Small step or giant leap - towards gender equality at work - Sam Hardy

Whilst there has been progress forindividual women in Britain in the lastthirty years, these small stepsforward do not translate into equality,let alone what has been termed a‘genderquake’. Following the initial progress stimulated by theintroduction of equal pay legislation,progress towards women’s equality inthe workplace has slowed and mayeven be in danger of stalling.

SMALL STEP OR GIANT LEAP?TOWARDS GENDER EQUALITY AT WORKSam Hardy

POLICY PAPER

SMALL STEP OR GIANT LEAP? TOWARDS GENDER EQUALITY AT WORK

INTRODUCTION 3

1. THE CAUSES OF WORKPLACEGENDER INEQUALITY 6

2. ‘FIX THE WOMEN’ 11

3. ‘ADD WOMEN AND STIR’ 13

4. MANAGING DIVERSITY 18

5. CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS 23

6. POLICY PROPOSALS 29

REFERENCES 31

CONTENTS

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:Thanks are expressed to Mary-Ann Stephenson, Director of theFawcett Society, Ann Reynard, formerly Manager of Women’sDevelopment Programmes at the University of North London and nowan independent consultant on community regeneration and women inthe labour market, Will Hutton and The Industrial Society’s Dignity atWork, Policy and Futures teams for their comments and suggestions.Finally, thanks to Aminatta Forna for her intellectual and editorialcontributions and Meghan McKinstry for her invaluable researchsupport.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSam Hardy produced this paper as a Policy Specialist in TheIndustrial Society’s Policy Unit. She is now Head of Gender Researchin the Society’s Futures team. Her expertise is in the broad field oforganisational behaviour, and includes work on gender and inequality,organisational culture and control, work design, stress, and other HRand management issues. As an ESRC Research Associate withCardiff University’s Business School, Sam conducted research onorganisational restructuring and gender inequality in the publicservices prior to that she lectured within the Human ResourceManagement section of the university. Sam recently completed a PhDon performance measurement and organisational control in the publicsector, and has conducted consultancy for the police on restructuringand the management of change. At The Industrial Society, she has co-authored Working Minds, and has produced research for the PublicServices Productivity Panel, the Health Development Agency and theMental Health Foundation.

First published in December 2001 by The Industrial Society, Robert Hyde House48 Bryanston Square, London W1H 2EA

© The Industrial Society, 2001

ISBN 1 85835 952 X

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording, and/or otherwise without the prior written permission ofthe publishers. This report may not be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposedof by way of trade in any form, binding or cover other than that in which it ispublished, without prior consent of the publisher.

Cover design by: Sign, LondonPrinted by: C.W. Print Group, EssexStock reference: 1733pb11.01

The Industrial Society is a registered charity no. 290003

Whilst there has been progress forindividual women in Britain in the lastthirty years, these small stepsforward do not translate into equality,let alone what has been termed a‘genderquake’. Following the initial progress stimulated by theintroduction of equal pay legislation,progress towards women’s equality inthe workplace has slowed and mayeven be in danger of stalling.

SMALL STEP OR GIANT LEAP?TOWARDS GENDER EQUALITY AT WORKSam Hardy

POLICY PAPER


In August each year, in the weeks GCSE andA-level grades are released, the newspapersroutinely run stories heralding the so-called‘genderquake’ – the seismic revolution inwhich women are supposedly overtakingmen on all fronts. 1 These stories are fuelled,in part, by the ever-widening gap in thegrades between young men and women2, andthe increased wealth and financialindependence of women as an economicgroup3. So how much progress on equalityhas actually been made?

In certain areas progress is encouraging.Surveys indicate that there are more workingwomen in Britain than ever before (12.5 million,aged over 16)4 and government projectionssuggest that over the next decade, the number ofwomen in the labour force will rise by another7.5% (compared with 1.2% for men)5 increasingwomen’s economic freedom and choices.

As a result of their higher levels of educationwomen will have more choices and control overtheir lives. On average, women hold betteracademic qualifications than men at every level(including first degrees)6 although genderdifferences exist with regards to degree subject.There has also been a significant increase in thenumber of women entering male-dominatedprofessions such as law and medicine. Thenumber of women taking up management postshas increased to an average of 42%7, and therehas been a growth in the numbers of womensetting up their own businesses. A survey byBarclays Bank indicates that women account forapproximately a third of business start-ups, andthat a third of businesses with a turnover of up to£1 million are owned by women8.

Supporting these trends, government action toincrease maternity leave, maternity pay andchildren’s and childcare tax credits has signalleda more supportive social framework for women tobalance family and employment responsibilities,making it easier for some women to progresswithin the labour market.

THE PAY GAPHowever, other data points to a different reality:that of a persistent gender pay gap of 18%9 forfull-time employees. For every hundred pounds awoman earns, a man is paid one hundred andeighteen. This gap is larger than thecorresponding figure for most other Europeancountries10. For women working part-time, thesituation is worse. On average they earn pro rataonly 61% of the male full-time wage11. Over alifetime a woman will earn, on average, a quarterof a million pounds less than a man12.

Reports show the cause lies in women’ssegregation in low paid sectors and in paydiscrimination.13 This loss of income has long-term implications for women who stand toreceive significantly less in pension paymentsafter they retire.

The pay gap starts as soon as individuals enterthe labour market. Despite university examresults where women outperform men in mostsubjects, male graduates are twice as likely aswomen to earn a starting salary above £25,000.Furthermore, for every five women earningbetween £10,000 and £15,000 there are just threemen earning this lower starting wage14.

One explanation for pay inequality is that womenfrequently enter different and lower payingsectors. However, job evaluations reveal starkinequality in terms of pay between largely maleand female-dominated sectors where very similarwork is undertaken. Thus pay inequality is not justabout women’s (generally constrained) choices, itis also about the way women’s work is valued. Forexample, research demonstrates that heavyphysical work, such as lifting and carryingobjects tends to score higher on the ‘physicaleffort factor’ than lifting or carrying people.15

Even when women do the same or comparablework to men their earnings are often lower. TheLaw Society, for example, has recently found thatamong solicitors with similar qualifications,experience and skills, women generally earnedless than men. The average starting salary for awoman solicitor was found to be 6.2% below the

3

Contrary topopularbelief, takingtime off tohave childrenonly partiallyexplains thislifetimeincome gap.

INTRODUCTION

”

”


average starting level for men (£15,194 and£16,131 respectively), a gap which increasedfurther up the pay scale.16

Within the very education system where womenexcel as students, female teaching staff are wellbehind their male counterparts in terms of pay.The Independent Review of Higher Education Payand Conditions found that, on average, full-timemale academics in older universities are paid£4,395 a year more than their femalecounterparts.17 Other reports demonstrate thatsome women university lecturers are being paidas much as £6,000 less than male colleaguesdoing the same job in the same subject.18 Inprimary and secondary school, while there aremore female teachers, the vast majority of headteachers in both sectors are male.

Research by the Equal OpportunitiesCommission19 indicates that in all industries andsectors, women doing work of equal value arepaid significantly less than their male colleagues.

SEGREGATIONLabour market segregation provides furtherevidence of gender inequality in the workplace.While vertical segregation (the so-called ‘glassceiling’) limits the upward progression of womenwithin organisations, horizontal segregationcrowds women within female-dominated, largelylow paying occupations and sectors.

Women are not being promoted to the top ranksof organisations at the same rate as men and arenot gaining access to the most powerfulpositions within those organisations. The 2000National Management Salary Survey found thatonly 9.6% of directors were women.20 A recentGuardian-Inbucon survey supports thesefindings.21 It shows that fewer than 10 womenhold executive roles in the boardrooms of FTSE100 companies. A similar picture exists regardingnon-executive positions. Of the 1,247 non-executive directorships of the 108 largestcompanies, just 65 are held by women.22 Andwhile women may account for 42% of allmanagement positions in the UK, according tothe 2000 National Management Salary Survey

they account for only 22% of managers. Withinthis broad category of ‘management’, women areclustered at the lowest levels.23

Not only are women clustered at the lower levelof organisations, female workers predominate incertain lower paid sectors. The EOC’s Equal PayTask Force (November 1999 to January 2001)reported that more than 60% of women’semployment is found in just 10 female-dominated(generally low paid and undervalued)occupations and industries. The report highlightsthat women as a broad category are over-represented in secretarial and sales work,teaching, and nursing, with the female shareranging from 61% for teaching professionals to93% for secretaries, personal assistants andtypists.24

For women from black and ethnic communities,who may experience multiple levels ofdiscrimination, the picture is even more acute.They tend to be segregated at the lowest paidlevels even within female-dominated sectorssuch as health care and personal and domesticservices.25

THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMEN’SPROGRESSProgress towards closing the pay gap has beenvariable and is slowing. Data from the NewEarnings Survey indicates that since 1973 thegender pay gap for full-time women dropped from36% to 18%, although the pattern of this changehas varied considerably over the period. By farthe fastest rate of decline (from 34% to 26%)occurred between 1974 and 1976 when the EqualPay Act was first introduced. During the late1970s and the early to mid 1980s the rate ofchange began to stagnate, and the pay gap onlybegan to drop significantly again in the late1980s. Since the early 1990s the pay gap hasreduced but at a very slow rate.26 It is estimatedthat on current trends it will take between 33 and60 years to achieve pay parity between men andwomen working full-time.27

4

>> INTRODUCTION

UNEQUALVALUE

Research by theEqualOpportunitiesCommission19

indicates that inall industries andsectors, womendoing work ofequal value arepaid significantlyless than theirmale colleagues.

For part-timers progress has been slower still.Between 1973 and 2000, the pay gap betweenwomen who work part-time and men who workfull-time reduced by only 9 percentage points,from 48% to 39%.28 The Labour Force Survey(potentially a more accurate measure) highlightsan actual increase in the part-time gender paygap between 1993 and 2000 (from 25% to 26%).29

Finally, the LFS data indicates that, over thecourse of the 1990s, the overall gender pay gap(combining full-time and part-time figures) inmean hourly earnings has closed only veryslightly.

Most labour market analyses of gender inequalityand the gender pay gap explain inequality interms of horizontal and vertical segregation. Fewanalyses attempt to uncover how suchsegregation is in itself caused by deeperprocesses of gender stereotyping and theconstruction of work around a male norm,30 anissue which will be explored later in this report.

Whilst there are statistics that indicate anincreasing number of women enteringmanagement and senior positions, equally thereare indications of a reverse trend. Scottishmanagement figures reveal that in 1995 35% ofmanagers and administrators were women; by1999 this figure had dropped to 32%. Such figuresindicate that findings vary considerably acrossdata sets and claims of significant progresstowards closing the pay gap may be premature.

Furthermore, research has indicated that whenwomen move horizontally, making successfulinroads into male-dominated occupations orsectors, a process of resegregation often takesplace, through the formation of female ‘ghettos’.31

Research has also found that when women enteran occupation or sector in any great numbers, thewages commanded by individuals within thatsector start to fall.32

So, whilst there has been progress for individualwomen in Britain in the last thirty years, thesesmall steps forward do not translate intoequality, let alone what has been termed a

5


‘genderquake’. Following the initial progressstimulated by the introduction equal paylegislation, progress towards women’s equality inthe workplace has slowed and may even be indanger of stalling.

GUIDE TO THIS REPORTThis Industrial Society policy paper examines theunderlying reasons for gender inequality at workand offers a critique of different approaches andstrategies for tackling the problem. It argues thatgovernment, policymakers and employers areover-reliant on methods of addressing genderinequality which are themselves flawed, or onlypartially helpful in that they fail to alter thefundamental structure of organisations. Thereport reviews existing data in order to place thecurrent debate on gender inequality and the paygap within the broadest context. The paperrecommends policy proposals designed to closethe gender gap at work.

● Section 1: Explores the root causes ofwomen’s persistent inequality.

● Section 2: Examines the effectiveness of‘fixing strategies’; ie, attempts to rectifygender inequality by focusing on women.

● Section 3: Assesses the limitations ofpolicies which attempt to increase the numberof women in certain sectors by ensuringequality of opportunity.

● Section 4: Offers a critique of strategies thatseek to manage workforce ‘diversity’ ratherthan women as a specific group.

● Conclusion and Recommendations:Discusses potential policy recommendationsemerging from this report. ❡

>> INTRODUCTION

GAP WIDENS

The Labour ForceSurvey (potentiallya more accuratemeasure)highlights anactual increase inthe part-timegender pay gapbetween 1993 and2000 (from 25% to26%).

Occupational segregation by sex has beencentral to the formation of modernbureaucracies.33 Judy Wajcman, drawingon historical accounts of the developmentof institutions such as the British CivilService,34 the Post Office35 and LloydsBank,36 argues that the bureaucratic ‘career’was defined in male terms from the start.

Men’s promotion prospects traditionallydepended on a concentration of women insupport roles: as clerks, typists andsecretaries. Men and women were recruitedinto different roles and grades, with differentsalaries and promotion prospects to create anexplicit division of labour. Many organisationseven imposed a bar on married women, thusretaining women in their domestic supportrole: the second pillar upon which thetraditional male career was built.

The structure of the labour market haschanged remarkably little since then. Whilstpolicies that overtly discriminate againstwomen have been made illegal, extensiveresearch indicates that the vast number oforganisations, including high-street banks,37

insurance companies38 and those in the IT,chemicals and oil sectors,39 still operate in away that effectively excludes women fromcertain grades or occupations.

Many professional and management roles arestill largely (and automatically) constructed as‘two-person’ careers,40 defined by long hoursand high workloads, requiring regular traveland even relocation, and assuming domesticsupport, typically by an unpaid spouse. As women bear responsibility for the majorityof domestic work, they are placed at an evidentdisadvantage in competing alongside manymen. Those who can afford to do so must bearthe added expense of hiring domestic support.In reality many women bear a double burden ofhome and work responsibilities.

However, labour market inequality is not justabout the way the labour market andorganisations have been traditionallystructured. Underpinning these structures aredeep-rooted stereotypes about the qualities,motivations and behaviour of men and women.

Sex role stereotypesPsychological research has shown that at anearly age, boys and girls are influenced byfamily, friends, school and the mass media toaccept what behaviour is regarded as ‘normal’for men and women.

The core feminine stereotype portrays womenas caring, understanding, emotional, passiveand orientated towards the family. Theunderpinning masculine stereotype, incontrast, portrays men as rational, objective,confident, decisive, competitive andaggressive. Of course, not all men and womenwill conform to these behaviours, but thesestereotypes operate powerfully in westernsociety and have a strong influence on the waywe see ourselves and the way we see others atwork and at home.

While there is clear evidence of changingattitudes about men and women at work41

nevertheless many beliefs persist. A recentGallup survey in the US reveals that whilstsignificantly more people now believe that itdoes not matter which parent stays at home tolook after children (69%, up from 55% in 1991) aseparate survey question found that a largeminority (43%) still believe that this should bethe mother's role. Only 1% explicitly statedthat it should be fathers who remained athome.42 Other studies reveal that a largeproportion of women agree that a husband’sjob is to earn money and a wife’s to care forthe home and family. In factory settings inparticular, many women see the fact that‘women work’ and ‘men supervise’ asappropriate and consistent with their notionsof what it is to be a woman. In one study, bothmen and women expressed that it is ‘unmanly’

6


1. THE CAUSES OF WORKPLACEGENDER INEQUALITY

Manyprofessionalandmanagementroles are stilllargely (andautomatically)constructedas ‘two-person’careers,defined bylong hoursand highworkloads,requiringregular traveland evenrelocation,and assumingdomesticsupport,typically by anunpaidspouse.

””


for men to work in female roles.43

European efforts to alter gendered behaviourand roles (through labour market intervention,such as state-funded childcare and paternityleave) have demonstrated how deeplyentrenched beliefs are among both sexes. InSweden, where such labour market interventionshave been implemented, the take- up has beenmuch less than expected. This stems from thepractical constraint that many men earn morethan their female partners and cannot affordto reduce their working hours, but also fromstrongly held ideas about the differing roles ofmen and women in society.44

Sustaining the stereotypeA self-fulfilling process is at work within thelabour market that reinforces the ‘homemaker’stereotype of women. Some women are fullyaware of the obstacles they face in the effortto progress. Even those who don’t perceivethis inequality may see (and suffer from)practical barriers, such as the high cost ofchildcare. These factors lead many women tofocus less on progression at work and more ontheir domestic life – reflecting an unwillingresignation to the realities of waged work. Asa result women then accumulate less of theexperience deemed necessary for theirprogression.

In recent years, many women have alsobecome aware of the extreme pressures ofmiddle and senior management work,pressures which may be accentuated by thestress of coping in highly masculine cultures.Women’s desire to progress may be offsetagainst the perceived price they must pay. Aself-fulfilling process is thereby created wherewomen’s (constrained) choices produce animage of women as less ambitious and more‘family orientated’ than men.

By providing flexible and affordable childcareand by promoting flexible working patternsthrough its Work-Life Balance campaign, the

government is attempting to break the patternof women’s inequality at work. However suchinitiatives can actually reinforce the‘homemaker’ stereotype as women are morelikely than men to take up these opportunities.

Furthermore, it has been argued that eventhese seemingly progressive ‘positive actions’fail to reach the core of the problem45 becausethey fail to question the embedded notion ofwaged work as the central economic activitywithin society, thus rendering the rearing ofchildren and eldercare less important ineconomic terms.46

THE MASCULINE ORGANISATION ‘[The House of Commons] is set up to suit 19th-century men… Everything about it is agentleman’s club – the atmosphere, the bars, therestaurant, the appointments onto committees.I’m not interested in soaking up a culture ofCommons living. I’m interested in doing my jobefficiently, but the rules make it impossible.’Tess Kingham announcing her resignation fromthe House of Commons in May 2000, after threeyears as an MP.

Not only are the structures of manyorganisations built around traditional ideas ofthe full-time working man, but recent researchhas also begun to uncover how the verycultures of organisations today are often highlymasculine, disadvantaging anyone (male orfemale) who does not fit in.48 Suchorganisations promote behaviour that isrational, objective, logical, decisive, tough,competitive and aggressive – valuestraditionally associated with men.49

To be judged as a ‘high flier’ and a suitablecandidate for progression in manyorganisations requires the display of masculineforms of behaviour. Women and men whoreject the dominant masculine culture or placegreater emphasis on their lives outside work,may feel out of step with the rest of theorganisation. To colleagues and managers, they

>> 1. THE CAUSES OF WORKPLACEGENDER INEQUALITY

Recentresearch hasalso begun touncover howthe verycultures oforganisationstoday areoften highlymasculine,disadvantaginganyone (maleor female)who does notfit in.

”

”

7

may appear detached and uncommitted.51

Others, who seek to ‘get on’ but don’t feel thatthey fit with the prevailing culture, mustconstantly manage how they ‘seem’ to others.This form of ‘identity work’ has been shown toresult in an unhealthy emotional denial52 and afeeling of detachment because of the highlevels of self-control required.53 Indeed, manywomen (and some men) who get to the topthen opt out, because they can no longerconform to the types of behaviour required forthe top jobs.

THE LAYERING OF MASCULINECULTURESIdeas of masculinity are not static. Researchby Janet Newman54 has found multiple variantsof masculine cultures operating withinorganisations. These have been shown rarely toexist in their pure form – rather, they operatewith different strengths, within different areasand at different levels within the organisation,overlaying on each other in complex ways.

Competitive culturesResearch has shown that, while mostorganisations today retain traditionally malebureaucratic roots, they are intertwined with anewer culture of ‘competition.’55 In increasinglycompetitive markets organisations respond bytrying to rid themselves of ‘red tape’ – managersare given the maximum freedom to compete,to control resources and costs free ofconstraints. A new style is encouraged: go-getting, ruthless, tough on competitors andalso on staff. Power is seen to lie where theaction is, where there is most change andentrepreneurial spirit. An individual or team thatcan deliver rapid results wins rapid rewards.

Women’s equality in such a culture dependson their ability to compete. Success dependson access to powerful networks wherecontacts are made and business is done –networks that consist mainly of men and aredominated by male culture. Exceptionalwomen may be permitted entry, so long as

they continually prove their worth, but suchwomen must live with and manage thecontradictions and mixed messages fromthese two cultures.

Transformational culturesGrafted onto these contradictory cultures oftradition and competition, is a more recentculture that can be labelled ‘transformational’.This new layer of culture combines ideasfound within the concepts of human resourcemanagement, managing diversity andtransformational leadership: it is the humanbeings in organisations that are the key tosuccess, and therefore an organisation’sstrategy and leadership style must seek to getthe most out of its human resources to sustaincompetitive advantage. Transformationalcultures value personal development, arehuman-centred, have a long-term focus andseek to value all individuals equally.

The emphasis on valuing all human resourcesmeans that organisations seek to strip awayanything that may prevent women (and otherdisadvantaged groups) from making a fullcontribution. Within transformational cultures,the implicit message is that traditionalstereotypes and barriers no longer exist. Theculture is explicitly neutral, politically correct,and strives to be inclusive.

However, many of those organisations thatpromote progressive management practice failto recognise and understand the persistenceof existing cultures, and how these layer andintertwine – it is wrong to suppose thattraditional and competitive cultures can besupplemented or effectively changed tobecome transformational. Inequalities thatstem from traditional systems persist, but aremasked by the optimism of transformationalcultures.

8


Many women(and somemen) who getto the topthen opt out,because theycan no longerconform tothe types ofbehaviourrequired forthe top jobs.

”

”



DISCRIMINATORY CULTURES INACTION – EXPLAINING INEQUALITIESIN PAYTraditionally held beliefs about women and theactivities at which they naturally excel have adirect bearing on the way in which the workwomen do is valued and how much it is paid.

Some jobs are explicitly designed as low-paidwomen’s work. Others, whilst not designed to‘appeal’ specifically to men or women,inherently value the masculine stereotype andso undervalue seemingly feminine behaviourand activity, with the result that women arepaid less.

The design of ‘women’s work’ Many of the jobs within the labour market aredesigned to appeal to women by offering, forexample: flexibility, a local workplace andfewer qualification requirements. Suchpositions include carer, cleaner, customerservice representative, secretary, personalassistant and caterer.

Pay is generally low because the flexibilityoffered by jobs designed for women is often inhigh demand from those women who mustbalance work and family commitments.However, even where women are highlyqualified, fully mobile and require lessflexibility (for example, the young, single,newly qualified nurse) pay is kept low becausethis type of work is seen as ‘natural’ forwomen, rather than requiring additionallearned skills and behaviour (as would be thecase for men).

Undervaluing ‘women’s work’Within the labour market, those occupationsand industries that are associated moreclosely with men are often higher valued andbetter paid. For example, responsibility formoney is often rated (and paid) more highlythan responsibility for people (perceived as amore ‘feminine’ activity).56

Jobs which contain the same core activitiesare often valued and paid differently,depending on whether they are generally heldby men or women. For example, refusecollection and care for the elderly are bothphysically demanding, yet carers (typicallywomen) are generally paid far less.

Membership of trade unions also has animpact on the how women’s skills are valued.Male manufacturing workers have often beenable to bargain harder for higher pay becausethey are backed by a powerful union. However,women doing comparable work in the lowerpaid caring occupations, where trade unionmembership is not as widespread, have lackedthe collective power of a union to helpnegotiate for pay. Even when men and womenare represented by the same union, unionshave traditionally bargained harder for theinterests of their male members. This can beexplained by the fact that the most powerfulunions largely cover male-dominated industries,a fact that is reflected in the make-up of theunion and the issues deemed important.57

However, whilst trade unions can act as amajor barrier to women’s equal treatment, thetool of collective bargaining can have asignificant impact on reducing inequality,particularly with regards to the gender paygap. Formal pay systems which involveworkplace-level collective bargainingdisadvantage women less.58 Formal wagesystems are more transparent than informaldecisions about pay by individual linemanagers. Collective pay scale agreementsencourage deeper scrutiny of whether salarygrades genuinely match the demands of thework (rather then the power of individuals tonegotiate).

Overvaluing masculinity‘Women get evaluated on their performance;men get evaluated on their potential’Comment by female accountant 59

9

unde

rval

ued


Traits that tend to be valued as essentialmanagement and leadership qualitiescorrespond directly with the masculinestereotype that has been shown to dominatewithin many organisations.

A recent study examined the performanceratings of 2,800 high potential senior HRmanagers. While women HR managers wererated higher than men on their currentabilities as middle managers, men were ratedsignificantly higher with respect to theirperceived potential as leaders in the future.60

When women alter their behaviour to fit withwhat is expected of ‘high fliers’ and potentialleaders, research has shown that this samebehaviour may be perceived differently by linemanagers and peers.61 A recent study foundthat a group of (mostly male) supervisors sawresults-focused behaviour; taking charge anddirecting others, striving for high levels ofachievement and seeking out positions ofinfluence-as positively related to leadershipeffectiveness for men. However, in women,these same skills were seen as negativelyrelated to effectiveness.

Furthermore, in those instances when womenreject the masculine culture and engage inseemingly feminine activity (such as buildingalliances, communicating, empathising,transforming conflict, informing anddeveloping) such activity often goes unnoticedand unrewarded – or else is not seen asessential to achieving task-related outcomes.62

Factors that sustain lower pay for women‘Opportunistic’ factors help sustain paydifferentials between men and women.

Women may be constrained from moving jobseasily by domestic and childcareresponsibilities. This in turn constrains theirability to ‘play the market’ by negotiating ahigher salary with each move. Womentherefore have less power at the negotiating

table and are more likely to tolerate poorer payand conditions. As recent researchdemonstrates, bosses believe that men aremore likely to be poached by rival firms andare prepared to match the rates of pay offeredby other employers. However, women aregenerally known to be less likely to leave theirjobs in response to an external offer63 – a factemployers may use to their own advantage.

Employers also rely on previous salary data asan indication of an individual’s market worthwhen making an offer.64 For women, whoseexisting salary is likely to be much lower thanthat of a male counterpart, the use of salaryhistory by employers when negotiating termsand conditions is disadvantageous and servesto keep them on lower pay scales incomparison with men. It is a keyrecommendation of this paper that, in order toachieve pay equality, a candidate’s previous‘salary history’ should be placed off limits onapplication forms and at job interviews.65 ❡

10


Traits thattend to bevalued asessentialmanagementandleadershipqualitiescorresponddirectly withthe masculinestereotypethat has beenshown todominatewithin manyorganisations.

”

”



‘Fix the women’66 strategies endeavour tohelp women address perceivedweaknesses such as lack of technicalexpertise, workplace experience,‘different’ management styles or lowaspirations and confidence. This is theprimary approach of many organisationsthat seek to hire, retain and progress morewomen,67 particularly in male-dominatedindustries such as ITC and engineering.

Initiatives to raise the particular expertise,skills and aspirations of women operate atboth the organisation and industry levels andwithin the education system. Examplesinclude national ‘bring your daughter to workdays’, the numerous WISE (Association ofWomen in Science and Engineering)initiatives68 and ‘Feminising ICT’ – agovernment- supported campaign to promoteand rebrand the image of ICT careers and raisethe aspirations of women to join this sector.

Where women already possess theaspirations, technical skills and abilities toprogress within an organisation or industry;there is a belief that they also need to becomemore networked, political and assertive tocompete effectively with male colleagues.69

Where women are failing to progress withintheir organisation, a common response fromemployers (and also individual women) is tosuggest self-esteem, assertiveness and/orleadership training. There is a continueddemand for such courses by organisations andindividuals. The motivation for attendance isoften a desire by women to obtain the skillsneeded to increase their effectiveness andprogress within their organisation. Manyparticipants are specifically encouraged toattend by their line manager.70

Another popular ‘fixing’ strategy is the activeencouragement of women (sometimes withfunding) to build career networks. Mentorsmay be provided to coach women in theinformal cultures and the specific politics of

the organisation. Underpinning these strategiesis the belief that, with a little help, womenshould be able to gain the same repertoire oforganisational skills as men, enabling them toprogress on the basis of merit alone.

These interventions can benefit individualwomen who may learn valuable skills, gainaccess to networks and may win promotion asa result. Training and mentoring programmesand women’s networks are easy (and relativelycheap) to set up. Organisations can be seen tobe responding quickly and efficiently to anidentified need to advance more women intosenior positions. However, women who havelearned ‘to play the game’ often still fail toachieve at the level of their ability. This isbecause fixing strategies fail to tackle theunderlying causes of women’s inequality at work.

PROBLEMS WITH ‘FIXINGSTRATEGIES’‘Fixing strategies’ are a narrow solution withlimited application.

The labour market is unaffected‘Fixing strategies’ treat the symptoms whileleaving the cause of inequality untouched.They offer superficial redress for a narrowrange of women, but neglect to address widerlabour market issues. The constraints onpersonal choice that prompt women not toseek promotion, or to choose part-time work,or cluster in certain occupations, are ignoredin favour of a solution that sees women, theirattitudes and abilities as the problem.

The organisation is untouchedNot only do fixing strategies fail toacknowledge or question the inequalitiesinherent in the labour market, they do little tochange the seemingly neutral factors withinthe organisation, such as its culture, itsinformal practices and its formal systems thatset the rules of the game and create an unevenplaying-field for women in the first place. Furthermore, because problems and solutions

11

Underpinningthesestrategies isthe beliefthat, with alittle help,womenshould beable to gainthe samerepertoire oforganisationalskills as men,enablingthem toprogress onthe basis ofmerit alone.

”

”

2. ‘FIX THE WOMEN’


are seen to lie squarely with individual women,‘fixing strategies’ transmit the message thatmen do not need to be involved in and neitherare they affected by equality measures. Thisdistances men as a group from the issue ofgender inequality and the need for those inpositions of power to critically reflect on howpractices and personal actions may actuallygenerate and embed inequality.

Inequitable assistanceCost implications mean typical ‘fixingstrategies’ such as assertiveness courses andleadership training are restricted tomanagerial level. As a result it is generallyhigher income women who benefit most fromemployer-led fixing strategies, the very groupof women that has the greatest power baseand resources in our society.71

Inappropriate assistance‘Fixing strategies’ may be irrelevant orinappropriate to lower income women’sexperience of work.

Lower income women have feweropportunities for promotion into managementranks and are more likely to work in low-paidfeminised sectors. In those sectors (forexample, clothes manufacturing and electricalassembly) there is little pressure from theorganisational culture to progress, in factprogression is often implicitly discouraged.There are also extremely limited opportunitiesto escape stereotypically female jobs becausein the local labour market most other work isalso designed as ‘women’s work’ –characterised by low pay and low prospects.

Women who are members of racial, religious,or ethnic communities may suffer multipleforms of discrimination and for them theseissues may take priority over genderinequality. Initiatives on gender frequentlymake the mistake of assuming that all womenexperience inequality in the same way72 and assuch many are unlikely to be designed to

address problems specific to particular groupsof women.

You need to be twice as good to stand stillWhilst the women who have access to fixingstrategies may learn how to get ahead, thepersonal cost may be considerable: the‘double shift’ at work and at home, the extra‘self-management’ required to fit into male-dominated cultures. Over time many womenopt out, either to set up on their own or to seekout more female-friendly environments.

Fixing strategies appeal as immediately‘doable’ interventions which provide vitalaccess to the skills, contacts and networks tohelp (some) women advance inside their owncompanies. But by encouraging women tolearn to fit into existing cultures and practices,fixing strategies not only fail to challengedeeper problems, their use may actuallyembed the very attitudes and practices thatunderpin women’s segregation and unequalpay in the first place.

Fixing strategies can only add value whenused as part of a wider programme of change,which seeks to simultaneously helpdisadvantaged groups gain fair rewards andopportunities within organisations that are inthemselves being rethought and reconstructedalong gender sensitive lines. ❡

12

Over timemany womenopt out, eitherto set up ontheir own orto seek outmore female-friendlyenvironments.

”

”

>> 2. ‘FIX THE WOMEN’

NOT VERY QUALIFIED RAISING SKILLS LEVELS IN THE UK WORKFORCE

BASIC EQUAL OPPORTUNITIESThe central objective of basic equalopportunities strategies is to dismantlebarriers that prevent women and othergroups from freely entering male-dominated areas of work and reachinghigher levels inside organisations. Thepoint is to ‘add’ more women into a ‘freedup’ labour market, where they can thencompete fairly for jobs and promotion –‘add women and stir’, so to speak.73

‘Equal treatment’ and ‘equal access’74 are thecore concepts enshrined within basic equalopportunities legislation (The Equal Pay Act1970, The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, RaceRelations Act 1976). Individuals with the sameability doing the same job should have equalaccess to career opportunities and rewardsregardless of their gender or ethnicity.75

From this perspective inequalities are treatedas distortions of the rational, efficientworkings of the labour market, which must beremoved or corrected by formalising andstandardising recruitment, promotion andtraining in order to ensure equal andunfettered competition for jobs and pay. Directdiscrimination (overt prejudice) as well asindirect discrimination (policies or procedureswhich are not in themselves discriminatory,but which negatively impact upon members ofa particular group) are recognised barriers toequal opportunities.76

Policymakers act as umpires ensuring that therules of the competition are not discriminatoryand that they are fairly enforced. It is notperceived as their job to determine who arethe winners and losers, rather to focus onensuring that the means through whichwinners and losers select themselves arebased on principles of fairness and justice.77

This approach to equal opportunities has beendominant in policymaking and practice sincethe 1970’s.

PROGRESSIVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIESCriticism of the limitations of the most basicapproach to equal opportunities began to bevoiced in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, andas a result a more progressive vision emerged.The progressive approach stresses thatunless the different circumstances of womenand other groups are recognised and takenaccount of, they will never be able to competeeffectively within the labour market.

A progressive approach to equal opportunitiesrejects the notion that inequality is caused bya simple distortion of the free labour market.Rather, it is argued that the labour market is initself unjust, built on traditional notions of theskills and qualities of women and also of men,and constructed on a system that presumes asingle breadwinner supported by a stay-at-home spouse. Definitions of merit, for examplewhat it is to be a good manager, are seen todepend on the power of the particular groupswho define them.

Out of these concerns critics called for moredirect interventions to achieve not onlyequality of opportunity (in the basic sense) butalso equality of outcome. It was felt that equalopportunities should not only aim to achievefair procedures for individuals seeking toprogress within the labour market, it shouldalso aim to ensure there is a fair distributionof rewards (in terms of jobs and pay) betweensocial groups. Thus, a progressive approachnot only demands ‘equal treatment’ and ‘equalaccess’, but also a ‘fair share’ of outcomes.

Whilst the UK anti-discrimination lawspromote a very basic approach to equalopportunities, some workplace practice andmost Equal Opportunities advocates (forexample, the EOC, CRE, DRC, trade unions,academics and independent consultants)promote a more progressive approach. ❡

13

3. ‘ADD WOMEN AND STIR’

EQUAL ACCESS

Individuals withthe same abilitydoing the same jobshould have equalaccess to careeropportunities andrewardsregardless of theirgender orethnicity.75

and give assistance to disadvantaged socialgroups, by employing procedures such as:● detailed equal opportunities monitoring● audits of assessment, pay, training and

promotion systems for bias ● specialist skills training and alternative

career paths for disadvantaged groups ● the introduction of family-friendly policie;● the removal of the requirement for certain

qualifications, such as a degree, unless theyare determined to be essential to theperformance of the job

● targeted advertising campaigns designed toreach members of under-represented groups.

Positive discriminationJustifications of stronger action, ofdiscriminating positively in favour of one ormore groups, lie in the rationale that being amember of an under-represented group countsin assessing candidates for appointment andpromotion.79 The point is to actively placeminority groups where they are absent withinthe organisation, by imposing quotas or time-scales for the recruitment, training, hiring andpromotion of members from specific excludedgroups.

Until recently, positive discrimination inrespect of sex and race in the UK, was illegal.However a recent ruling by the European Courtof Justice has changed this situation. Ruleswhich allow women to be preferred forpromotion over male colleagues areacceptable provided that the male and femalecandidates are equally qualified and thatwomen are under-represented in the sector inquestion.80

Undoubtedly the impact of equal opportunitieshas been mostly positive. Surveys reveal thatthe vast majority of managers now agree thatequal opportunities is an importantorganisational priority.81 The achievements ofwomen entering male-dominated sectors andhigher grades within organisations detailedearlier in this report are almost certainly due

14


PREFERENCE

Rules which allowwomen to bepreferred forpromotion overmale colleagues areacceptable providedthat the male andfemale candidatesare equallyqualified and thatwomen are under-represented in thesector in question.80

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES POLICIESIn the UK, formal equal opportunities policiestend to follow a common format based on thecodes of practice established by the EqualOpportunities Commission and theCommission for Racial Equality. These codeshave interpreted equal opportunitieslegislation, and outlined the basic proceduresand activities that organisations should adoptto comply with the requirements of the law.They also suggest other ‘positive actions’ thatare not legally required, but are allowed by thelaw in order to encourage and train potentialemployees from under-represented groups. Itis not a legal requirement to follow thesecodes of practice, though failure to do so maybe taken into account by an employmenttribunal or court. In addition, recent EuropeanUnion requirements place the burden of proofonto employers to demonstrate that a non-discriminatory reason existed for the acts oromissions in question.

At the most basic level, equal opportunitiespolicies should, for example, ensure job advertsdo not encourage applicants from just one sexor racial group, avoid informal or word- of-mouth recruitment, ensure short-listing andinterviewing by more than one person, and trainstaff who engage in the recruitment process.78

However, influenced by progressive ideas,some organisations have developed moreadvanced equal opportunities policies whichaccept that women and other groups enter thelabour market from a different starting pointand face many societal constraints. The aim ofprogressive policies is not only to comply withlegal requirements, but to remove bias fromexisting policies and procedures and to takesteps to reduce the effects of previousdiscrimination. This can be done through both‘positive action’ and ‘positive discrimination’.

Positive actionPositive actions seek to remove obstacles tocompetition beyond the recruitment process

>> 3. ‘ADD WOMEN AND STIR’


to equal opportunities legislation and specificequal opportunities interventions.

PROBLEMS WITH EQUALOPPORTUNITIES‘To be frank, it’s just not good enough. For toomany employers, [tackling discrimination] is abit like going on a diet – they’re all very keen tostart, but not this week’,Charles Allen, Executive Chairman of theGranada Group.

Evidence shows that the majority oforganisations merely comply with theminimum requirements of equal opportunitieslegislation and that the implementation of‘progressive’ equal opportunities policies is rare.

Even where seemingly progressive ‘positiveactions’ have been put in place, such asfamily-friendly policies and targeted trainingfor minority groups, researchers have foundthat organisational structures either remainunaffected, or have adapted and incorporatedpolicies with few changes to the distributionor influence of women within organisationalhierarchies. At the same time, the very factthat a company has equal opportunitiespolicies in place can encourage complacencyat the top.

Legislative flawsThe findings of two independent reviews of UKanti-discrimination legislation conducted byBob Hepple QC (1997 and 2000) highlighted aseries of grave problems with the existing law.These included the following.● Outdated legislation. Discrimination is more

complex and covert than the original law wasdesigned to address, and the structure ofmost organisations has changed dramatically.

● There is too much law. We have four separateanti-discrimination regimes in the UK andthree separate commissions in Britain.

● There are unnecessary differences in thelaw within the UK, mainly between the UKand Northern Ireland.

● Failure to implement international and EUobligations.

● There is no general obligation on employersin Britain to monitor the composition of theworkforce by gender of ethnicity.

Application of the lawImplementation of equal opportunitiesrequirements are often weak and patchy. Asignificant gap exists between the theory ofequal opportunities and the practice.86 Manyorganisations were found to have an equalopportunities policy statement but no equalopportunities procedure. In other organisationsprocedures were allowed to develop in an adhoc way with little reference to original policyaims. Senior managers tended to assume thatprocedures (where they existed) were beingfollowed and that monitoring wasunnecessary. Where organisations did monitorthe effectiveness of policies, the fear wasvoiced that any subsequent action on the basisof findings would be interpreted as theimposition of quotas. This fear stifled any formof positive action.

According to a recent analysis of the 1998Workplace Employment Relations Survey data(comprising survey responses from managersin 2,191 workplaces and 28,240 employees)87,

whilst substantive equal opportunities policiesare in place in some UK workplaces (mainlylarge and/or public sector organisationsemploying HR or personnel specialists), alarge proportion of organisations implementequal opportunities on a far more superficiallevel. There are few positive actions such asthe collection of monitoring data, assistancewith childcare or targeted advertising.

Equal opportunities practice fails toachieve equal treatmentA study of equal opportunities schemes byJennifer Rubin88 identified how the failure ofequal opportunities practice was evidenced in,for example, equal opportunities training forinterviewers and the selection interview.

15


com

plac

ency

In Rubin’s study, a group of (mostly male)trainee interviewers acknowledged that theytended to prefer candidates who resembledthemselves, and that they held manystereotyped assumptions and prejudices.Comments and behaviour were also observedthat indicated dissatisfaction with overtbreaches of what was considered to be genderappropriate behaviour – at the same time asalso perceiving explicit female behaviour orself-presentation as problematic.

Despite the open disclosure of prejudice bytrainee interviewers, their equal opportunitiestraining generally failed to interrogate howthese views might inform the decisions theyreached in awarding jobs. Instead, Rubinfound that training focused on how to avoidprosecution for overt discrimination by teachingthe trainee interviewers the letter of equalopportunities legislation and strategies forappearing ‘expert’ in the application of equalopportunities guidelines. An emphasis on thelegal aspects of equal opportunities gavetrainees the impression that by simplyrecognising their own prejudices they couldeffectively omit them from recruitment decisions.

During the interview process, interviewersavoided reference to, for example, home andfamily achievements, which they perceived asspecifically ‘female’ and thereforeinappropriate for discussion. In contrast,activities that could be viewed as typicallymasculine, say sports, were not coded in termsof gender. Thus interviewers unwittinglyemphasised the value of ‘masculine’achievements while simultaneouslyundervaluing ‘feminine’ achievements byexcluding them from discussion during theinterview. Alarmingly, at the end of theprocess interviewers and candidates alikewere satisfied that both men and women hadbeen treated the same because no overtly sex-specific questions had been asked.

Even progressive ‘positive actions’ fall shortMany equal opportunities policies fail topersuade women to apply for positions thathave been previously held mostly by men.89

Such posts often require long hours, weekendand evening work and rely upon support athome which is generally available to men andunavailable to women.

Whilst strong positive action policies oftenoffer opportunities for flexible working, theseare rarely offered at a senior level. Fewcompanies challenge the assumption thatmanagement positions need to be held as full-time posts. As recent Industrial Societyresearch indicates, management-level jobshares, reduced hours or term-time contractshold much possibility for equality and improvedindividual performance but are rarely offered.90

Conversely, there is a danger that manypositive actions, such as flexible workingoptions, can inadvertently embed stereotypedgender roles if take-up is mainly by women.

Women’s isolationEven those organisations with progressiveequal opportunities policies can be criticisedfor making little effort to record theexperiences of women who have enteredpreviously male-dominated spheres.91

Women who take positions in highlymasculine environments report feelingisolated.92 They may be excluded from joininginformal gatherings or networks, feel theirskills with people are undervalued; some aredemeaned by sexualised jokes, others mayexperience harassment. For many women, thisexperience lowers their performance, self-esteem and confidence, leading to exit fromthe organisation far sooner than their malecolleagues and ultimately fuelling the beliefthat women ‘can’t take the pace’.

16


Women whotake positionsin highlymasculineenvironmentsreport feelingisolated.

”

”



ResistanceWhere women are helped into a positionwhereby they can compete equally with men inthe labour market (for example, by theprovision of childcare facilities, flexibleworking and focused advertising) there isevidence to show that some view thesemeasures as a lowering of standards or unfairlyrewriting the rules in favour of women.93

Whilst attitudes may well have changed overthe last ten years, Cockburn’s study of equalopportunities change initiatives foundwidespread irritation at maternity leave andrelated provisions such as special leave, part-time work and job sharing.94 Some managersfelt that maternity leave and flexibility were‘too generous’ and others were ‘fed up to theback teeth’ with the continual absences ofwomen for ‘one thing or another’.

Active attempts to enhance the positionthrough positive action of disadvantagedgroups often meet with opposition. In 1997female MPs who were assisted intoparliament through all-women shortlists foundthemselves labelled ‘Blair’s Babes’ in themedia. In such circumstances women may findtheir ability to do their job threatened byattempts to undermine their authority.

This serves as a reminder that many peoplestill believe that the labour market is genuinelymeritocratic and the notion that ability will befairly rewarded persists. It is understandable,therefore, that many individuals fromdisadvantaged groups may resist positive actionsthemselves, out of a desire to deflect criticismand to be seen as progressing on merit alone

Critical mass at the top is not enoughEvidence has shown that equal opportunitiespractitioners are being overly optimistic inassuming that a critical mass of women atsenior levels will tip the balance of power tocreate organisations that are fair to both menand women.95

To get into senior positions in manyorganisations, women must conform to thedominant culture. Judy Wajcman’s researchshows that women who reach the top of theirorganisations often have very similarbackgrounds, attitudes and behaviour to theirmale colleagues. They work the same hoursand typically do not have responsibility forchild/elder care, in fact few have children atall. 95

Once in senior positions, women are oftenunlikely (or unwilling) to unearth andchallenge discriminatory cultures andpractices. Whilst they may be in a seniorposition, they rarely have the informal powerof their male colleagues and as such arereluctant to ‘rock the boat’ or be seen as a‘feminist’.97

All women are the sameEqual opportunities policies often place‘women’ in one single category and imply thattheir experiences are universal. The artificialline drawn between ‘men’ and ‘women’polarises the differences between them andoveremphasises the similarities within eachgroup. The common concerns of, for example,black men and black women are often ignoredin favour of an exaggerated relationshipbetween black and white women. ❡

17

TOP TRAITS

Women who reachthe top of theirorganisationsoften have verysimilarbackgrounds,attitudes andbehaviour to theirmale colleagues.


‘Managing diversity’ is a concept whichhas grown in popularity in recent years. Itis an approach to addressing inequalitywhich aims to be sensitive to the differingneeds of all individuals within anorganisation. Whilst many differentunderstandings and interpretations ofmanaging diversity exist in the UK, theyare all based on the acceptance that theworkforce consists of a wide base ofpeople with differences including race,sex, age, background, disability, religionand sexual orientation. Class, HIV status,lifestyle and education may also beconsidered within the diversity agenda.Properly managed, these abilities anddifferent experiences can be harnessed tothe ultimate benefit of all.

The most well-known theory of managingdiversity has become that popularised amongthe business community by the occupationalpsychologists Rajvinder Kandola and JohannaFullerton, authors of Managing the Mosaic:diversity in action. Whilst not by any means thesole approach to diversity management, thepremise these authors promote has becomeone of the most the most widely applied formsof managing diversity in companies throughoutthe UK.

The theoryThe core features of managing diversity, aspresented by Kandola and Fullerton, can besummarised as follows:100

● Managing diversity has the starting pointthat valuing people and enabling them towork to their full potential will make theworkplace more inviting to a wider range ofpeople and will benefit the long-term vitalityand profitability of the organisation.

● Managing diversity is about empoweringeveryone to realise their full potential and,as such, all members of the organisationshould have the opportunity to develop andbecome fully productive. Thus diversity

takes individuals, not groups as the primaryfocus of concern.

● Finally, managing diversity promotes a stronglink with corporate culture and the meeting ofbusiness objectives. It is about high-qualityhuman resource processes to enable peopleto perform to their highest potential.

In support of their approach, Kandola andFullerton outline a number of businessbenefits and a strategy for implementingmanaging diversity principles following eightactivities: setting the organisational vision;auditing and assessing individual needs;securing senior management support; detailedplanning; clear communication of the strategy;clear accountability; co-ordination of activity;and evaluation.

This mirrors the ideas of strategic humanresource management (perhaps the mostpopular management model of the 1990s) inthat it establishes a strategy for maximisingthe output of human capital. Thus, Kandola andFullerton’s approach to managing diversitycan be seen as a selective repackaging ofelements of the broader human resourcemanagement model. It is perceived to bewasteful and bad business practice for anorganisation to fail to its human resource basefully. The management of human resources isregarded as central to an organisation’s widerstrategic planning process. Kandola andFullerton promote a similar strategic approachthrough their model of implementation.

In many quarters managing diversity is seenas a ‘step forward in the evolution of equalopportunities’ – that it can ‘succeed whereequal opportunities has failed’. The messageto employers is that this brand of managingdiversity can replace an equal opportunitiespolicies and practices.

However, equality initiatives and humanresource management have very differentpurposes and one should not be used to

18


4. MANAGING DIVERSITY

The premisethese authorspromote hasbecome oneof the mostthe mostwidelyapplied formsof managingdiversity incompaniesthroughoutthe UK.

”

”


supplant the other. The Kandola and Fullertonbrand may have positive benefits to offer interms of increased commitment, motivation,selection and retention, and ultimatelyincreased productivity, but these are HRMbenefits. As an alternative to equalopportunities, this brand of diversitymanagement (in its pure form) tends to failbecause it is not designed to challenge deep-rooted discriminatory cultures and structureswithin companies in the same way as moreprogressive approaches.

Managing diversity in practiceIn practice, many of the organisations thathave embraced the Kandola and Fullertonapproach to managing diversity have simplyadopted the language without integrating thecore principles. Some policies on managingdiversity can, on closer examination, be shownto be little more than a statement of intent or are-wording of their existing equal opportunitiespolicy.102 Managing diversity has not introducedmany new or specific policy ideas.103 Most ofthe elements of diversity policies are simplydrawn from the basic and progressive equalopportunities perspectives, then tweaked andrepackaged to reflect the positive andinclusive language of managing diversity.

Advocates of managing diversity argue that itis not a programme, nor an orchestrated set ofactions with a fixed goal104 – rather, it is astrategic process. While this is undoubtedlytrue, when promoted as an alternative to equalopportunities, the application of managingdiversity on the ground may actually mean astep backwards in terms of action on inequality,stripping out positive actions and providinglittle else in their place. This approach alsopromotes devolved responsibility for diversity tothe line management level. Without the equalitytraining for line managers, received through aprogressive equal opportunities policy, there ismore room for personal discretion anddeviation from the law and good practice.

THE EVOLUTION OF MANAGINGDIVERSITYThe broad notion of managing diversity hasevolved considerably since its inception in thelate 1980s to become the popularised modeldiscussed above. This evolution has been shownto have moved through four overlapping ‘turns’:demographic, political, economic and critical.

A response to demographic changeIn the late 1980s in the US, it was reported thatby the year 2000 the majority of new entrantsinto the labour market would be women andfrom minority groups. As a result, businessesrealised that they needed to rethink thecontributions of these groups within theirorganisations. The term ‘diversity’ was coinedto express the belief that ‘anyone andeveryone’ could play a more active role.

A less political alternativeDiversity management, with its focus onindividuals rather than groups, squared withNew Right thinking in the US and the UK fromthe late 1980s to the early 1990s.106 Its inclusivephilosophy was viewed as an acceptableresponse to a conservative backlash against‘political correctness’ and more radicalapproaches to equal opportunities.107 AsLowery comments: ‘Corporate executivesfound diversity a lot easier to swallow thanaffirmative action and much easier to sell to apredominately white workforce’.108 A study ofdiversity initiatives in local government in theUK highlighted a similar response. Manydiversity management schemes were found tohave been introduced in ‘an attempt to takethe politics out of change’.109

The economic benefits of changeThe business case for equality is now anembedded feature of corporate and governmentpolicy in this area, and is generally perceived asthe key ingredient for any strategy of change.By contrast, the moral rationale for diversity isoften reduced to a ‘happy by-product’ ofcorporate diversity initiatives.

19

>> 4. MANAGING DIVERSITY

The term‘diversity’was coined toexpress thebelief that‘anyone andeveryone’could play amore activerole.

”

”

The essential business argument is thatcertain groups constitute an under-utilisedhuman resource. Discrimination against thesegroups reduces the available pool of jobapplicants with the consequence that anorganisation might exclude the best person forthe job. Furthermore, by omitting to exploit thefull abilities of its staff, for example, by failingto promote talented individuals, a companydoes not get the maximum benefit from itshuman capital.

An organisation’s workforce should alsoreflect the diversity of its customer group. Thisargument has had particular force within theservice sector where organisations such asthe BBC and the Bradford and BingleyBuilding Society now recruit front-end staffthat reflect the social make-up of the localareas in which they operate.110 This is seen askey to customer satisfaction and market shareretention. Companies such as Motorola andBT111 claim that a culturally and sociallydiverse workforce is better able to develop agreater understanding of customer values andrequirements.

Managing diversity is believed to have apositive impact on motivation, commitmentand creativity. Many employee relationsproblems are thought to be the result of unfairpolicy and practice. If individuals feel that theyare being treated fairly they will give more ofthemselves – productivity increases, absenteeismand labour turnover reduce. Furthermore, theeveryday interaction of people with diversebackgrounds produces a more creative, innovateand hence competitive workforce.

Finally, during the same period as ideas aboutmanaging diversity were gaining currency,feminist thinking began to argue thattraditionally female skills and qualities werebeing devalued in the workplace. In harmonywith these ideas a business case for ‘valuingfemininity’ was soon developed, presenting‘feminine’ skills as more suited to the flexible,

team-based and high-trust work environmentsof the new economy.112

PROBLEMS WITH ‘MANAGINGDIVERSITY’All differences are equal In its most commonly applied form, managingdiversity does not deal explicitly withinfluencing prejudices, rather it is concernedwith differences and mandating that they arevalued equally. No difference is seen as moresignificant than another.113 Within themanaging diversity workplace the particularinequalities of women and ethnic minoritiesbecome marginalised and seen as indistinctfrom the needs of other groups. Initiatives mayeven be dropped because they place too muchemphasis on the needs of one group. Forexample, some re-launched equality initiatives,under the banner of ‘managing diversity’, havedropped measures to tackle sexualharassment because of a belief that they focustoo exclusively on the experiences of women.114

Common experience is disregardedWith the emphasis on difference, diversitypolicies may ignore the similarities betweenindividuals. For example, women of all ethniccommunities generally take on the primaryresponsibility for childcare and so are lessable to compete for jobs with men. Thelanguage of managing diversity with itsemphasis on individual difference may de-prioritise action to address this common issue.

Women’s wider interests are neglected Organisation-based equality agendas, likemanaging diversity, have a limited capacity toaddress wider issues of women’s equality.115

The emphasis on promoting individual ratherthan group action has led to situations wherean organisation will help advance individualwomen, whilst investing in a product ormarketing campaign that may do harm towomen as a group. Dow Corning in the USA,for example, successfully advanced individualwomen through its diversity policy whilst

20


Within themanagingdiversityworkplace theparticularinequalities ofwomen andethnicminoritiesbecomemarginalised

”

”



simultaneously producing silicon breastimplants later found to be faulty and a risk tothe lives of women. It emerged that DowCorning had failed to test this product andgive women sufficient voice within the productdevelopment process.116

The de-prioritising of gender issues in thisway is significant to those who believe thatany campaign for equality needs the force ofpolitical action and collective power to havean impact. Emphasising the differencesbetween individuals weakens the common tiesthat provide the necessary support for groupsto push for change.

THE DANGERS OF PROMOTING THEBUSINESS CASECost benefit analysis can justify inactionMany managing diversity policies are designedto meet the needs of business, rather thanexplicitly designed to meet the needs ofdisadvantaged groups. The strength of thebusiness case underpinning managingdiversity may permit pragmatism andselectivity. This can result in initiatives beingtargeted (for example on perceived female‘high fliers’) to meet market needs, or elseaccess to a policy (say, crèche facilities) maybe restricted because of cost. Furthermore,because equal opportunities practice cannotbe easily costed, it can be overlooked oromitted from business budgets.

Short-term thinkingA singularly business-led approach is likely tofocus on the short-term, whereas the kinds ofequality initiatives that aim for atransformation in organisational culturesrequire long-term commitment. This isparticularly applicable to British industry,where company investors require rapid returnson capital through short-term increases inperformance and cost-cutting, all aimed atkeeping share prices high.

Mass production and low cost ‘widget’plants Many organisations in the UK competeprimarily on the basis of cost and are locatedwhere cheap labour is plentiful. Whilst theseorganisations may be persuaded of the needto get the best people for their seniormanagement team, they will be less convincedby the business case arguments for diversitywhen recruiting a secretary or a driver. Forsuch firms, dependent on their supply of cheaplabour, promoting staff from the lowest rungsof the organisation carries little benefit. Suchorganisations are also likely to be sufficientlylow profile to escape pressure fromconsumers and shareholders to act in asocially responsible manner.

Reinforcing gender stereotypesWithin the broad business case argument fordiversity, the case is made for explicitlyvaluing the specific attributes and skillsassociated with femininity, such as caring,listening, empathy, understanding,communicating and transforming conflict.However, it has been argued that an approachthat is seen to value ‘feminine’ skills mayreinforce the stereotype that there are cleardifferences between the management styles ofmen and women.118 While there may be meandifferences in the traits of men and women inwider society, inside organisations there isextensive evidence to show that men andwomen operate in very similar ways,particularly at the top – the similarities inmanagement style far outweigh thedifferences.119

Furthermore, the ‘valuing femininity’ businesscase generally fails to acknowledge the manydifferent experiences of ‘women’ and theextent to which different categories overlap.120

For example, it is shown how the experiencesof white women often differ significantly fromthose of Asian or African and Caribbeanwomen. In general terms, women who do notconform to the general stereotype of

21

SAME ORDIFFERENT?

There is extensiveevidence to showthat men andwomen operate invery similar waysparticularly at thetop - thesimilarities inmanagement stylefar outweigh thedifferences.


femininity that is valued and even promoted bythe organisation may find it difficult to fit ineasily.

The sticky floorHuman resource management and managingdiversity both promote the importance ofcorporate culture and the possibilities thatcultural management holds for effectivecontrol and increased organisationalperformance. The aim is for everyone withinthe organisation to identify with the core valuesof the corporate culture and to work freely andwillingly to achieve those values, maximisingorganisational and also personal gain.

Within such a culture only certain groups ofpeople are likely to advance. As onecommentator has argued, the business casehelps those at the ‘glass ceiling’ rather thanthose at the ‘sticky floor’.121 The approachincreases the proportion of those workerswhose values fit with the culture of theorganisation irrespective of their background.A company may look diverse, but the processby which diversity is achieved is likely to leavethe cultures and processes that sustaininequality untouched.

Corporate social responsibilityThere is mounting pressure for greatercorporate social responsibility on the part ofbusiness. The ideas associated with corporatesocial responsibility are increasingly beingseen as a way to tackle equality issues.

Action on equality is increasingly highlightingthe power of employees and stakeholders topressure employers into linking businessinterests with the equality agenda.122 The caseis put forward that employers have acommercial interest in promoting equality forits own sake to enhance their reputation andestablish themselves as an ‘employer ofchoice’. This merges the spirit of the socialjustice and business advantage arguments

and may revitalise commitment to greaterequality.

The Commission for Racial Equality and theEqual Opportunities Commission both supportthis approach. Within the Standards for RacialEquality for Employers, the CRE sets out thebusiness case for racial equality, taking amulti-faceted approach which promotes anemployer’s obligation to contribute to‘sustaining a healthy society’ alongside‘making the company more attractive toinvestors’.123 It remains to be seen whethersocial responsibility arguments will succeedwhere others have failed. In the main, it is stilllikely to be the demands of surviving in themarketplace that determine the level of acompany’s commitment to the principles ofsocial justice. ❡

22


A companymay lookdiverse, butthe processby whichdiversity isachieved islikely to leavethe culturesandprocessesthat sustaininequalityuntouched.

”

”



Efforts to eradicate gender inequality atwork and the pay gap between men andwomen – fixing strategies’, equalopportunities policies and managingdiversity – have had limited impactbecause they are too often implementedwithout sufficient appreciation of theextent of their limitations. Most commonlyemployed measures aimed at tacklinginequality are too superficial and narrowlytargeted, aimed at eliminating individualprejudice or removing specific barriers towomen’s advancement. They fail torecognise the institutionalised nature ofgender inequality and consequently totackle the powerful, masculine culturewoven into the fabric of companystructures and the labour market as awhole.

Equality initiatives, if they are to operatesuccessfully, require a deeper, broaderapproach. They should reach beyond efforts tomanipulate behaviour and instead encourageindividuals to critically interrogate how theirown values, attitudes and identities have beeninfluenced by traditional assumptions aboutmen and women.

Even organisations that view themselves as‘progressive’ need to scrutinise their ownpractices. Whilst equity policies and principlesmay be in place and the desire for changegenuine, strategies may yet fall short of theirdesired effect. Achievements announced witha fanfare – another female board member, orthe first female chief executive – generateoptimism, yet often mask the reality ofwomen’s progress.

This report advocates that companyleaderships commit long-term resources tobuilding a truly progressive equalityprogramme. This does not mean importing acompletely new approach to replace orsucceed past change interventions. Ratheremployers should critically and carefully re-

evaluate existing polices and approaches withthe aim of identifying those elements of pastinitiatives that might be helpful and could beadapted to help achieve deep change. Specificinitiatives can be layered on the foundation ofa progressive policy including positive action,an agenda that values a wider diversity ofpeople and strategies targeting femaleemployees.

Government policymakers should recognisethat the core problem rests in the way in whichthe labour market is created and continues tooperate. Equality and fairness can only beachieved within a wider programme to rethinkthe workings of the labour market, our definitionsof work and the design of organisations.

Women’s progress is in danger of stallingwithout government intervention, requiring arenewed long-term commitment of time andfunding. Existing legislation and initiativesbuilt on outmoded understandings of genderinequality should be revised and replaced toprovide a new strategic framework for thefuture.

RECOMMENDATIONS

GOVERNMENTThe labour marketThe roots of gender and other inequalities arenot just found within organisations. The natureof the labour market and the workings of theeconomy have a major influence on thesuccess of workplace and government equalityinitiatives.

The minimum wage, tax credits for workingfamilies and childcare, the New Deal for LoneParents, the National Childcare Strategy andsimilar initiatives are important first steps.However, the positive effects of these policieswill be limited without a corresponding rethinkof the structure of the wider labour market andeconomy.

23

5. CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Evenorganisationsthat viewthemselvesas‘progressive’need toscrutinisetheir ownpractices.

”

”


A single equality act and equalitycommissionIn line with policy recommendations by theHepple reports,124 there is a strong case for asingle equality act in Britain, and for a singleequality commission.

A single commission could more effectivelytackle issues common to sex, race and otherforms of discrimination, resulting in astreamlined, strategic approach. Care shouldbe taken, however, that such an organisationreflects the power imbalances within the widersociety and does not emphasise the concernsof one group at the expense of others.

At the very least, and in the interim, a nationalequality strategy should be put in place toensure a more integrated approach betweenexisting agencies and provide the capacity torespond more proactively to forthcoming EUdirectives on other forms of discrimination, forexample on the basis of age and sexualorientation.

The equality training industryEquality training is an under-regulatedindustry, and the quality of training may varyconsiderably. Equality training often ignoresthe varied ways in which different groups ofwomen experience discrimination and may failto meet the needs of all participants.

It is a core recommendation of this report thatthe DTI, working in tandem with the EqualOpportunities Commission (EOC), theCommission for Racial Equality (CRE) and theDisability Rights Commission (DRC) – or areplacement commission – conduct an in-depth review of the equality training industry,identifying weaknesses and providingsolutions to improve the quality of provision. Itis our recommendation that the reviewexplores the possibility of establishing anaccreditation scheme for equality trainingproducts, a scheme that could be run jointly bythe EOC, CRE and the DRC, with contracts to

deliver training for service providers offered tothe specialist gender studies departments ofuniversities and membership organisationslike The Industrial Society and the TUC.

Training for interviewers and other linemanagers must be more rigorously ‘qualitychecked’, drawing on clear good practiceframeworks that have been developed anddistributed by the EOC/CRE/DRC. Equalitytraining at the workplace level must go beyondproviding guidance on how merely to staywithin EO legislation and should question theroots of traditionally held assumptions aboutmen, women and other social groups.

Employers should be encouraged to placeequality goals at the strategic core of theirorganisations as part of a progressive equalopportunities strategy, feeding into allmanagement training, development andpractice.

Compulsory equality audits Government regulation should start from abase of persuasion, information and voluntaryaction plans. Thereafter failure to complyshould result in investigation and, wherenecessary, judicial enforcement and sanctions.

Change implemented willingly is likely to bemore genuine, creative and effective. However,regulation may be required where the claims ofenterprise unjustifiably override the claims offairness. Minimum wage legislation wasneeded when the labour market consistentlyshowed no signs of eradicating very low pay.

Explicit time-scales should be publishedinside which change is expected to happen.There should be clarity about what progress isrequired and a commitment to review policyoptions – including the need for compulsorygender auditing – if progress is failing.

24

VARIABLETRAINING

Equality training isan under-regulatedindustry, and thequality of trainingmay varyconsiderably.

>> 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Information campaignLack of information and awareness is a majorproblem. Much good practice advice andinformation tends to miss the smaller andmedium-sized organisations, and fails toprovide appropriate detail and guidance.

A new awareness and information campaign isneeded on inequality and discrimination thatacknowledges this reality and is genuinely‘joined up’ and strategic in its approach. Thisshould draw in all relevant governmentdepartments, official agencies, the TUC,membership organisations such as TheIndustrial Society and relevant charities.

The EOC, CRE and the DRC shouldcollaborate to update and re-launch theirguidelines and codes of practice. Moretargeted information and support could bedeveloped (guidance, toolkits, software, acentral ‘equality’ web-site) for specificindustry sectors and types of workplace,tailored to the needs of small, medium andlarge organisations.

Targeting SMEsMany small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) inthe UK compete primarily on the basis of costand so structure their organisations aroundthe provision of cheap (often female) labour.Some may see equality issues as likely toimpact negatively on their business. Howevermany SMEs may be more receptive to equalityinitiatives if they are given appropriateinformation and assistance.

There would be significant benefits toproviding specifically tailored advice to SME’s.Current fact sheets and simple summaries areeasy to produce and disseminate, but may beless effective than videos, on line tutorials andtelephone support.

In particular, tailored one-to-one advice hasbeen shown to be particularly effective inreaching SMEs and promoting progressive

equality policies. A recent European SocialFund project led by the Welsh DevelopmentAgency aimed to develop good practice ongender equality, using a team of specialistadvisors who visited SMEs located inindustrial South Wales. The BusinessAdvisors produced a Development Plan, whichwas agreed with the company as well as aSteering Group comprising (among others)representatives from the EOC, CRE andDisability Rights Group. The project was verysuccessful, advising more than 170 SMEs overthree years and increasing opportunities foremployment and progression for womenoutside traditionally ‘female’ job roles.

On the basis of this successful project,central government and local authoritiesshould steer the Regional DevelopmentAgencies to investigate the possibility ofsimilar schemes across the country, buildingon the lessons learned by the WDA project.

EOC to focus on ethnic minority womenIn the absence of a single, cohesive agency,government agencies such as the EOC need tomake it far clearer that their campaigns areaimed at all groups of women and should beaware of, and be seen to address, the differentexperience of ethnic minority women.

Government fundingThe EOC, CRE and DRC (or a replacementcommission) are pivotal to theserecommended policy changes. It is thereforevital that these organisations are given thenecessary resources from government if theyare properly to address these issues.

Corporate social responsibilityThe Industrial Society supports thesuggestion raised by the Women’sEmployment and Pay Review’s recentconsultation exercise that companies reporttheir use of human capital in annual reportsand accounts, or through the Operating and

25


Much goodpracticeadvice andinformationtends to missthe smallerand medium-sizedorganisations

”

”


Financial Review along the lines recommendedin the final report of the Company Law Review.This would provide key information toinvestors and the wider labour market, whowould then be in a better position to placepressure on organisations to address equalityand wider corporate social responsibility issues.

Support for female entrepreneursFor some women (and members of ethniccommunities) self-employment or starting up asmall businesses is a route to escapingworkplace discrimination or providing flexibleworking opportunities.

An Industrial Society report UnequalEntrepreneurs125 reveals discrimination bybanks and venture capital providers meansthat too many women are exchanging low payin employment for low profits and lowprospects for growth in self-employment.

Unequal Entrepreneurs makes a range of policyproposals, including funding more 'incubation'and micro-credit programmes for women'ssmall business. In addition to providing vitalsupport and funding, incubation also presentsan opportunity to encourage the growth oforganisational cultures that are truly gendersensitive and progressive. Womenentrepreneurs could be encouraged torecognise and avoid building workingpractices, policies and cultures thatdisadvantage women and other groups.

Lead by exampleCentral Government should set clear targetsfor departments’ progress towards systematicequality auditing, with a commitment toaddress any inequalities that are identified,such as gender and other bias in pay structures.Pressure should be placed on the rest of thepublic sector to emulate this approach.

It is our view that the key to securing suchaction is [a] visible government commitmentto change and [b] leadership and direction on

the part of individual public sector executiveteams to create and sustain momentum.

The government should explore how the publicsector contract specification and compliancestructure could be adapted to require newcontractors to undertake detailed equalityaudits, and commit to address any inequalitiesthat are found. We recommend that thegovernment conducts or commissions a studyinto how such contract terms could be framed.

A ‘central bank’ for research andinitiatives on genderThe EOC (or a new equality commission)should undertake a large-scale, internationalreview of academic and policy research ongender and work. There is much practicalactivity to mainstream gender equality by localauthorities, regional development agenciesand the European Union. This diversity ofinformation and experience should be retainedin one location and made accessible to thepolicy making community.

The EOC has already established a researchdatabase, which could be expanded to fulfilthese aims. Partners at all levels, from the EUto local authorities, would benefit fromsupporting this work.

EMPLOYERSA progressive approach to equality This report advocates a progressive approachto achieving equality. Employers shouldconduct regular ‘health checks’ of theirequality policies. Organisations shouldidentify, with the help of specialists, thoseelements of current policies and initiativesthat are most beneficial and could be adaptedand developed to form a more progressiveapproach to equality. The hallmarks of aprogressive approach to equality might includea number of the recommendations listed below.

Equality monitoring dataEmphasis on the use of statistics and personal

26


CentralGovernmentshould setclear targetsfordepartments’progresstowardssystematicequalityauditing,with acommitmentto addressanyinequalitiesthat areidentified.

”

”


profiles helps understand the scope of theproblem. Audits should go beyond informationnormally provided within classic equalopportunities monitoring procedures.Monitoring of equality policies in many firms isoften limited to simply documenting wheremen and women are located within theorganisation. A more comprehensive audit isessential in highlighting the extent of theunequal distribution of groups by gender, race,disability, etc. These in-depth surveys make itdifficult for managers to hold onto theirbeliefs about women’s limitations or that theirorganisations are making the best use of theirhuman resources.

Detailed guidance and toolkits on how toconduct this detailed equality monitoring(including websites and computer software)needs to be provided. Organisations such asthe TUC and The Industrial Society, working inpartnership with the EOC/CRE/DRC (or a newequality commission) and the Small BusinessService, could form a joint campaign toresearch, inform and consult on these issues.

The ‘deep small win’ approachA bottom-up workplace intervention toachieve multiple ‘deep small wins’ (small butsignificant changes to organisational culture)has the potential to create large-scale changeover time.129

Strategic decision makers work to addresspolicies, practices and cultures that invisiblydiscriminate against women (and some men).The strategy focuses on changing relativelysmall aspects of an organisation’s cultureselected because they have implications forgender or race relations etc (eg. offices wherewomen feel compelled to conceal all parentalobligations, preferring to say they are takingtime out to attend a meeting rather thanattend to a sick child).

The aim is to multiply ‘small deep wins’ overtime, leading eventually to major structuraland cultural change. This approach acceptsthat deep change takes time to achieve andseeks partners that accept this fact and arewilling to invest commitment and patience.

Fixing strategiesEmployers should be aware of the limitationsof fixing strategies as a short cut solution toaddressing women’s unequal position withinorganisations. For sustained equality to beachieved, fixing strategies should operatewithin the framework of a progressiveapproach.

27


Good Practice in Equality Monitoring

● Pay audit and distribution analysis of women andmen throughout the organisation.

● Length of time in grades for male and female staff.● Experience and expertise of men and women –

framed so as to value informal work experience andskills gained from, eg, managing a household.

● Attitude surveys – do employees find their jobschallenging? Research has shown that far fewerwomen tend to answer positively to this question,possibly indicating the under-utilisation of ability.Women may expend energy coping with thedominant organisational culture. Surveys should aimto establish how pre-occupied women are withcoping in their work environment, and the impact ofthis on their performance and productivity.

● An analysis of employees ‘choices’ – asking abouttheir attitude towards promotion, whether they areconsidering it, whether negative attitudes towardspromotion are a result of a need for greaterflexibility.

● Extensive qualitative monitoring – using, for example,confidential focus groups, interviews and reportsfrom Employee Assistance Programmes to seek anin-depth understanding of the experience of thosefrom disadvantaged social groups once in place atdifferent levels within the organisation.

Adapted from Liff & Cameron, ‘Changing Equality Culturesto Move Beyond ‘Women’s Problems’, 1997.

Source: L.Dearden, H.Reed and J van Reenen, Who GainsWhen Workers Train? IFS 2000


The aim is tomultiply‘small deepwins’ overtime, leadingeventually tomajorstructuraland culturalchange.

”

”

Salary history ‘Salary history’ should not be an automaticrequirement on application forms and at thejob interview. Employers should review thevalue of this request and the extent to which itdiscriminates against candidates. A newequality commission working with employer’sorganisations, trade unions, employersorganisations and The Industrial Society couldeffectively campaign for this very simple step.

Training provisionEmployers that commission training mustdemand rigour and quality from their trainingproviders and must themselves know what tolook for. The EOC, CRE and DRC are wellplaced to provide guides and checklists toemployers, potentially as an element of apossible equality training accreditationscheme.

Flexible workingIndustrial Society research indicates thatmanagement level job shares, reduced hoursor term-time contracts hold much possibilityfor equality and improved performance but arerarely offered. Employers should provide moreflexibility at all levels in terms of working time,workplace locations and employmentcontracts.

Women’s workEmployers should acknowledge the level andvariety of key organisational skills that manywomen gain from running a home, caring andworking in the community. More emphasisshould be given to providing opportunities (onapplication forms and in interviews) forwomen to demonstrate these skills.

TRADE UNIONSCollective bargainingCollective agreements have been shown to beparticularly ‘dynamic’ instruments that can beused to introduce and fix in place firmprocedures for identifying inequalities andworking towards solutions, and can becontinually renegotiated and improved.

However, collective agreements can also actas a major barrier to wage and other forms ofequality, because fewer women hold powerwithin trade unions and are therefore lesslikely to take part in the high-levelnegotiations on pay and conditions as TUrepresentatives.

Unions will need to be more successful inachieving membership growth, especiallyamongst women and other disadvantagedgroups. Individual trade unions (with the helpof the TUC) must also do more to address theinequalities within their own organisations.More women and members of ethniccommunities must be helped to reachpositions where they can negotiate on theirown behalf. Trade unions generally should beseen to ‘practise what they preach’ and thusstrengthen their own legitimacy. ❡

28


Employersshouldacknowledgethe level andvariety of keyorganisationalskills thatmany womengain fromrunning ahome, caringand workingin thecommunity.

”

”



29

6. POLICY PROPOSALS

SUMMARY OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Main recommendation

New equality commission

Single equality act

Interim national equality strategy

Review of equality training

Compulsory equality audits

National awareness campaign ongender equality at work

Increased funding for key equalitybodies

Wider company reportingrequirements

Description

Investigate case for new singlecommission responsible for gender,race, and other forms ofdiscrimination

Integration and rationalisation ofcurrently separate equality legislation

Pending the outcome of governmentfeasibility studies above, newinitiative to integrate efforts ofequality agencies and policies

In-depth review of the equalitytraining industry

Option for government regulation ifthere is insufficient voluntary actionby employers to close gender pay gapwithin reasonable time scale

Government-led campaign targeted atemployers, designed to provide newlevels of information and guidance oneffective equality and diversity policy

Specific targeted campaign focusedon SME sector and regional agencies

Central information and researchdatabank of good practice

Annual reports and/or Operating andFinancial Reviews to includemandatory disclosure on equalitypolicy and progress

Responsibility

Government inter-departmentalfeasibility study; progressed byselected lead department

Government inter-departmentalfeasibility study; progressed byselected lead department

Government departments, equalityagencies

DTI research, collaborating withequality agencies

DTI

DTI in collaboration with EOC

Treasury

DTI Company Law Review

SUMMARY OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED):


30

Main recommendation

Enhanced support for femaleentrepreneurs

Public sector employer equalityauditing

Adopt a progressive approach toequality policies and practice

Regular ‘health checks’ of equalitypolicy effectiveness

Improve equality monitoring data

Adopt the ‘deep small win’ approach

Salary history

Trade union initiatives on genderinequality

Description

See policy proposals in UnequalEntrepreneurs [The Industrial Society,November 2001]

Clear targets for progress towardsequality auditing within public sectororganisations andsuppliers/contractors

Review of public sector contractterms’ scope for equality auditcompliance

Combining the most effectivefeatures of equal opportunities andmanaging diversity policies, whilstrecognising the limitations of theseapproaches

Employer reviews of equality anddiversity policy effectiveness; toinclude evaluation of equality data,salary systems, selection procedures,training, flexible work policies,recognition of skills gained outsidepaid employment

Detailed equality audits that gobeyond normal equal opportunitiesmonitoring

Multiply small but significant changesto discriminatory cultures andworking practices

Review automatic requirement fordisclosure of salary history on applicationforms and at the job interview

Further TUC-led drives to increasefemale membership; audit unions’own equality policies and practices

Responsibility

Department for Trade and Industry

Financial institutions

Public sector employers

DTI in collaboration with DETR

Employers

Employers

Employers

Employers

Employers

TUC

1. See, for example, ‘Genderquake’, Daily Mail, 21 April 2001. 2. ‘Unequal but unfair, Girls beat boys but end up with lesspay’, The Guardian, 17 August 2001.3. The Women’s National Commission/The Future Foundation,Future Female – a 21st Century Gender Perspective, The FutureFoundation, London.4. C Bower, 2000, Trends in Female Employment, cited by theGovernment’s Women’s Unit fact sheet, February 2001.5. ‘Employment Opportunities for Women’, a speech by the RtHon Tessa Jowell MP, the then Minister for Employment,Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, 27 March 2001.6. Key Note, ‘Working Women’, 2001 Market assessment,published by Key Note, www.keynote.co.uk7. Key Note, ‘Working Women’, 2001 Market assessment,published by Key Note, www.keynote.co.uk8. Barclays Bank Plc, 2000, Women in Business – the barriersstart to fall, cited in the government’s Women’s Unit fact sheet,February 2001. 9. The gender pay gap is determined by calculating women’soverall overage pay as a percentage of men’s. So, for example,the current pay gap is said to be 18% where women’s pay is 82%of men’s. The gender pay gap is said to ‘narrow’ as women’saverage pay moves closer to men’s.10. Equal Pay Task Force, Just Pay, Equal OpportunitiesCommission, Manchester, 2001.11. T Anderson, J Forth, H Metcalf and S Kirby, The GenderPay Gap – final report to the DfEE, National Institute ofEconomic and Social Research, London, June 2001.12. Lucy Ward, ‘Typical woman earns 250,000 less than a man’,The Guardian, 21 February 2000; K Rake, Women's Incomes Overthe Lifetime, The Stationery Office, 2000.13. Lucy Ward, ‘Typical woman earns 250,000 less than a man’,The Guardian, 21 February 2000; K Rake, Women's Incomes Overthe Lifetime, The Stationery Office, 2000.14. Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, GraduateWorkplace Attitudes, 13 September 2001, London.15. J de Bruijn, ‘Comparable Worth and Equal Pay Policies inthe European Union’, Chapter 10 in Gender and Economics: AEuropean Perspective, A Geske and J Plantenga (Eds.),Routledge, 1997, London.16. The Law Society, ‘Private Practice Solicitors: Salaries2000’, Salary Data 2000, London. 17. Sir Michael Bett, Independent Review Chairman,Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions,Stationery Office, 23 June 1999, London.18. Donald MacLeod, ‘The rate for the job’, The Guardian, 2October 2001. This articles cites a recent case by Nathfemember Lorna Chessum who successfully challengedDeMontfort University when she found that a male colleaguewas paid £6,000 more pro rata, despite having equalqualifications and more experience. 19. Equal Opportunities Commission, Briefings on Women andMen in Britain: Pay, Manchester.20. Institute of Management, 2000, National Management SalarySurvey 2000, Remuneration Economics.21. Denise Kingsmill, ‘Clear out the clones - it's in the bestinterests of business’, The Guardian, 29 August 2001. 22. Denise Kingsmill, ‘Clear out the clones - it's in the bestinterests of business’, The Guardian, 29 August 2001.23. Institute of Management, 2000, ‘National ManagementSalary Survey 2000’, Remuneration Economics.24. Equal Pay Task Force, 2001, Just Pay, Equal OpportunitiesCommission, Manchester; D Grimshaw, and J Rubery, TheGender Pay Gap: a Research Review, EOC Research DiscussionSeries, EOC, Manchester.25. I Bruegel, ‘Sex and race in the labour market’, FeministReview, 32, summer ;R Bhavnani, 1994, Black Women in theLabour Market, EOC Research Series, EOC, Manchester, 1989,pp 85–91.26. Figures taken from the NES data cited in T Anderson, JForth, H Metcalf, and S Kirby, The Gender Pay Gap – final reportto the DfEE, National Institute of Economic and Social

Research, June 2001, London.27. S Innes, Making it Work: Women, Change and Challenge inthe 90s, Chatto and Windus, 1995, London.28. Figures taken from the NES data cited in T Anderson, JForth, H Metcalf and S Kirby, The Gender Pay Gap – final reportto the DfEE, National Institute of Economic and SocialResearch,: June 2001, London.29. Figures taken from the LFS data cited in T Anderson, JForth, H Metcalf, and S Kirby, The Gender Pay Gap – final reportto the DfEE, National Institute of Economic and SocialResearch, June 2001, London.30. J Wajcman, ‘Feminism facing Industrial Relations inBritain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 2, 2000, pp183–201.31. B Reskin and P Roos, Job Queues, Gender Queues:Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations, TempleUniversity Press, 1990, Philadelphia.32. D Grimshaw and J Rubery, The Gender Pay Gap: a ResearchReview, EOC Research Discussion Series, Equal OpportunitiesCommission, Manchester.33. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.34. Corrigan and Sayer 1985 cited in J Wajcman, Managing Likea Man: Women and Men in Corporate Management, Polity Press,1998, Cambridge.35. Zimmereck 1992 cited in J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man:Women and Men in Corporate Management, Polity Press, 1998,Cambridge.36. Savage 1992 cited in J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man:Women and Men in Corporate Management, Polity Press, 1998,Cambridge.37. S Halford, M Savage and Anne Witz, Gender, Careers andOrganisations: Current Developments in Banking, Nursing andLocal Government, MacMillan, 1997, London.38. D Colinson, D Knights and M Collinson, Managing toDiscriminate, Routledge, 1990, London. 39. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.40. A point that is emphasised by J Wajcman, Managing Like aMan: Women and Men in Corporate Management, Polity Press,1998, Cambridge.41. S Newell, ‘The superwoman syndrome: gender differencesin attitudes towards equal opportunities at work and towardsdomestic responsibility at home’, Work, Employment andSociety, 7, 2, 1993, pp 275–89 explores the nation-wide attitudesurvey which indicates that since the 1960s there has been asignificant fall in the number of women who feel mothers withchildren under five years old should stay at home. See also CMcComb, ‘Poll analysis: few say it’s ideal for both parents towork full t ime outside of home’, The Gallup Organization, 4 May2001. 42. C McComb, ‘Poll analysis: few say it’s ideal for bothparents to work full t ime outside of home’, The GallupOrganization, 4 May 2001. 43. J Acker, ‘Gendering organisational theory’, in AJ Mills andP Trancred (Eds), Gendering Organisational Analysis, Sage, 1992,London.44. G Kirton and A Greene, The Dynamics of ManagingDiversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth Heinemann, 2000,London.45. M Hart, 1992, Working and Educating for Life: Feminist andInternational Perspectives on Adult Education, Routledge,London, cited in C Hughes, ‘Painting new (feminist) pictures ofhuman resource management (and) identifying research issuesfor political change’, Management Learning, 13, 1, 2000, pp 51–65.46. C Hughes, ‘Painting new (feminist) pictures of humanresource management (and) identifying research issues forpolitical change’, Management Learning, 13, 1, 2000, pp 51–65.47. Oona King MP, ‘Women in politics: one angry female MPquits, but she’s part of a bigger problem’, The Guardian, 9 May2000.

31


REFERENCES

32

48. For a detailed discussion of masculinities and feminitiessee M Kimmel, The Gendered Society, Oxford University Press,2000, London; M Alvesson and Y Billing, Understanding Genderand Organizations, Sage, 1997, London; D Collinson and MCollinson, Managing to Discriminate, Routledge, 1990, London;D Collinson and J Hearn, Men as Managers, Managers as Men:Critical perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Management,Sage, 1996, London; Y Martin, ‘Mobilizing Masculinities’,Organization, 8 November 2001.49. L Brewlis and S Linstead, ‘Gender and Management’, in LFulop and S Linstead, Management: A Critical Text, MacMillan,1999, London. See also M Kimmel, The Gendered Society, OxfordUniversity Press, 2000, London.50. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.51. Kerfoot and Knights 1995 cited in J Wajcman, Managing Likea Man: Women and Men in Corporate Management, Polity Press,1998, Cambridge.52. A Hochschild, The Managed Heart: Commercialization ofHuman Feeling, University of California Press, 1983, Berkeley.53. D Kerfoot and D Knights, ‘Managing Masculinity incontemporary organisational life: A ‘man’agerial project’,Organization, 5, 1998, pp 7–27.54. J Newman, ‘Gender and cultural change’ in C Itzin and JNewman (Eds.) Gender Culture and Organizational Change:Putting Theory into Practice, Routledge, 1995, London.55. J Newman, ‘Gender and cultural change’ in C Itzin and JNewman (Eds.) Gender Culture and Organizational Change:Putting Theory into Practice, Routledge, 1995, London.56. S Liff, ‘Equal Opportunities: continuing discrimination in acontext of formal equality’, in Edwards (Ed.), IndustrialRelations, Blackwell, 1995, Oxford; R Steinberg, ‘Genderedinstructions: cultural lag and gender bias in the Hay system ofjob evaluation’, Work and Occupations, 19, 1992, pp 387–423.Both cited in J Wajcman, ‘Feminism facing IndustrialRelations’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 2, 2000, pp 183-201.57. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.58. Swedish Presidency Study, ‘Highlighting the paydifferentials between men and women’, Sweden, 2000,Government Offices.59. Female employee from Deloitte and Touche, cited in DMcCracken, ‘Winning the talent war for women: sometimes ittakes a revolution’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 2000.60. C Cochrane, ‘Gender influences on the process andoutcomes of rating performance’ PhD dissertation, 1999,University of Minnesota in Merrill-Sands, and Kolb, Centre forGender in Organizations, Simmons Graduate School ofManagement, 2001, Boston, USA.61. MT Strebler, M Thompson and P Heron, Skills,Competencies and Gender: issues for pay and training, TheInstitute for Employment Studies, 1997.62. JK Joyce, ‘Invisible work: the disappearing of relationalpractice at work’, Centre for Gender in Organizations, SimmonsGraduate School of Management, Boston, USA.63. A Booth, M Francesconi, and J Frank, ‘A Sticky FloorsModel of Promotion, Pay and Gender’, ISER, University ofEssex.64. T Turnasella, ‘The Salary Trap’, Compensation and BenefitsReview, November/December 1999, pp 27–30.65. T Turnasella, ‘The Salary Trap’, Compensation and BenefitsReview, November/December 1999, pp 27-30.66. This title is adapted from one coined by J Martin, 2001,‘Feminist Theory and Critical Theory: Unexplored Synergies’, toappear in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott, (Eds.), CriticalManagement Studies, Sage Publications, London, forthcoming 67. DE Meyerson, and M Kolb, ‘Moving out of the ‘Armchair’:Developing a framework to Bridge the Gap between FeministTheory and Practice’, Organization, 7, 4, 2000, pp 553–571; JMartin, 2001, ‘Feminist Theory and Critical Theory: UnexploredSynergies’, to appear in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (Eds.),

Critical Management Studies, Sage Publications, London,forthcoming.68. Association of Women in Science and Engineering –http://www.awise.org69. DE Meyerson and M Kolb, ‘Moving out of the ‘Armchair’:Developing a framework to Bridge the Gap between FeministTheory and Practice’, Organization, 7, 4, 2000, pp 553–571.70. Insights gained from interviews with The IndustrialSociety’s training team.71. A point made by J Martin, 2001, ‘Feminist Theory andCritical Theory: Unexplored Synergies’, to appear in M.Alvesson and H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical Management Studies,Sage Publications, London, forthcoming.72. A point made by J Martin, 2001, ‘Feminist Theory andCritical Theory: Unexplored Synergies’, to appear in M.Alvesson and H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical Management Studies,Sage Publications, London, forthcoming.73. This title has been adapted from one coined by J Martin,2001, ‘Feminist Theory and Critical Theory: UnexploredSynergies’, to appear in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (Eds.),Critical Management Studies, Sage Publications, London,forthcoming.74. S Liff and J Wajcman, ‘‘Sameness’ and ‘difference’revisited: which way forward for equal opportunitiesinitiatives?’, Journal of Management Studies, 33, 1, 1996, 79–94.75. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.76. Certain forms of direct discrimination are unlawful (eg, sex,race, marital status, disability), while others (religion, age,sexual orientation) are currently not regulated by the law inmainland Britain. This is set to change in 2003, when the EqualTreatment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC is to beimplemented. This requires all Member States to introduce lawsto outlaw both direct and indirect discrimination in recruitmentand occupation on the grounds of ‘religion or belief, disability,age or sexual orientation’.77. N Jewson and D Mason, ‘The theory and practice of equalopportunities policies: liberal and radical approaches’,Sociological Review, 34, 2, 1986, pp 307–34.78. Equal Opportunities Commission, Code of Practice on SexDiscrimination, July 2000, Manchester.79. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.80. See Marshcall v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1998, IndustrialRelations Law Review, 39.81. The Industrial Society, Valuing Diversity, Managing BestPractise No. 78, December 2001.82. Charles Allen, Executive Chairman of Granada Group, 1999,commenting on the fact that at that time, only 140 employers inBritian have joined Race for Opportunity, the businessorganisation to promote equal treatmentof different racialgroups. 83. Bacchi 1996; Cockburn 1991; Collinson, Knights andCollinson, 1990 all cited in G Kirton and A Greene, 2000, ibid.;Dickens 1994; Halford 1992 and Shaw and Perrons 1995 all citedin J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.84. B Hepple, QC, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, E Ellis, D Roseand R Singh, Improving Equality Law: The Options, RunnymedeTrust, 1997, London.85. B Hepple, QC, M Coussey and T Choudhury, Equality: A NewFramework. Report of the Independent Review of theEnforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, HartPublishing, 2000, Oxford. 86. S Liff and I Cameron, ‘Changing Equality Cultures to MoveBeyond ‘Women’s Problems’, Gender, Work and Organization, 4,1, 1997, pp 35–46.87. K Hoque and M Noon, ‘Equal opportunities policy andpractice in the UK: evaluating the ‘empty shell’ hypothesis’,paper presented at Dutch HRM Network conference, ‘Universityof Nijmegan, 15 November 2001.88. K Rubin, ‘Gender, Equality and the Culture of

>>. REFERENCES


Organisational Assessment’, Gender, Work and Organization, 4,1, 1997, pp 24–34.89. J Martin, 2001, ‘Feminist Theory and Critical Theory:Unexplored Synergies’, to appear in M. Alvesson and H.Willmott, (Eds.), Critical Management Studies, SagePublications, London, forthcoming.90. The Industrial Society, Flexible Working Patterns, ManagingBest Practice No 85, July 2001; C Savage, K Janman and JKnell, Desperately Seeking Flexibility: Is job share the answer?,The Industrial Society, 2001, London.91. DE Meyerson and M Kolb, ‘Moving out of the ‘Armchair’:Developing a framework to Bridge the Gap between FeministTheory and Practice’, Organization, 7, 4, 2000, pp 553–571.92. D Collinson, D Knights and M Collins, Managing toDiscriminate, Routledge, 1990, London; S Halford, M Savage andA Witz, Gender, Careers and Organisations, Macmillan, 1997,London; JK Fletcher, Invisible work: the disappearance ofrelational practice at work, Centre for Gender in Organisations,Simmons School of Management, 2001, Boston.93. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.94. C Cockburn, In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to SexEquality in Organizations, MacMillan, 1991, London.95. DE Meyerson and M Kolb, ‘Moving out of the ‘Armchair’:Developing a framework to Bridge the Gap between FeministTheory and Practice’, Organization, 7, 4, 2000, pp 553–571.96. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.97. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.98. Eisenstein 1984; Nicholson 1990; Riley 1998; Yong 1990 allcited in Wajcman 1998, ibid.99. J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge.100. Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J., 1995, ‘Managing Diversity:succeeding where equal oportunities has failed’, EqualOpportunities Review, Jan/Feb101. R Kandola and J Fullerton, ‘Managing Diversity:succeeding where equal opportunities has failed’, EqualOpportunities Review, Jan/Feb 1995.102. The Industrial Society, Flexible Working Patterns, ManagingBest Practice No 85, July 2001.103. G Kirton and A Greene, The Dynamics of ManagingDiversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth Heinemann, 2000,London.104. RR Thomas, 1991, Beyond Race and Gender.105. A Lorbiecki and Gavin Jack, ‘Critical turns in theEvolution of Diversity Management’, British Journal ofManagement, 11, 2000, special edition, s17–s31.106. Lowery 1995 cited in A Lorbiecki and Gavin Jack, ‘Criticalturns in the Evolution of Diversity Management’, British Journalof Management, 11, 2000, special edition, s17–s31.107. A Lorbiecki and Gavin Jack, ‘Critical turns in theEvolution of Diversity Management’, British Journal ofManagement, 11, 2000, special edition, s17–s31.108. Lowery 1995 cited in A Lorbiecki and Gavin Jack, ‘Criticalturns in the Evolution of Diversity Management’, British Journalof Management, 11, 2000, special edition, s17–s31.109. Vince and Booth 1996 cited in A Lorbiecki and Gavin Jack,‘Critical turns in the Evolution of Diversity Management’,British Journal of Management, 11, 2000, special edition,s17–s31.110. As identified in G Kirton and A Greene, The Dynamics ofManaging Diversity: A Critical Approach, ButterworthHeinemann, 2000, London; and The Industrial Society, ValuingDiversity, Managing Best Practice No 78, December 2000.111. As identified in The Industrial Society, Valuing Diversity,Managing Best Practice No 78, December 2000.112. J Rosener, ‘The ways women lead’, Harvard BusinessReview, December 1990, pp 199–225.113. G Kirton and A Greene, The Dynamics of Managing

Diversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth Heinemann, 2000,London.114. Cited in S Liff and I Cameron, ‘Changing Equality Culturesto Move Beyond ‘Women’s Problems’, Gender, Work andOrganization, 4, 1, 1997, pp 35–46.115. T Collins and L Dickens, ‘Selling the case for GenderEquality: Deregulation and Equality Bargaining’, British Journalof Industrial Relations, 36, 3 September 1998, pp 389–411. 116. This case is cited in L Brewlis and S Linstead, 1999,‘Gender and Management’, in L Fulop and S Linstead,Management – A Critical Text, MacMillan, London.117. C Cockburn, ‘Equal opportunities: the long and shortagenda’, Industrial Relations Journal, Autumn 1989, 20, pp213–225.118. G Kirton and A Greene, The Dynamics of ManagingDiversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth Heinemann, 2000,London.119. See J Wajcman, Managing Like a Man: Women and Men inCorporate Management, Polity Press, 1998, Cambridge. Adetailed review of many different studies on gender differencesin management and leadership styles is provided by M Strebler,M Thompson and P Heron, Skills, Competencies and Gender:issues for pay and training, The Institute for EmploymentStudies: London and the EOC, 1997, Manchester.120. A point that is made by J Martin, 2001, ‘Feminist Theoryand Critical Theory: Unexplored Synergies’, to appear in MAlvesson and H Willmott (Eds.), Critical Management Studies,Sage Publications, London, forthcoming.121. Millor 1996 cited in G Kirton and A Greene, The Dynamicsof Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach, ButterworthHeinemann, 2000, London.122. L Dickens, ‘The business case for women’s equality: is thecarrot better than the stick?’, Employee Relations, 16, 8, 1994,pp 5–18.123. G Kirton and A Greene, The Dynamics of ManagingDiversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth Heinemann, 2000,London.124. B Hepple, QC, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, E Ellis, DRose and R Singh, Improving Equality Law: The Options,Runnymede Trust, 1997, London; B Hepple, QC, M Coussey and TChoudhury, Equality: A New Framework. Report of theIndependent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Hart Publishing, 2000, Oxford.125. For more details see E Shaw, S Carter and J Brierton,Unequal Entrepreneurs, The Industrial Society, 2001,www.indsoc.co.uk126. The Industrial Society has a dedicated team, Dignity atWork, which provides specialist advice, consultancy andtraining interventions on gender equality, race relations,disability awareness, positive action initiatives, sexuality,cultural awareness, ageism, f lexible working and other relatedissues. For more information visit www.indsoc.co.uk127. S Liff and I Cameron, ‘Changing Equality Cultures to MoveBeyond ‘Women’s Problems’’, Gender, Work and Organization, 4,1, 1997, pp 35-46.128. S Liff and I Cameron, ‘Changing Equality Cultures to MoveBeyond ‘Women’s Problems’’, Gender, Work and Organization, 4,1, 1997, pp 35-46.129. For more details of this approach see DE Meyerson and MKolb, ‘Moving out of the ‘Armchair’: Developing a framework toBridge the Gap between Feminist Theory and Practice’,Organization, 7, 4, 2000, pp 553–571; plus the other contributionswithin ‘Beyond Armchair Feminism’, Special Edition,Organization, 7, 4.130. Swedish Presidency Study, Highlighting the paydifferentials between men and women, 2000, Sweden:Government Offices.

33

>>. REFERENCES


THE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETYThe Industrial Society are the UK’sleading thinkers and advisers on theworld of work. Everything we do – fromconsultancy to research, from training toadvocacy, from education to advisoryservices – is driven by our commitment toimprove working life. We are wholly aindependent, not-for-profit body with over10,000 Member organisations, and holdRoyal Charter status. Our Membersinclude companies of every size, fromevery sector of the economy, along withpublic sector organisations, charities andtrade unions.

We are committed to partnership at work, based on the concept of mutualrights and responsibilities betweenemployers and employees. We are anacknowledged authority on best practicein the management and development ofpeople at work.

POLICYSmall Step or Giant Leap is an IndustrialSociety Policy Paper. The Industrial Society’sPolicy team articulate our views on currentwork issues and developments to a wide rangeof decision makers and opinion formers.

The Society’s team of Policy specialistsproduce:● Policy statements on new developments● Responses to government and other

consultations● Commissioned research and analysis

for clients● Policy Papers and Briefs● Media comment● Contributions to seminars, conferences

and other events.

Access Industrial Society Policy workand views at:● www.indsoc.co.uk/policy● or email us at [email protected]

To find out more about The IndustrialSociety’s services,membership and ideas:Call the CustomerCentre on 0870 400 1000or visit our website atwww.indsoc.co.uk

£10.00

Small step or giant leap - towards gender equality at work - Sam Hardy

Documents

Transcript of Small step or giant leap - towards gender equality at work - Sam Hardy