section two

This page forms part of the Transcultural Health resource, published in 2004, and is preserved as a historical document for reference purposes only. Some information contained within it may no longer refer to current practice. More information

So far we have considered the legislative and policy frameworks of equality management, we will now turn to what has been called the business case.

The ‘business case’ is largely based on the premise that working proactively with cultural diversity, not in reaction to it, can yield superior business results - i.e. increased efficiency and productivity. Although managing diversity has come to mean more than the business paradigm, it actually started life in the United States and Japan where multi-national companies needed to respond to market effects, changing demographic profiles and globalisation. In other words, they needed to review whom their services and products were intended for and whom they were reaching.

What Is managing diversity?

What is HRM and what does it have to do with diversity management?

Human Resource Management (HRM) is defined by Storey (1995) as:

A distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an array of cultural, structural and personnel techniques.”

(Storey 1995 quoted in Thompson, 1998:192)

This definition of HRM could almost be transposed to a definition of diversity management. That is:

A distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of the diversity in the workforce.

Hence it becomes clearer that the key similarities between these two concepts hinge on the competitive edge, strategic thinking and people centred policies.

A route to exploring the possible overlap between Human Resource Management and diversity management can be found through examining PCS analysis: Read the following synopsis and then complete Exercise 2.1.

The PCS analysis referred to by Thompson (1998) represents the three interconnected levels of oppression - Personal, Cultural and Structural. In the organisational context, it refers to:

P - Personal prejudices and negative attitudes towards particular groups of people can play an important part in inter- personal relationships and inter-group dynamics.

C - (Cultural) Norms, values and stereotypes that form the basis of organisational culture often have much in common with the dominant cultural values and norms of the wider society.

S - (Structural) Organisations do not operate in a socio-political vacuum. They are influenced by, and contribute to, the economy and the social order more generally (Thompson 1998:183)

The five principles identified by Ross and Schneider (1992) as underpinning the shift from equal opportunities to diversity management are that processes should be:

internally driven, not externally imposed
focused on individuals not groups
concerned with diversity, rather than equality
addressing the total culture, not just the systems
the responsibility of all, not just personnel.

Kandola and Fullerton (1998) describe the basic concept of managing diversity in terms of:

its acceptance that the (work) population includes a broad range of people - consisting of visible and non-visible differences which will include factors such as sex, age, background, race, disability, personality and workstyle
its foundation on the premise that harnessing these differences will create a productive environment in which everybody feels valued, where their talents are being fully utilised and within which organisational goals are met
its concern with movement within the organisation, the culture of the organisation and the meeting of business objectives
its concern not only of personnel and human resource practitioners but of all employees, especially managers within an organisation.

The three areas of possible ‘diversity benefits’ identified by Kandola and Fullerton (1998) are:

proven benefits:- including employment of the ‘best’ candidate; organisational culture which enables employees’ potential to be realised; flexible working arrangements; employees are valued, motivated and developed; employees reluctant to leave
debatable benefits:- including employees ‘give their best’; employees more in tune with customer base; enhance innovation, creativity and problem solving; better customer service; improved quality
indirect benefits:- including better public image; satisfying work environment; improved staff relations; increased job satisfaction and morale; increased productivity; competitive edge (1998:51).

The two paradigms that, according to Thomas and Ely (1999), have so far characterised diversity management efforts in the workplace are:

the ‘discrimination-and-fairness’ paradigm:- which was based on the recognition that discrimination is wrong and ‘idealizes assimilation and colour-and gender-blind conformism
the ‘access-and-legitimacy’ paradigm:- which celebrates difference and seeks to target diverse clientele, but which can leave employees ‘of different identity-group affiliations feeling marginalized or exploited’.

The third paradigm presented by Thomas and Ely (1999) is the ‘learning-and-effectiveness’ paradigm, which incorporates aspects of the first two paradigms while connecting diversity to the company’s work. The main emphasis of this paradigm is therefore integration. ‘Like the fairness paradigm, it promotes equal opportunity for all individuals. And like the access paradigm, it acknowledges cultural differences among people and recognises that value in those differences. Yet this new model for managing diversity lets the organisation internalise differences among employees so that it learns and grows because of them.’ (Thomas and Ely 1999:139)

The four underlying assumptions that determine the appropriateness of services to Black and Minority ethnic communities are:

Underlying Assumption 1: Ethnicity and cultural background has a significant impact on health and the experience of health care.
Underlying Assumption 2: Individuals of different ethnic origin and cultural background are entitled to equal access to good health and health care.
Underlying Assumption 3: Good primary health care is about treating people as unique individuals, not about treating them equally.
Underlying Assumption 4: All forms of organisations have routines that are (often inadvertently) discriminatory.

Exercise 2.1 Question

In discussing the issue of power relations in organisations Thompson identifies the major forms of inequality (class, race and ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, and disability) and suggests that these dynamics and the patterns of inequality they engender could be understood in terms of PCS analysis.

What is PCS analysis and how does it relate to the organisational context?

Why is diversity management a shift away from equality opportunity frameworks?

Ross and Schneider (1992) discuss the fundamental shift in perspective from equality to diversity. Their position is that:

Instead of looking at [equal opportunities] as something that is imposed on them from outside, by for example legislation, employers will find competitive advantage in encouraging diversity at work.”

(Ross & Schneider, 1992:49)

Ross and Schneider therefore propose that the principles informing equal opportunities should become:

internally driven, not externally imposed
focused on individuals not groups
concerned with diversity, rather than equality
addressing the total culture, not just the systems
the responsibility of all, not just personnel (1992:49).

Let us look at each of these:

Internally driven: which Ross and Schneider see as underpinned by ‘an unquestionable economic and business case for change’. (1992:50)

Women and minorities are not transient features of the labour market - they are increasing their representation among those potential recruits with the appropriate skills. Inevitably, they will be recruited in greater numbers, and as existing employees change their attitudes, an irresistible force of change builds up…[equal opportunities] will no longer be about being a ‘good employer’ and will instead have everything to do with long-term survival.”

(Ross and Schneider 1992:51)

focused on individuals: using ‘objective selection systems’ which enable selection decisions based on the question of skill, an organisational environment, which responds flexibly to individual needs and ‘treats individuals fairly’ as individuals rather than as members of particular groups (
Ross and Schneider 1992:52).
diversity rather than equality: which positively welcomes difference through recognising that:

individuals are different and therefore have different strengths and different needs. In itself, therefore, simply ensuring that there are objective decision-making processes in place is insufficient. If an organisation is really concerned with diversity rather than just equality, then it needs to look at its total culture - not just its systems.”

(Ross and Schneider 1992:53)

Total culture: which Ross and Schneider address in terms of the organisation’s responsiveness to the different individual needs of employees. For example, their needs to balance work with family commitments. (Ross and Schneider 1992:54)
Responsibility of all:

This wider ‘ownership’ of equal opportunities becomes possible once the issue is seen as a business issue - essentially about ensuring that the organisation has the skills it needs to grow and develop. At this point, it must be a concern for the whole management team. Moreover, once it is seen to be about organisational culture as well as systems, then everyone has a role to play.”

(Ross and Schneider 1992:55)

The concept of diversity

Similarly, Kandola and Fullerton assert that:

The basic concept of managing diversity accepts that the workforce consists of a diverse population of people. The diversity consists of visible and non-visible differences which will include factors such as sex, age, background, race, disability, personality and workstyle. It is founded on the premise that harnessing these differences will create a productive environment in which everybody feels valued, where their talents are being fully utilised and in which organisational goals are met.”

(Kandola & Fullerton, 1998:8)

According to Kandola and Fullerton, this concept is different from equal opportunities because managing diversity is not just about concentrating on issues of discrimination, but is concerned with ensuring that all people maximise their potential and their contribution to the organisation. Managing diversity is therefore visualised as:

a concept that embraces a broad range of people;
concerned with movement within the organisation, the culture of the organisation and the meeting of business objectives;
a concern not only of personnel and human resource practitioners but also of all employees, especially managers within an organisation.

Finally, managing diversity does not, like equal opportunities, rely on policies of positive or affirmative action (Kandola and Fullerton 1998:9-10).

The benefits

Examining the literature relating to the benefits of managing a diverse workforce, Kandola and Fullerton (1998) identify three areas of possible ‘diversity benefits’. These are:

Proven benefits: including employment of ‘best’ candidate; organisational culture which enables employees’ potential to be realised; flexible working arrangements; employees are valued, motivated and developed; employees reluctant to leave.
Debatable benefits: including employees ‘give their best’; employees more in tune with customer base; enhanced innovation, creativity and problem solving; better customer service; improved quality.
Indirect benefits: including better public image; satisfying work environment; improved staff relations; increased job satisfaction and morale; increased productivity; competitive edge (1998:51).

However, whilst Kandola and Fullerton find that a host of benefits have been claimed to result from managing diversity, taken at face value they appear to offer a panacea for organisational problems. This is because the most solid evidence available supports the proven benefits while the evidence supporting the debatable benefits is based, largely, on ambiguous data from team research. In addition, evidence for the indirect benefits may be impossible to collect. Kandola and Fullerton’s conclusion is that:

Rather than overstating and perhaps diluting the benefits more attention and energy need to be channelled into establishing solid evidence. This evidence will not only serve to fill gaps in our current knowledge, but will also help fuel the management of diversity in organisations.”

(Kandola & Fullerton, 1998:53)

To further illuminate their point, Kandola and Fullerton (1998) reproduce an explanatory guide from the International Distillers and Vintners (IDV) which illustrates their definition of diversity. This has been reproduced below:

How IDV define diversity - Kandola and Fullerton (1998:13)

What does it mean to value diversity?

Valuing diversity means valuing the differences between people and the ways in which those differences can contribute to a richer, more creative and productive business environment, which is closer to our many different customers worldwide.

Valuing diversity means valuing the qualities that different people bring to their jobs, to the resolution of problems and to the development of business opportunities - rather than judging people and ideas by the extent to which they conform to our existing values or personal preferences.

What does diversity cover?

Diversity results from differences in gender, ethnic or national origin, religion, age, physical or mental capability, marital status, sexual preference, social background, organisational role and many other factors which cause people to have different perspectives on the same set of facts or issues.

What does ‘managing diversity’ mean?

Managing diversity is about managing people who are not like you, and who do not necessarily aspire to be like you. It is about having the management skill to allow their different perspectives and views to improve the quality of your decisions.

Is diversity the same as equal opportunities?

Diversity is a concept which recognises the benefits to be gained from differences. ‘Equal Opportunities’ has traditionally been a concept, which sought to legislate against discrimination. The two concepts have the following characteristics:

Equal Opportunity

vs

Diversity

externally initiated

legally driven

quantitative focus (i.e. improving the numbers)

problem-focused

assumes assimilation

reactive

race, gender and disability

internally initiated

business needs driven

qualitative focus (i.e. improving the environment)

opportunity-focused

assumes pluralism

proactive

all differences

What is diversity not about?

it is not about reducing standards
it is not about removing our prejudices. It is about recognising they exist and then questioning them before we act
it is not a distraction from more important business issues. Like ‘Quality’ it is a standard by which our business performance is measured
it is not about positive discrimination. It is about positive action
it is not about language and political correctness.

Exercise 2.2 Questions:

On a separate piece of paper, note down your responses to the following questions.

Ross and Schneider (1992) identify five principles underpinning the shift from equal opportunities to diversity management. What are these?
How do Kandola and Fullerton (1998) describe the basic concept of ‘managing diversity’?
List and briefly explain the three areas of ‘diversity benefits’ as identified by Kandola and Fullerton (1998)
Feedback to these questions can be found in the ‘Feedback’ section at the end of this module.

The ‘Take Up’ of diversity management strategies - and its dangers

There is therefore a strong business root for the concept of diversity management as for HRM - both emerge out of recent developments in theories of management and organisations. Contemporary interest in diversity in the workplace has also been stimulated by the publication of the Hudson Institute Report of 1987 ‘Workplace 2000’ which suggested that:

White males would be a numerical minority in the future, outnumber by white women and persons of color. The data also pointed to an increase of immigrants joining the workforce; a decrease in younger workers because of the drop in the birthrate in the past 15-20 years…and changes in many industries requiring different skills levels, educational backgrounds and work styles.”

(Arredondo 1996:4)

This has also been recognised in the Health Service:

I want to stress that taking action to promote equality in employment is not just a matter of moral justice or of fairness to people from Black and Minority ethnic groups. It is good, sound common sense, and it makes business sense too.”

(Virginia Bottomly, Secretary of State, 1993: cited in Chandra 1996:63)

Chouhan (1994) suggests that ‘managing diversity’ appears to have emerged in the wave of the new managerialism that has affected most big organisations - public and private over new managerialism of the last decade. It sits alongside new managerial paradigms of Total Quality Management and Human Resources Management. All three of these concepts have elements in common - not least that they are driven by the need to make business more efficient. The primary motive, especially in the profit sector, is economic gain. In the public sector it is about economic efficiency. The business case for managing diversity is that heterogeneous organisations are more creative and encourage lateral and imaginative thinking therefore give the organisation a competitive edge. In addition it makes sense, for public image, to reflect the communities served by the organisation - with the knock on effect of people identifying with the organisation and wanting to buy its products or use its services.

If this is related to health organisations, whether a hospital or Trust, diversity strategies have a business argument which is to make the health service more efficient in dealing with various groups in society, thereby restoring public confidence and making the health service more effective.

The document ‘Winning the Race Policing For a Plural Society’ was much mentioned during the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 1997- 1999, and hailed as a progressive document which reflected a change from a ‘colour blind’ or ‘treating people the same’ model of policing, to one which saw difference as important and hence the need to treat people according to their needs. Dr. Richard Stone an advisor to the Judge and member of the inquiry panel pointed out during the Inquiry that it mirrors the shift in the old maxim ‘do unto others as you would have done unto you’ (or treat people in the same way you would like to be treated) - to ‘do unto others according to their need’. The Inquiry report also shows that the team favours the use of the term diversity.

However while diversity discourses purport to take account of the need to recognise difference as positive, there are dangers in the way they are conceived and we need to be aware of these dangers if we are to avoid them.

Put simply ‘Managing Diversity’ or working with diversity is a concept that could stay at the level of multicultural voyeurism rather than changing a power dynamic which addresses inequality. However, if it is used inclusively to mean challenging the discrimination, which is inherent in the deficit model of difference, then it could be another tool to ensure anti-racism. The fear is that it will not.

Further reading

Please refer to the companion module ‘The Politics of Diversity’ by Charles Husband for more discussion of this issue.

What is ironic is how swiftly this new discourse of diversity is gaining ground considering the resistance over the years to equal opportunity and anti-racist approaches. So what is new about diversity management?

It allows employers or service providers to discuss proactive policies and strategies for positive celebration of difference as opposed to a reactive agenda resulting from feeling ashamed of moral deficiencies or racism.
The dangers remain that racism and anti-racism are not openly discussed but subsumed in discussions of diversity. However, if we put cynicism aside for one minute, whatever new dressing has been put on, the concept of ‘managing diversity’ can offer an opportunity, not previously available, to work with top levels of management on equality issues and tackling racism.
If a business case needs to be used then maybe there are benefits.

The challenge is to ensure that the roots of racism are addressed and that anti-racist strategies do not get lost in a ‘love thy neighbour’ agenda. Without tackling racism at structural levels, as well as the personal and cultural, we will not be moving an inch and Britain will be in the same position with regard to race 10 years from now.

There may even be some new words. As Bell Hooks has argued:

Anyone witnessing the current cultural and academic focus on race has to note the new way race is being talked about, as though it were in no way linked to cultural practices that reinforce and perpetuate racism, creating a gap between attitudes and action. There is even a new terminology to signal the shift in direction: the buzzwords are difference, the other, hegemony, ethnography. It’s not that these words were not always around, but they are now in style. Words like other and difference are taking the place of commonly known words deemed uncool or simplistic, words like oppression, exploitation and domination … There would be no need, however, for any unruly Black folk to raise critical objections to the phenomenon if all this passionate focus on race were not so neatly divorced from a recognition of racism, of the continuing domination of Blacks by whites and (to use some of those out-of-date uncool terms) of the continued suffering and pain in Black life”

(Hooks 1990:51-52)

There is a danger that in the desire to ensure that new policies and practices are adopted, the language and the parameters of the issue are sanitised for middle England’s acceptance whilst negating the reality of Black experience in Britain.

Hence, there is an imperative not just to demonstrate well-constructed policy and commitment but also that fairness and valuing difference are actualised in practice and service delivery.

Thomas and Ely (1999) describe the importance of diversity management in slightly different terms. They maintain that two paradigms have so far characterised diversity efforts in the workplace. Firstly, the ‘discrimination-and-fairness’ paradigm which was based on the recognition that discrimination is wrong and ‘idealizes assimilation and colour and gender-blind conformism’. Secondly, the ‘access-and-legitimacy’ paradigm which celebrates difference and seeks to target diverse clientele but which can leave employees ‘of different identity-group affiliations feeling marginalized or exploited’ (1999:121).

However, according to Thomas and Ely, neither of these approaches has spurred the leaps in organisational effectiveness that are possible. They therefore present a third, ‘learning-and-effectiveness’ paradigm in which:

Leaders…are proactive about learning from diversity; they encourage people to make explicit use of cultural experience at work; they fight all forms of dominance and subordination, including those generated by one functional group acting superior to another, and they ensure all the inevitable tensions that come from a genuine effort to make way for diversity are acknowledged and resolved with sensitivity.”

(Thomas and Ely 1999:122)

Thomas and Ely’s main objections to the ‘discrimination-and-fairness’ paradigm are that:

it is motivated by compliance with legislation
it focuses on recruiting and retaining more people from traditionally underrepresented ‘identity groups’
it is underpinned by an expectation that women and people of colour will ‘blend in’
it frequently allocates employees to ‘identity group’ specific jobs which assume that their main virtue is knowledge of their ‘own people’.

The underlying logic of the paradigm is summed up as follows:

Prejudice has kept members of certain demographic groups out of organisations such as ours. As a matter of fairness and to comply with federal mandates, we need to work toward restructuring the make-up of our organisation to let it more closely reflect that of society. We need managerial processes that ensure that all our employees are treated equally and with respect and that some are not given unfair advantage over others.”

(Thomas and Ely 1999:126)

Similarly, Thomas and Ely express the underlying motivation of the ‘access-and-legitimacy’ paradigm as:

We are living in an increasingly multicultural country, and new ethnic groups are quickly gaining consumer power. Our company needs a demographically more diverse workforce to help us gain access to these differentiated segments. We need employees with multilingual skills in order to understand and serve customers better and to gain legitimacy with them. Diversity isn’t just fair; it makes business sense.”

(1999:132)

Whilst this paradigm has the strength of a market-based motivation, and therefore the potential for competitive advantage, it also has the limitations of tending to emphasise the role of cultural differences in a company without analysing the effect of those differences on the actual work:

leaders who are quick to subvert differences in the interest of pursuing harmony
leaders who push staff with ‘niche market’ capabilities into differentiated jobs or ‘pigeonholes’. (Thomas and Ely 1999:133).

According to Thomas and Ely then, the access-and-legitimacy paradigm:

usually emerges from very immediate and often crisis-orientated needs…However, once the organisation appears to achieve its goals, the leaders seldom go on to identify and analyse the culturally based skills, beliefs and practices that worked so well. Nor do they consider how the organisation can incorporate and learn from those skills, beliefs or practices in order to capitalise in the long run.”

(1999:135)

By contrast, the ‘learning-and-effectiveness’ paradigm incorporates aspects of the first two paradigms while connecting diversity to the company’s work. It’s main emphasis is therefore on integration.

Like the fairness paradigm, it promotes equal opportunity for all individuals. And like the access paradigm, it acknowledges cultural differences among people and recognises that value in those differences. Yet this new model for managing diversity lets the organisation internalise differences among employees so that it learns and grows because of them.”

(Thomas and Ely 1999:139)

Thomas and Ely identify eight ‘preconditions’ necessary for making the paradigm shift. These are:

The leadership must understand that a diverse workforce will embody different perspectives and approaches to work, and must truly value variety of opinion and insight.
The leadership must recognise both the learning opportunities and the challenges that the expression of different perspectives present for an organisation.
The organisational culture must create an expectation of high standards of performance from everyone.
The organisational culture must stimulate personal development
The organisational culture must encourage openness.
The culture must make workers feel valued.
The organisation must have a well articulated and widely understood mission.
The organisation must have a relatively egalitarian, non-bureaucratic structure.

(Thomas and Ely 1999:140-142)

In organisations experiencing such a shift is in progress, company leaders are:

making the mental connection to explore how identity-group differences affect work relationships and the way work gets done;
legitimating open discussion about how identity-group memberships inform and influence an employee’s experience and the organisation’s behaviour;
actively working against forms of dominance and subordination that inhibit full contribution;
making sure that organisational trust stays intact. (Thomas and Ely 1999:144-152)

In concluding their thorough discussion of the conditions, values and behaviour underpinning the ‘learning-and-effectiveness’ paradigm of managing diversity Thomas and Ely comment:

One cardinal limitation is at the root of companies’ inability to attain the expected performance benefits of higher levels of diversity: the leadership’s vision of the purpose of a diversified workforce”.

(1999:152)

Exercise 2.3 Questions:

According to Thomas and Ely (1999) which two paradigms have, so far, characterised diversity management efforts in the workplace?
Identify and briefly explain the third paradigm as presented by Thomas and Ely (1999)
Feedback to these questions can be found in the ‘Feedback’ section at the end of this module. Practical Approaches To Diversity Strategies Within The NHS: Positively Diverse

In June 2001 The Department of Health published Positively Diverse as ‘a practical guide to managing diversity in the NHS.’ and meeting the targets set out in The Vital Connection (see Section 6 below) and the HR Performance Management Framework. Like the Vital Connection the Positively Diverse tool kit is based on the view that diversity in staff and user composition is beneficial to the NHS, both in terms of sustaining a responsive service, but also in creating an environment in which all staff feel supported and valued. The programme was originally developed in 1995 at the Bradford Community Health Trust with a view to developing strategic management approaches in a number of organisational settings. The programme considers the following areas:

Are the Trust’s Equal opportunities and related policies making a difference to staff?
Do staff feel that they are being treated fairly?
Are there ‘hidden’ problems which staff are not reporting via ‘official’ channels?
Does the workforce provide the best service for its local community, adequately supporting its diversity of culture and ethnicity?

(Department of Health. (B) 2001: ix)

Basically the guide asks NHS organisations to look at their current position with regard to equalities issues, set local targets for themselves and then plan the approaches necessary to reach these targets, as well as identifying the indicators which will tell them about progress towards these. It incorporates the three management approaches of change management, project management and strategic analysis to create a six-step tool kit for implementation. These six steps are outlined in the diagram below:

Figure III: The positively diverse stages (DoH, 2001)

The Positively diverse stages

(Department of Health. (B) 2001: 1-5)

As the document emphasises how long the process takes will depend on three main factors:

The organisation’s current position regarding equality and diversity management
Readiness for change within the organisation
The current level of ownership over the organisation by current stakeholders. That is anyone who has an interest in the issues dealt with by this process e.g. staff, users, etc.

So what do the different Positively Diverse stages involve? Below is a summary of their intended outcomes.

Stage 1: Planning and preparation

This involves identifying the stages which follow, how long they will take and the resources required to enable them. This stage is important in determining how the whole process is received. For example if staff are well aware of the when and why of the process they will be more open to participating in it.

Stage 2: The audit

Involves identifying the organisation’s ‘where are we now?’ situation. The audit aims to establish how well the organisation is performing with regard to equalities issues. There are a number of means of doing this but the Positively Diverse pack involves model surveys which can be issued to staff asking about their experiences and thoughts on various equalities issues. The results are then used to define indicators for future improvement.

Stage 3: Set direction

The results of the audit are then used to analyse a strategy for change within the organisation. The results will be examined in light of questions around:

what current local policies and practices are in place? How successful are they
what is the make up of the community that your organisation serves
how does this compare with those of the existing workforce
how does the organisation currently meet the criteria of national policy frameworks e.g. the HR Performance Management Framework
how does the organisational image emerging from the audit compare with where the organisation should be with regards to equalities issues
what is available to the organisation to bridge the gap between where it is now and a better strategic approach to equalities issues.

Having answered these questions you should have decided on some objectives to meet and the result you wish to attain.

Stage 4: Generating soutions

This involves generating solutions to the issues highlighted in the preceding stages; again this can be achieved through using a series of sample models and good practice examples included in the Positively Diverse Pack.

Stage 5: Implementing solutions

First of all a plan needs to be drawn up for the implementation of solutions this evidently needs to take into account a number of factors such as time, resources and potential barriers. Monitoring considerations need to be introduced here. How will the change effects be measured? One suggestion offered is to re run the stage 2 the audit at a later date.

Stage 6: Review and evaluate

The Positively Diverse process aims at organisational change not as a one off, but to implement a means of mainstreaming equalities issues over a long-term period. Success will not just be quantitative in terms of an increase in recruitment and retention, but will also involve an evaluation over the longer term of how far equalities issues have become embedded within organisational culture and practice.

Exercise 2.4 Self reflection activity

Can you relate the Positively Diverse steps to the Equality Standard and/or the requirements for a Race Equality Scheme?
We recommend that sections 3 6 are read in conjunction with the Requirements for Race Equality Schemes and preferably also with a good example of such a Scheme and the Equality Standard for Local Government