Easy to say, difficult to do:

diversity management in retail

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

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

Contact: Carley Foster, Nottingham Trent University Business School, Burton

Street, Nottingham NGl 4BU. Email: carley.foster ntu.ac.uk

hanges in the composidon of the UK's working populadon and employment

patterns have resulted in considerably greater diversity in the economicaUy acdve
workforce compared with only 20 years ago (Mavin and GirUng, 2000). Jamieson
and O'Mara (1991) observe that these changes, combined with labour shortages and the
increasing purchasing power of 'minority' consumer markets, have led to the emergence
of a business case argument for greater workforce diversity. Its essendal radonale is that
recognising people's differences in organisadonal pracdces can bring HR and marketingrelated business benefits through maximising available talent, creating business
opportunides by drawing on vwder perspecdves and having the capabUity to thrive in
different cultures (Robinson and Dechant, 1997).
The suggesdon is that employers that promote an image of the organisadon as an
'indusive' place to work by encouraging applicadons from 'diverse' individuals posidon
themselves to become 'employers of choice'. This enhances their abUity to recruit the most
talented/skUled appUcants (Cox and Blake, 1991). A weU-pubUdsed example of such an
approach is the DIYretaUerB&Q, which attributes part of its business success to a poUcy
of employing older frontline workers who are more Ukely to be skiUed in offering DIY
advice to customers than younger staff (B&Q, 2004).
In prindple, diversity management encourages the development of more innovadve
HR poUdes and pracdces which offer greater redprodty in the employment reladonship
by addressing individual needs. As lies et al (1998) argue, it is an HR approach that
appears more relevant to the flexible behaviour required of employees in the less

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

predictable workrolesthat are a feature of contemporary working Ufe. PotendaUy, it offers

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

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

a position evident in the interpretation of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and

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

HistoricaUy, organisadonal approaches to equaUty in the UK have developed in response

to the legisladon introduced by successive UK governments since the mid-1970s to
address unfair discriminadon in the pursuit, obtaining and retaining of employment as
weU as other workplace pracdces. Fredman (2002) observes that the ideal of equaUty that
has informed the development of UK and-discriminadon law has been one of freeing
individuals from stereotypical group characterisdcs as a means of supporting workplace
decision-making on the basis of individual merit. The result is a legal framework
developed around a dednidon of inequality described by Chryssides and Kaler (1996: 89)
as 'discriminating against people on grounds that are irrelevant to the jobs they are doing
or for which they are applying', a definition that is evident across the range of anddiscriminadon laws. To reduce the potendal for disparate treatment by managers, the HR
profession has focused on establishing procedures to ensure legal compliance and
demonstrate equal treatment (Harris, 2005). Thus, the 'neutral treatment' principle of
much and-discriminadon legisladon has become the very comerstone of organisadonal
poUdes and processes designed to achieve sameness of treatment in resourcing decisions
which can, as already acknowledged, be regarded as at odds with the nodon of a diversity
management approach based on recognising differences.
PotendaUy this creates a confusing state of affairs for Une managers accustomed to
demonstrating fair treatment through their adherence to procedures designed toremovea
consideration of social group characteristics. An attraction for Une managers of the
tradidonal 'equal opportunides' approach (Harris, 2002) is that it offers a certain simpUdty
and ease of appUcadon by reducing the scope for exercising discredon and providing the
essendal means of defending their decisions in the face of any daim of less favourable
treatment (Wilson and lies, 1999). Its limitation is that it has led HR specialists and
operational managers alike to focus on consistency of process as a means of
demonstrating fairness even though consistency is a reladve principle whose pursuit
6

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

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

THERESEARCH

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

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

managerial roles and not only had aresponsibiUtyfor diversity issues but also experienced
these as employees. Although an important consideration was the diversity of
respondents, and every effort was made to ensure that they reflected a wide range of
visible charaderisdcs, the main priority of the study was to obtain the views of those staff
Vk^th an organisadonal responsibUity for the interpretadon and appUcadon of equaUty and
diversity poUcies. This meant that the diversity of the sample was constrained by the
composidon of the populadon in such roles.
The result was a sample that was 70 per cent female and 30 per cent male, with an age
composidon ranging from mid-twendes to late dfdes, although the majority were in their
thirdes or earUer fordes. There was only one non-white manager in the UK sample, and
one with a visible physical disabUity. It was difficult to select respondents on the grounds
of their non-visible diversity, such asreUgionand sexuaUty, as these 'differences' were not
made known unless during the interview the respondent provided the informadon that
they were, for example, Chrisdan. The large numbers employed in the UK high street and
US businesses, combined with the fluid nature of job roles in the onUne btisiness, meant
that snowbaU sampUng was employed to select interviewees. This technique reUes on
respondents to idendfy other suitable people to interview (Bryman and BeU, 2003). It is
recognised that such an approach could have resulted in some bias in the selecdon of
respondents. To try to minimise this, the Ust of interviewees and their roles were verifled
with the HR funcdon both before and after the interviews took place as weU as being
checked against the documented organisadonal structures, fri addidon to exploring the
mariagers' percepdons of equaUty and diversity poUdes, both in their company and more
generaUy, each respondent was asked about their job role and supervisory responsibiUdes,
their previous experience and working environment.
During the interviews individuals were each asked to comment on a couple of
scenarios describing emplojonent situadons where people could be treated either the same
(an equal opportunides approach) or differently (a managing diversity approach). For
example, one scenario related to an organisadonal beneflts scheme where respondents
were asked to consider the advantages and disadvantages of providing benefits for
specific groups of employees, such as working parents, or for aU employees, such as
reduced rates for membership of a local gym. These scenarios were designed to be a
supplement to the interviews, and each attempted to Ulustrate the essence of managing
diversity and the equal opportunity approach as described in the Uterature. Providing an
example of how these might operate in pracdce was intended to assist the interviewee to
reflect more easUy on the different approaches that could be taken to equality issues.
Respondents were asked during the interviews to identify not only what they would do in
pardcular circumstances but also to describe cridcal incidents that Ulustrated their own
approach to managing diversity or their experience as employees from the perspecdve of
their own working context (Burgess, 1982).
Each UK operadonal unit had a manual issued by the head ofdce which set out the
formal poUcy on mariaging diversity as weU as procedures on issues such as recruitment,
selection, health and safety, disciplinary issues, employee grievances and time off
arrangements. This manual was routinely referred to by managers when making
employment-related decisions. Equal opportunides and diversity policies were also
induded in the employee handbook issued to aU staff at their inducdon. Although the
specialist HR staff had mostly received individual training in diversity and equal
opportunides, Une management training consisted of informadon on legal requirements
and updates provided at briefings undertaken by theregionalHR managers.
Complementary quaUtadve research methods were used to support the interviews
(Bryman, 1989). Day-to-day operadons were observed and recorded, which induded the
8

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

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

FINDINGS

"

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

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

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

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

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

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

demonstrate fair treatment through a visible document traU as a means of defending

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

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

11

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

Personal beUefs about fairness influenced managerial responses to individual differences;

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

The extent to which individual differences were recognised and valued in employment
practices was affected by the size and structure of the organisadon and its extemal
operating environment. This was evident in the responses of those who had experienced
workforce diversity at first hand - for example, in the comments of one HR regional
manager who looked beyond intemal concems to consider how the composidon of the
store's workforce did not always refled the diversity of the customer base it served:
The store staff affect what customers think of us. At the weekends you go
into our stores and all the staff are spotty 14-15 year olds but they don't
reflect our customer base. TypicaUy, most of our customers are 30-40...
An earUer study conduded by Harris (2000) into selecdon pracdces in local govemment
found that the size of the organisadon, combined with the presence of a strong trade union
and the need for pubUc accountabUity,reinforceda regulatory and bureaucradc approach
to deaUng with employee differences. A simUar situadon was observed in the UK highstreet operadons, whichreUedheavUy on formal, prescripdve employment procedures to
ensure consistency of appUcadon - an approach that was reinforced by any reported
managerial training which, where provided, focused entirely on legal compUance rather
than on managing and promoting workforce diversity.
In contrast, the onUneretailerhad more in common with the more informal processes
of a smaU business (Maday, 1999) with less formalised poUcies that defined how staff
should be treated. Managers felt able to apply more ad hoc arrangements to meet
employment-related demands as they arose, freer to exercise judgement, and saw more
scope for differendal treatment. The very riature of the onUne business also meant that the
outcomes of such decisions were less visible and, arguably, less Ukely to be chaUenged as a
result. This less formaUsed approach was commented on by one senior general manager
working in the onUne business:
12

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTJOURNAUVOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

In terms of trying to make employees' Uves easier, we probably do go out of

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

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

13

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

acknowledging and responding to difference. There was some recognition of this

analydcal muddle by the managers in the study who chose to place greater importance on
preserving the beneflts stemming from an estabUshed equal opportunides orthodoxy than
risk eroding these in favour of a less tested, more vague diversity orthodoxy even though
they recognised, theoredcaUy, the benefits this might offer.
Growing numbers of organisations have corporate diversity statements that
acknowledge the importance of employing a diverse workforce and valuing individual
difference. Yet the reported line management pracdce revealed that a standardised
approach to deaUng with employee differences was widely regarded as more sustainable
and workable within the framework of the UK's present and-discriminadon legisladon
than more 'customised' approaches designed to accommodate individual diversity in the
employment reladonship. Despite complaints about excessive rules and bureaucracy, Une
managers aware that fair procedures are as important as substandve issues in tribunal
decisions are ultimately likely to prefer the comfort zone of operating within clearly
prescribed boimdaries. This is an observed preference that may go some way towards
explaining the paradox identifled by Gagnon and Comelius (2000) that workplace
equaUty acdons, though weU intended, can faU to generate 'felt fair' equaUty soludons for
those at the receiving end.
The implementadon problems of 'managing' diversity highUghted in this ardde wUl
become even harder to resolve if the growth in anti-discrimination law leads line
managers to feel more vulnerable, defensive and lacking in expertise. This situadon vdU
be exacerbated if there is a continuing devolvement of HRresponsibiUdesto operadonal
management (MUlward et al, 2000). Implementing innovadve diversity pracdces that
require the appUcadon of personal judgement and discredon may weU seem unattracdve
to Une managers preoccupied vth their own performance against funcdonal operadonal
targets and concerned about the increasing complexity of emplo5TTient law. Furthermore,
as the potendal grounds for and assodated costs of Udgadon escalate so, arguably, wiU the
importance managers attach to risk avoidance by adhering to prescribed soludons in their
HR dedsion-making. HR spedaUsts wUl need to provide more support and guidance to
Une management faced with the demands of meeting the requirements of external
reguladon, desired organisadonal and individual outcomes as weU as possible conflicts
between what is perceived as demonstrable fairness and felt fairness.
If, as this study suggests, diversity management has different meanings for
individuals, approaches to diversity are required that reflect a shared organisadonal
understanding from the very managers who apply them. The architects of diversity
policies need to take greater accoimt of the pressures and dynamics of a range of
contextual factors that can have an impact on their deUvery. Conducting an audit that
includes all the parties in the employment relationship, and addresses such basic
quesdons as 'where are we now?', 'where do we want to be?' and 'what do we need to
do to get there?', is a useful starting point for employers seeking to develop appropriate
and achievable diversity pracdces. WhQe these quesdons may suggest an over-simpUsdc
framework, they do apply an element of radonaUty to the implementadon process in
what is frequently an imder-developed and under-regarded dimension of strategic
HRM. The argument is that employers need to adopt a much more contextually
informed and organisadonaUy reaUsdc view of diversity management than is aU too
often suggested by the equaUty Uterature.
This study's evidence lends support to the view that 'home-grown' solutions to
managing diversity that indude the cridcal coaUdon of operadonal management are likely
to be the best way forward. It reinforces BoxaU and PurceU's (2002) wider message for
strategic HRM to focus on 'good pracdce' thatreflectsextemal and intemal organisadonal
14

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

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

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

15

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

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

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

Carley Foster and Lynette Harris

Kersten, A. (2000). 'Diversity management: dialogue, dialecdcs and diversion'. Joumal of

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

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAU VOL 15 NO 3, 2005

17