislative framework to address gender pay inequality is complex and time consuming and hitherto has led to quite modest comparisons between male and female jobs (Figes 1994, pp. 175-92). The concept of equal value has enormous implications for existing organizational hierarchies and we await an appropriate test case. In the meantime there is a need to make employers render their payment structures more transparent by forcing them via legislative changes to account for the gender distribution of their workers across grading systems once education, seniority and skills have been taken into account (McColgan 1994). Clearly of im- mediate priority is a national minimum wage and the legislative improvement of part-time and temporary workers’ rights to enable them to enjoy full-time related employment protection and related benefits (see Coyle 1995).

The sexual division of labour We have argued above that equality of opportunity and outcome regulate the competition

for access to work but do not seek to address the inequalities in the way we reward work. Similarly such policies and perspectives treat as entirely unproblematic the definition of work so that equality management relates predominantly to the productive waged sphere of labour (see Tancred 1995). Where efforts are made to address reproductive labour in the form of childcare and family friendly policies or more flexible forms of working, such measures remain employer- centred (Dickens 1992a) and heavily skewed (in terms of responsibility) towards women (Corti et al. 1994; Brannen et al. 1994) thus replicating the existing sexual division of labour within the paid work sphere and therefore rendering gender equality a myth (Newel1 1992). Moreover for women in employment there are processes of differentia- tion and polarization occurring between those who have been integrated into the labour market and those who remain, particularly as working parents, on the margins in ‘atypical‘ work (Humphreys and Rubery 1992).

In part the existing division of labour is reinforced by inequalities in reward between the sexes which forces the partner with the lower earnings potential to give up paid work to care for the children. In part it is exacerbated by involuntary excessive hours worked by men across all occupational grades (New Earnings Survey, CSO 1994; Labour Force Survey 1994, see Department of Employ- ment 1995) brought about either by inadequate basic earnings levels or overexpectant employers (TUC 1995c; pp. 8-9). In part it is sustained by heavy socialization which is re- produced within organizational cultures (see below). Clearly, a multi-faceted approach is necessary which develops policy on the basis of a reconceptualization of labour which en- compasses both the productive and reproductive spheres of work (see Glucksmann 1990, 1995), addresses the issue of working time (Hughes 1992; Dickens 1992a, pp. 59-61; Rocard 1995) whilst at the same time recogniz- ing the variety of people’s needs and circum- stances; and which broadens the base of family friendly policies (Dickens 1992a, pp. 58-9).

The tinqtiesfioized role of nianagemeizf It must be acknowledged that management’s role vis h vis an equality agenda is at the very least an ambivalent one. As in any aspect of organizational life, leadership, role modelling and coordination are key requirements for equality management. However, too often management is regarded as being an unproblematic agent in this functional area (Collin- son et al. 1990, p. 11). A more critical treatment



of management would of necessity point to two key factors. Firstly, there is the way in which the nature of management reflects the character of the society in which managers find themsel\,es (and the significance of the economic position and political outlook of managers for the structure of social relations in society a s a whole) (Cressey et d. 1991). Secondly, there is the extent to which management and the organization is itself gendered (Morgan and Knights 1991; Hearn 1992; Collinson and Hearn 1993; Harlow, Hearn and Parkin 1995). In this respect Cockburn has posited a general rule: ‘In a male- dominated society, wherever there is an organization that is not feminist, that is not consciously deconstructive of normal power relations, i t is tendentially organizing male power’ (Cockburn 1993).

Male power within organizations involves such overlapping value systems as author- itarianism, paternalism, entrepreneurialism, informalism, and careerism (Collinson 1991; Collinson and Hearn 1994, pp. 13-15; Evetts 1993) all of which are inextricably bound up in the fabric of latterday capitalism. In as much as management represents the pinnacle of the organizational hierarchy, it inevitably is part of an occupational order which ’comes increasingly to be the primary source of sym- bolic as well as material advantage’ (Parkin 1972, p. 309). This has an important effect in the equal opportunities debate since it sucks in most of practitioners’ attention precisely towards the nexus of prestige, reward and power, arguably at the expense of wider questions o f equality. Furthermore, managerial bchaviour within competitive market relations can thus never only be about deal- ing with the problems that confront the firm, but about managers addressing them in a way which enhances rather than lessens their own cdreer prospects compared with those around them (Cressev ct nl. 1991, p. 62). This has been catalogued. bv Jenkins with reference to equal opportunities policies (Jenkins and Solomos 1989, pp. 112-15) who argues that the development of policy often stems much more from opportunistic or pragmatic considerations rather than the notion of altruism (see also Rennie 1993). Significantly, the Second Annual Report of Opportunity 2000 stresses ‘never forget the business case for equal opportunities - it is vital for Mrinning line managers over to the argument’ (Opportunity 2000, 1993, p. 5). Moreover the introduction of performance appraisal for managers in the attainment of equality targets (Iles and Auluck 1989; Cabinet Office 1992) raises questions about the long-term viability of such an approach. Thus i t is difficult to

escape the conclusion that some quite fundamental changes to the structures, practices and systems which underpin capitalist patriarchal power relations are going to be necessary (Webb and Liff 1988; Cockburn 1989; Evetts 1993; Newel1 1992; Buswell and Jenkins 1993). What might such policies look like?

Firstly, there would need to be a set of measures to curb the excesses of boardroom pay. Significantly ‘headhunting’ seems to be one practice which has escaped the attentions of both the CRE and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). Beyond this, the whole competitive nexus of status would need to be challenged by policies which systematic- ally address the issue of harmonization between manual and non-manual employee terms and conditions (Price and Price 1994). Finally the process of equality management, and it is a process, needs to be democratized if it is to be feasible (Cockburn 1991). Else- where this has been termed equality bargairzirig (Colling and Dickens 1989) but the conditions need to be recreated (and in some cases newly created) for trade unions to be able to take on this role (Industrial Relations Services 1992).

Questioning the assumptions upon which rqru?lity of opportunity avid ozrtrome have oper- ated seem to point us much more in the direc- tion of the somewhat neglected principle of q i m l l i f y tlfcoriditiorz. We may consider this perspective using our categories which we ap- plied to existing operational types of equality. A tentative schema is set out in Figure 5.

In terms of a political perspective the nature of the proposals mooted here would clearly attract the label ‘radical’ since the principle of equality of condition, whereby greater parity prevails in terms and conditions between workers, flies in the face of competitive labour market relations. As a strategy it would require a systematic challenge to existing notions of merit and value and with that a re-ordering of pay hierarchies in organizations and in the wider economy a t large. In terms of policy there would be four key strands: reform of payment structures (incorporating a national minimum wage); equalization of working hours; harmonization of terms and conditions across different divides; and controls on directors’ remuneration.

Equality of condition is not an alternative to equality of opportunity or outcome but must be seen as a critical and complementary third element within equality management. Equality of condition has its roots much more within a materialist approach to the question of inequality and as such could serve as a banner for a number of contemporary campaign issues. As it relates to the reward

Voliinie 3 Nrrniber 4 October 1996 0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1W6

EQUALITY MANAGEMENT 21 1

Figure 5: Eqirnlity of condition

Political Principle Strategy perspective


‘Radical’ parity in terms challenge existing ‘transparent payment equality of and conditions notion of merit structure condition between hitherto and value ‘minimum wage

challenge pay divided social groups hierarchies working hours

* restrict and equalize

harmonization: manuall non-manual; part-time/ full-time; young worker/ adult

‘curb directors’ pay

system, an equality of condition approach would appear to be crucial if we are to provide for a system of true choice for working parents. Equality of condition as it relates to working time is crucial if there is to be a redistribution of work for everybody. Equality of condition as it relates to value is of major import in challenging the existing pay hierarchies at both a macro and micro level. However, because an equality of condition approach challenges the core ideology of competition then it can only be feasible on the basis of an abandonment of the voluntar- ist tradition in both industrial relations and equality management which employers and government in the current climate would be ill disposed to accommodate. Such a perspective calls for a more interventionist and collectivist approach in policy. There can be little doubt that this would lead to organizational trauma but if organizational cultures are to be unfrozen then managers and men will have to learn to deal with the resultant pain (Simmons 1989, 1993). In the light of the current extent of material inequalities in the UK labour market and the accelerated changes which sections of the working population have had to endure in the recent past this ought to be small beer indeed.

Conclusion

Attempts to redefine equal opportunities so that it fits squarely within the vocabulary of an enterprise culture serve only to mask an ongoing conceptual confusion in the area of equality management. This article has at- tempted to demonstrate that this conceptual confusion lies within the narrowness of approaches which address labour market inequality from both an equality of opportunity and an equality of outcome perspective.

Because neither of these perspectives independently or collectively address fundamental systemic issues, our search for analytical frameworks which might inform more fruitful policy initiatives must inevitably be pulled towards a more materialist approach which may be found (this side of a capitalist/patriarchal society) within an equality of condition frame of reference. This widens the perspective from which equality management can be pursued so that measures to address the differential distribution of resources, rewards, opportunities and treatment in the workplace are informed by all three equalities: opportunity, outcome and conditions. In one key respect we must acknow- ledge that an equality of conditions approach essentially only provides a framework for addressing those who are in paid employment, i.e. it seeks to reform the capitalist/ patriarchal system. But by posing questions of crucial pillars of such systems it offers us windows on to a range of issues notably status, reward and with that power, out of which the ‘long’ and ‘radical‘ agendas can once again be picked up.

References

Baker, J. (1987) Arp i i i y for E91mlity. London: Verso. Barnes, C. (1992) Disability and employment.

Personnel Reuiezu, 21,6. Brannen, J., Meszaros, G., Moss, P. and Poland, G.

(1994) Eirrpioynrenf orid Fnrriiiy Lqe. A Revieiu of Research in the UK 1980-2994. Employment Department Research Series No. 31.

Bruegel, I. and Perrons, D. (1995) Where do the costs of unequal treatment of women fall? An analysis of the incidence of the costs of unequal pay and sex discrimination in the UK. Gender, Work m i d Orpiiizntiow, 2,3.

Buswell, C. and Jenkins, S. (1993) Equal opportunities policies, employment and patriarchy. Gender, Work mid Orgonizntion, 1,2, 83-93.



Cabinet Office. (1992) Monngirig DizJersity; A Trnining Morii~nl. London: HMSO.

Cabinet Office. (1993) € q i d Opportir~iities f o r Wonlo1 in the Ciziil SerzW: A Reuie70 of Progress 1992-3. London: HMSO.

Cameron, I. (1993) Formulating an equal opportunities policy. Eqirnl Opportiinitics Reviezv, Jan./ Feb. No. 47.

Causer, G. and Jones, C. (1992) Responding to skill shortages: recruitment and retention in a high technology labour market. Hionnti Resource !Llnr~ayerr~cr~t loirrtinl, 7,2 (Autumn).

Central Statistical Office. (1995) Ne7c~ Enrnitigs Sirrile!/ 1995, Part F.

Chater, R.E.J. and Chater, C.V. (1992) Positive action: towards a strategic approach. Wornen in

Cheung-Judge, M. and Henley, A. (1994) E q i d @p[~orttrt?it ies in thr Volirritnry Sector. London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

Cockburn, C. (1989) Equal opportunities: the short and long agenda. Indirsfrinl Krlntions ]oirrrid, 20,3, 213-25.

Cockburn, C. (1951) I I I the Wfly [ f Wonren. Basing- stoke: Macmillan.

Cockburn, C. (1993) Men’s Stake in Organisations. In 1. Wacjman (ed.), O r , ~ m t I s n t i ~ ~ n ~ , Gender nnd Porocr. Pnpcrs f rom mi IRRU Workshop. University of Warwick School of Industrial and Business Studies. Industrial Relations Research Unit (IRRU).

Colling, C. and Dickens, L. (1989) Eqirality B~7rpiii- i~ig -- WhI/ Not? London: HMSO.

Collinson, D., Knights, D. and Collinson, M. (1990) Mtrringing to Discrirninntt*. London: Routledge.

Collinscm, D. (1991) Poachers turned gamekeepers: Are personnel managers one oi the barriers to equal opportunities. Hirntnri Rw)irt’ce Maringtl- nrrrrf ]tufrnd, 1,3 (Spring).

Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (1994) Naming Men as men: Implications for Work Organization and Management . Gel i h , Work o t t d Orpri i x t ion, 1 , I , 2-22.

Commission for Racial Equality. (1989) Are €tnplcyt~s Cornjilyirig ? London: CRE.

Commission for Racial Equality. (1993) Positiiv

Mni ln~ge~t t l t ,~ i t Rt’Vic’70, 7,4.

A C t 1 0 I I 17 I Id € 1 1 I I a/ @ p p ~ J t‘ f I f t I i t /Ct; I I I t I i Ip/O!/ I t I t‘I I t , London: CRE.

Convnn, M. (1995) Directors pay i n the privatised utilities. British laiirnal qf Indirstrinl Rdntions

Copeland, L. (1988) Valuing diversity, part 1. Making the most of cultural differences at the workplace. Persotitiel (June).

Copeland, L. (1988) Valuing di\,ersity, part 2. Pioneers and champions of change. Ptwonriel (July ).

Curti, L., Laurie, H. and Dex, S. (7994) Ctrring nnd Enrjdoynitwf. Department of Employment Re- search Series No. 39.

Coussey, M. (1995) How employers used the ’Equal Opportunities Ten Point Plan’. h i p l o y - rnerit Gmette, Employment Department (August).

Covle, A . (1995) Learning from experience: the equal opportunities challenge for the 1990s. Seurn Million Project Working Paper No. 5 . London: Seven Million Project.

(June).

Cressey, P., Eldridge, J. and MacInnes, J. (1991) /ndirstrin/ Sociology nnd Economic Crisis. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Cressey, P. and Scott, P. (1992) Employment, technology and industrial relations in UK clearing banks. New technology, Work arid Employment, 7’2 (Autumn).

Crompton, R. and Sanderson, K. (1990) Geridered Jobs ond Socinl Clinnge. London: Unwin Hyman.

Dickens, L. (1992a) Whoseflexibi/it!y? Discrinrinntiori and EqiinIify Issires in Atypical Work. London: Institute of Employment Rights.

Dickens, L. (1992b) Anti-discrimination legislation: exploring and explaining the impact on Women’s Employment. In W.E.J. McCarthy, LegnI lntrrz~ention in lndiistrinl Relntioiis: Gains nrrd Losses. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dickens, L. (1994a) Wasted resources? Equal opportunities in employment. In K. Sisson (ed.), Persotinel Maring~rneri t . Oxford: Blackwell.

Dickens, L. (1994b) The business case for women’s equality; is the carrot better than the stick? Eniplo!yee Relntions, 16,8.

Donaldson, L. (1993) The recession: a barrier to equal opportunities? E q d Opportirnities Reziiezu, SO (July/August).

Edwards, J. (1987) Positive Discriniinntion, Socid Iirsticr, Socinl Policy: Mord Scrutiny of n Policy Prnctice. London: Tavistock.

Edwards, J . (1990a) Affirmative action culture and US equal opportunity practice. Eqirnl Opportir- nities R t ~ ~ i t w , 34 (Nov./Dec.).

Edwards, J. (1990b) What purpose does equality of opportunity serve? In New Coinmitriity 17J, (Oct.).

Edwards, J . (1995) When Rncr Counts. London: Routledge.

Employment Department. (1992) People, Jobs mid Opf~ortirnity. Cmnd 1810. London: HMSO.

Employment Department. (19934 Rising to the Chnllenge. London: HMSO.

Employment Department. (1993b) € p n l Opportif- nities 7i.n Point / ’ /nn fir Enip/oyers. London: HMSO.

Employment Department. (1995) Resirlts of Labour Force Siiruey 1994. London: DE.

Eqrinl Opportunities Rwiciu. (1991) Equality Awareness Training. No. 37 (Sept./Oct.).

Eqifnl Opportiijiities Reviercl. (1992) Opportunity 2,000. No. 41 (Jan./Feb.).

Eqiinl Opportirnities Reuiew. (1993) Action for Race Equality. No. 48 (March/April).

Eq11n1 Opportiinities Reui~7o. (1995) Race Policy not being translated into action. No. 60 (March/ April).

Eqirnl Opportnnities Rmitw,. (1995) Affirmative Action under attack. No. 63 (Sept./Oct.).

Eqirnl Opportunities Rez~iew. (1995) Gender Pay Gap Unchanged. No. 64 (Nov./Dec.).

E q i m l Opportirnities Reuiezu. (1996) Agenda 1996. No. 65 (Jan./Feb.).

€ q i d Opport irnities Reziiczo. (1996) Women Part Timer’s Earnings. No. 66 (March/April).

European Commission. (1994) Wage determina- tion and sex segregation in employment in the European Community. Social Eirrope Supple- riierit 4.

Voliime 3 Number 4 October 1996 0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1996

E@UA LlTY M A N A G E M E N T 213

Evetts, J. (1993) Women and Management in Engineering. Woinen in Mamgement Review 8,7,

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Goodwin, J. (1996) Homeworkers in Britain. Research Study RSIP, Department of Trade and Industry/Depart- ment for Education and Employment.

Feuchtwang, S. (1990) In X. Alrick (ed.), Anti-Racist Strntegies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Figes, K. (1994) Bemuse of her Sex. The My th of Eqrrnlity for Women in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Glucksmann, M. (1990) Women Assemble: Women Workers nnd the New lndiistries in Inter-zuar Britnin. London: Routledge.

Glucksmann, M. (1995) Why ‘Work’? Gender and the Total Social Organization of Labour. Gender Work nnd Orgnnizntion 2,2 (April).

Gosling, A., Machin, S. and Meghir, C. (1994) What has happened to Men’s Wages since the mid- 1960s? Fiscnl Studies, 15,4,63-87.

Greenslade, M. (1991) Managing Diversity: lessons from the United States. Personnel Manngement. (Dec.).

Hammond, V. (1992) Opportunity 2000. A culture change approach to equal opportunities. Women in Mnnngemer~ t Review, 7,7.

Harlow, E., Hearn, J. and Parkin, W. (1995) Gendered noise, organizations and the silence and the din of domination. In Itzin and Newman (below).

Harrop, A. and Moss, P. (1994) Working parents: trends in the 1980s. Employment Gazette. London: Department of Employment. (Oct.).

Hearn, J. (1992) Changing men and changing managements: a review of issues and action. Wonreri mid Manngewrent Review, 7,l.

Heilmann, M.E. (1992) Affirmative action: some unintended consequences for working women. Resenrch in Orgnnisntionn/ Behaviour 16, 125-69.

Horrell, S. and Rubery, J. (1992) Employees Working Time: Policies nnd Wonrens’ Employment. Man- Chester: Equal Opportunities Commission.

Hughes, J. (1992) Shorter Working Time? Europenn Lnbour Forum. Nottingham: Spokesman.

Hughes, J. (1995) Realities of a minimum wage. In TUC 1995b (below).

Humphreys, J. and Rubery J. (1992) The legacy for women’s employment. In J. Michie (ed.) The Econoinic Legncy. London: Academic Press.

Huws, U. (1994) Honretrutks: Key Results from n Nationnl Survey of Homeworkers. Leeds: National Group on Homeworking.

Hyman, R. (1987) Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control. Work, EnJplOyWJent rind Society, 1,l (March).

Iles, P. and Auluck, R. (1989) From racism awareness training to strategic human resource management in implementing equal opportunity. Personnel Review, 18,4.

Industrial Relations Services. (1992) Pny nnd Gender in Britnin. Second Research Report, pp. 30-38. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.

Industrial Relations Services. (1994) Sexual harassment at work. lndustrinl Relations Review nnd Report Nos. 513,514,515.

19-25.

Itzin, C. (1995a) Gender, Culture Power and Change. In Itzin and Newman (below).

Itzin, C. (1995b) Crafting strategy to create women friendly work. In Itzin and Newman (below).

Itzin, C. and Newman, J. (1995) Gender, Culture and Organisationnl Change. London: Routledge.

Jenkins, R. and Solomos, J. (1989) Racism and Equal Opportunity Policies in the 1980s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986) The theory and practice of equal opportunities policies: liberal and radical approaches. Sociological Review, 34,2.

Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1993) Equal Employ- ment Opportunities in the 1990s: A Policy Principle come of Age? Leicester University Discussion Papers in Sociology. (Jan.).

Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1994) Race, employment and equal opportunities: towards a political economy and an agenda for the 1990s. Sociologicnl Review, 42,4, 591-617.

Johnston, W.B. and Packer, A.H. (1987) Workforce 2000 Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis: The Hudson Institute.

Kandola, R. (1991) Equal opportunities can damage your health. € O R , No. 38.

Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. (1994) Mannging the Mosnic. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

Labour Research Department. (1990) Equality bargaining. Bnrgnining Report. (Dec.). Labour Research Department.

Labour Research Department (1994) Equal opportunities in practice. Bargnining Report 136. Labour Research Department.

Labour Research Department. (1995) Young workers. Bnrgnining Report No. 146. Labour Research Department.

Legge, K. (1994) Managing culture fact or fiction? In K. Sisson (ed.), Personnel Mnnngement. A Com- prehensive Guide to Theory mid Prnctice in Britnin. Oxford: Blackwell.

Liff, S. (1993) From equality to diversity. In J. Wacjman, Gender, Power nnd Orgnnisntions. Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, Warwick: IRRU.

Liff, S. and Dale, K. (1994) Formal opportunity, informal barriers: black women managers within a local authority. Work, E?np/oyn~erit nr~d Society, 8,2.

Liff, S. and Wacjman, J. (1996) Sameness and difference revisited: which way forward for equal opportunities initiatives? jorirnnl of Mnnngement Studies, 33,l.

Local Government Management Board. (1993) Equnl Opportunities in Locnl Government: Eqiinl Opportunities Survey of Locnl Authorities covering Policies, Mensures ond Monitoring. London: LGMB.

Low Pay Unit/National Union of Civil and Public Servants. (1995) Townrds Prosperity: n Report on Poverty, Lozu Pny nnd the M i n i m u m Wnge. London: NUCPS/LPU.

Mandell, B. and Kohler-Gray, S. (1990) Man- agement development that values diversity. Personnel. (March).

McColgan, A. (1994) Pny Equity - Just Wnges for Women. London: Institute of Employment Rights.



Meager, N. and Williams, M. (1994) The Cnsr for il’ntroiinl ’Eqi inl i ty i n Ernploynient X7rgck’. Brighton: Institute of Manpower Studies.

\leek, V.L. (1988) Organisational culture: origins a n d weaknesses. Orgnnisntioiinl Stirdies 9,44, 53-73.

Miller, D. (1994) The management of diversity. A big idea whose time has come? Some re- flections on human resource management and eq 11 I o p por t u n i t i es , D iscir ss ioi I Pn p c r s I n W o r k iind E in~~ lc~ , t / n i en t No. I . Newcastle: Divi- sion of Employment Studies, University of Northumbria.

Morgan, C;. and Knights, D. (1991) Gendering jobs: corporate strategies, managerial control and dynamics of job segregation. Work € n i p l o y ~ ~ i r ~ i f i i i i t l Soc.icty, 5,2.

Sational Economic De\dopment Office/Training Agt~~c!. (1989) D(;firsirrg tht. Dcrwgrnplric ’Z-Iinc Bouil i I .ondon: NEDO.

Scn.rll, 5. (1992‘) The myth and destructi\,eness of c y a l opportunities: the continued domin- ance of thc mothering role. Pt~rmir icd /ici+icl

( ALI tumn) . Ki>wmian, J . and Williams, F. (1995) Diversity and

zhange, gmder, Lvelfare and organisa tional relations. In Itzin and Newman (above)

Nickel, \.Mi. ( I Y Y O ) Strong atfirmati\.e action. N c i ~ ~ CcJf I I I I / I I / I if!/ 1 7,1.

OI’Cs. ( I Y H Y ) [>1;f l lJ /?d AdiI/t .;: st’l.i’iCP5, Trnflyc>f-f i i r i t l I ~ r i ~ ~ l ~ i i i r i r ~ ~ i i t . London: HMSO.

Opportiinit!. 2000. (1993) ?tit! r \ r l i i i rn / R q ~ o r t . London: 13usiness in the Community.

Op por t 11 11 i t y 2000. ( 1 994) 3 rif A I i ri I rnl R y r . / l.onclc~n: B~i.;iness in the Community.

Parkin, 1: (1Y72) C / o s / i i i > q i r o / i t y rIriii Pol i t iml Ordrr. St. A I ban 5 : I’a I a d i n ,

I’rice, I . . ,ind I’riw, R. (1994) Change and contin- uit! in the status di\.ide. I n K. Sisson, / ’morrr id A . l i i i i i r , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i i t . Oxford: Blackwell.

I.ondon: Rc~utledge. r<t>t‘>, .r (1‘)92) ~ ~ c J i l l t ’ i I i l l t/lc’ , ! ~ 7 ~ J ~ l i f ~ h/liiVkc’f.

liennic, S (lYY3) Equal opportunities as a n ethical

Rocmi. M. ( I W ) LVorking all hours? Eirrtl;~t~ii h d ~ o 1 I r

For . i i i r r Nottinghani: Spokesman (Summer).

isslk. E 0 / 2 No. 51 (Sept./Oct.)

Ross, R. and Schneider, R. (1992) From Eqirnlity to Diversity. London: Pitman.

Rowntree (Joseph) Foundation. (1995) Inconie nnd Wenlth. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Schein, E.H. (1984) Coming to a new awareness of organisational culture. Slonn Mnnngenient Review (Winter) 3-1 6.

Simmons, M. (1989) Some new perspectives on how to make equal opportunities training effective. E q i d Opportunities Internntionnl, 8,3.

Simmons, M. (1993) Creating a new leadership initiative. Mntingerneizt Development Reviezo, 6 3 .

Storey, J. (1992) Developnzents in the Mnringenrent of Hirninn Rrsoirroes. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tancred, P. (1995) Women’s work: a challenge to the sociology of work. CrnLfer, Work onif Organization 2,1, 11-20.

Thomas, R.R. (1990) From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Hn run rd B ir s iness Rrvitw (March-April).

Trades Union Congress. (199Sa) I’ny nnd Prrks --

Nnrroiuinp flir Gnv - Tlic? TUC’s eziideirce to tlir Grerrzhry Cornrrrittee. London: TUC.

Trades Union Congress. (1995b) Argionents fiir n Nnfioiinl M i i i i n i i i i n Wngc. London: TUC.

Trades Union Congress. (1995~) Hnru‘ L176011r: Britnin’s L o n s u Working Weck. London: TUC.

Transport and General Workers’ Union. (1991) Wir i i i i i i~ Rrzcr Eqi~nl i fy r 7 t W C J ~ ~ . London: TGWU.

Turner, B. (1986) Eqirolity. London: Tavistock. Vogler, C. (1994) Segregation, sexism ancl labour

supply. In A. MacEwen Scott (ed.), G m f e r , St:yvqnfiori nrid Sociiil C/inrrgc*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ward, S. (1993) Agenda 1993: (IPM). € O R (Jan./Feb.) No. 47.

Webb, J . and Liff, S. (1988) Play the White Man: the social construction of fairness and competition in equal opportunities policies. Sociolo,yiial Rt’i)itlicl, 36,3.

Welsh, C., Knox, J . and Brett, M. (1994) Actiiig Positirld!/: Posit iiw Act ior I I i f i d ~r the Rncc Rrlnt ioi 15 Act 2 976. London: Employment Department.

Wood, S.J. (1989) New wave mmagement, Review Article, Wad' E f i l p / ~ J ! / r l l c ’ i l f ( I l? i / SOc’it,t!/, 3,3, 379302 (Sept.).

Equality Management — Towards a Materialist Approach

Documents

Transcript of Equality Management — Towards a Materialist Approach