Scandinavian Journal of Management (2014) 30, 317—331

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n

Alternative diversity management:

Organizational practices fostering ethnic
equality at work
Maddy Janssens a,*, Patrizia Zanoni b,1

a
KU Leuven, Faculty of Business & Economics, Research Center for Organization Studies, Naamsestraat 69,
3000 Leuven, Belgium
b
Hasselt University, Faculty of Business Economics, Agoralaan Gebouw D, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium

KEYWORDS
Diversity management
practices;
Ethnic equality at work;
Ethnic minorities;
Employment relation;
Structural inequality;
Broadened norms
Abstract Taking a critical, performative stance, this study aims to advance our understanding
of diversity management enhancing ethnic equality at work. Relying on a multiple-case study, we
inductively identify organizational practices that foster the valuing of multiple competencies and
the ability to express multiple identities, two key organizational markers of ethnic equality
advanced in the gender and diversity literature. Our analysis indicates that ethnic equality is
fostered by practices that broaden dominant norms on competencies and cultural identities, and
avoid reducing ethnic minority employees to mere representatives of a stigmatized social group.
In contrast to ‘classical’ diversity management practices which focus on individuals’ cognitive
biases toward out-group members, these practices redefine what is ‘standard’ in the employment
relationship, hereby structurally countering ethnic inequality within organizational boundaries.
# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction not only been found largely ineffective in fostering equality

Despite two decades of research documenting and theorizing
power inequality between the majority and historically
underrepresented groups in organizations (Linnehan & Kon-
rad, 1999; Prasad, Pringle, & Konrad, 2006), our current
knowledge on how organizations can actually achieve power
equality remains poor. The diversity management (DM) prac-
tices advanced in the scientific and managerial literature —
e.g. formalized human resource management (HRM) proce-
dures, diversity training, networking and mentoring — have
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 326874;fax: +32 16 326732.
E-mail addresses: maddy.janssens@kuleuven.be (M. Janssens),
patrizia.zanoni@uhasselt.be (P. Zanoni).
1
Tel.: +32 11 268672.
(Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006; Kulik & Roberson, 2008) but
even counterproductive to the extent that they reinforce
stereotypes and exacerbate the majority’s hostility toward
minorities (Bond & Pyle, 1998;Linnehan & Konrad, 1999).
Starting from the social psychological assumption that
inequality primarily originates in the negative in-group/out-
group dynamics resulting from individuals’ biased cognitive
processes (Byrne, 1971;Tajfel & Turner, 1986), classical DM
practices aim to correct majority individuals’ stereotyping
and prejudices (e.g. diversity training), to limit the discre-
tion of biased decision makers regarding allocation and
rewarding decisions (e.g. formalization of HRM procedures),
and to compensate for majority’s exclusion of minorities due
to their bias (e.g. networking and mentoring programs).
Although social psychology acknowledges that contextual
factors play a key role in triggering or diminishing negative
in-group/out-group dynamics (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew &

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.12.006
318
Tropp, 2006), these practices do not address them. Rather,
they directly address cognition, leaving organizational
structures and routines which reproduce inequalities and
normalize the privileges of the dominant group (e.g. white
and male employees) unchanged (Jones & Stablein, 2006;
Kalev et al., 2006; Prasad, 2006; Zanoni, Janssens,
Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010).
In this study, we seek to envision alternative DM practices
which more effectively foster ethnic equality (cf. Holvino &
Kamp, 2009;Litvin, 2006). To do so, we inductively identify
practices — formalized organizational system, process, or
practice developed and implemented for the purpose of
effectively managing a diverse workforce (Yang & Konrad,
2011) — that achieve two key organizational markers of
ethnic equality derived from the gender and diversity litera-
ture: (1) the valuing of multiple knowledge, skills and com-
petencies of a diverse personnel (rather than valuing solely
those of the majority) (Acker, 1990;Zanoni & Janssens, 2004;
Zanoni & Janssens, 2007) and (2) the possibility for all
employees to bring their entire set of identities to work
(rather than having to assimilate to the majority culture)
(Cox, 1991, 1993;Linnehan & Konrad, 1999). These markers
point to structural contextual characteristics of organiza-
tions. They reflect the two main identity axes along which
inter-ethnic power relations occur in organizations: class —
i.e. ethnic minority employees’ subordinate position in the
employment relation — and ethnicity — i.e. their ethnic/
cultural/religious/linguistic subordinate position vis-à-vis
the ethnic majority. By including both identity axes, we avoid
reducing ethnic minority workers a priori to their particular
cultural background, language and religion (Proudford &
Nkomo, 2006).
Searching for alternative DM, this study seeks to contribute
to the critically oriented diversity literature. While drawing on
different critical theories (e.g. post-structuralism, Marxist
theories, postcolonial theory, feminist perspectives), this lit-
erature shares at its core an understanding of diversity as
socially (re)produced in ongoing, context-specific organiza-
tional processes which both reflect and reproduce structural
power relations (Prasad et al., 2006; Zanoni et al., 2010).
Power is conceptualized as a relation emerging from specific
material and/or ideological structures, rather than as being
located in individual cognition. Accordingly, these theories
provide lenses that are suitable to highlight how organizational
practices reinforce inequality along identity lines or, conver-
sely, challenge structural elements of inequality.
In undertaking this search for alternative DM, we are
aware of the difficulties and contradictions inherent to
building ‘critical’ diversity theory from practices in capitalist
organizations (cf. Foldy, 2002; Fournier & Grey, 2000). We
neither deny nor champion the inherently instrumental nat-
ure of management. Rather, we take notice of it and opt to
temporarily bracket our fundamental critique to engage with
such practices (cf. Anthony, 1998) and gain an understanding
of how organizations can achieve more equality between the
majority and minorities, despite (and even, possibly, by
virtue of) their capitalistic nature. We follow Pringle, Konrad,
and Prasad’s (2006) call for pushing critical approaches
beyond the mere examination and exposition of situations
of dominance and repression, melding them into the prag-
matics of the daily management of diversity. So, we refuse to
leave DM to non-critical, functionalistic research paradigms
M. Janssens, P. Zanoni
which aim to enhance performance instead of challenging
inequalities (cf. Foldy, 2002). At the same time, we acknowl-
edge the difficulties of the task at hand and do not evade
critically self-reflecting on the (im)possibilities of equality-
fostering DM practices in capitalist organizations.
Empirically, we present in depth one organization — a call
center — that stood out in a larger multiple-case study of ten
organizations for the equality it had achieved between ethnic
majority and minority employees along the two above-men-
tioned markers. We complement our case analysis by com-
paring the practices of this organization with those
implemented in the other nine, less equal organizations.
Our findings suggest that organizations can enhance ethnic
equality by deploying their power to enforce practices that
redefine the employment relationship along broadened
norms and avoid reducing ethnic minority employees to mere
representatives of a stigmatized social group. Capitalist
organizations are not necessarily sites maintaining ethnic
inequality. By enforcing alternative structures, they can
avoid reproducing the ethnic inequality institutionalized in
broader society within their own boundaries, taking up a
pioneering role in advancing ethnic equality.
Theoretical background
‘Classical’ diversity management practices
Whereas the critical diversity literature has pointed to struc-
tural organizational characteristics as the main reason for the
enduring disadvantages of ethnic minorities at the workplace,
the practices commonly advanced in the DM literature focus on
individuals’ cognition and related discriminatory behavior
(Kalev et al., 2006). We review here the main DM practices
and their shortcomings as found in empirical studies.
One of the main diversity practices is formalized HRM
procedures. Here, the argument is that objective and pre-
specified criteria in selection, promotion, lay-off decisions
(Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Reskin, 2003), performance
appraisal and pay structures (Elvira & Graham, 2002) will
restrict ethnic majority decision makers’ discretion and
prevent cognitive biases to shape allocation and rewarding
decisions, reducing discrimination. While widespread, this
diversity practice is not without discussion. Scholars have
pointed to its limited impact because decisions makers’
discretion is not totally removed (Linnehan & Konrad,
1999) and, more importantly, because HRM systems continue
to be culturally biased, valuing the skills and the qualities of
the ethnic majority (Acker, 1990; Bond & Pyle, 1998). This
latter critique is in line with our starting argument that a
focus on individuals’ cognition does not adequately address
power differentials and equality between social identity
groups.
A second widespread practice is training. Based on the
social psychological insight that information may reduce bias
(Fiske, 1998), training modules familiarize employees with
anti-discrimination law, suggest behavioral changes, and
increase cultural awareness and cross-cultural communica-
tion (Pendry, Driscoll, & Field, 2007). However, some studies
indicate that information about out-group members’ culture
actually reinforces group stereotypes and prejudices (Ellis &
Sonnenfeld, 1994; Rynes & Rosen, 1995) does not change
Alternative diversity management
attitudes toward particular groups (Kulik & Roberson, 2008),
and does not necessarily result in behavioral change (Hite &
McDonald, 2006).
Finally, dedicated networking and mentoring initiatives
have been designed to counter minorities’ social isolation
due to homophily patterns (Ibarra, 1995; Mollica, Gray, &
Trevino, 2003). These initiatives are based on research show-
ing that minority employees typically have less homophilous
(same-race or same-sex) ties, less interpersonal closeness
and fewer overlapping social circles providing social and
instrumental support for their careers. However, also speci-
fically designed mentoring or networking practices have
found to be largely ineffective in fostering equality (Kalev
et al., 2006). A first reason that has been advanced to explain
this is that cross-race or cross-sex mentoring, more often
than same-race or same-sex mentoring, produces conflict
and does not meet all minorities’ needs (Thomas, 2001).
Further, it is argued that the formality of specifically
designed mentoring initiatives may impede their impact,
as formal mentoring relationships provide less mentoring
functions than informal ones (Ragins & Cotton, 1999).
As a whole, there is little empirical evidence that the
current DM practices are adequate to foster ethnic equality
at work. Our argument is that they are ineffective because
they focus directly on individuals’ cognition rather than
addressing the structural dimension of privilege, domination,
disadvantage and deprivation (Glastra, Meerman, Schedler,
& Sjiera de Vries, 2000;Zanoni et al., 2010). As Kalev et al.
(2006) argue, although cognitive bias and its consequences
may provide explanations of inequality at work, interven-
tions focused on these aspects are not necessarily the best
suited for its remediation: ‘‘Understanding the cause of
malaria and understanding its treatment are two different
things. Whether a prescription for inequality is effective is an
inherently empirical question’’ (p. 591). Following their
reasoning, we opted for a qualitative, multiple-case research
design, a design allowing for the inductive identification of
organizational practices fostering ethnic equality. Our search
is guided by two organizational markers of ethnic equality
derived from the critical gender and diversity literature.
However, we do not uphold one particular critical theory,
as this would limit our ability to inductively identify practices
based on their effectiveness in reducing ethnic inequality.
Organizational markers of ethnic equality
The gender and diversity literature points to two structural
equality markers of an ethnically diverse organization: the
valuing of multiple forms of knowledge, skills and compe-
tencies and enabling all employees to express their identi-
ties. Both markers are crucial as they address structural
aspects of the organizational context determining power
differentials between employees belonging to different
socio-demographic groups.
The first marker originates in the sociologically oriented
literature which highlights that organizations have tradition-
ally valued the competencies and skills of the social groups in
historical positions of power, downplaying the value of those
of less privileged groups (Acker, 1990;Cockburn, 1991;Stein-
berg, 1990). What is competence and, conversely, who is
competent is consequently not an ethnicity-neutral (nor
gender-neutral) decision. ‘Competence’ involves judgment
319
and ethnicity (and gender) affect assumptions about skill,
resulting in decisions that while males are the more compe-
tent, more suited to the job than are others (Acker, 2006),
particularly in the US—European context. Ethnic inequality at
work has therefore a structural component as the dominant
groups in society have historically decided on the value of
particular competences and skills and organizational prac-
tices (such as recruitment, wage setting) create hierarchy in
which ethnic (and gender) inequalities are maintained in
organizations (Acker, 2006). Although the stress of the socio-
logical literature is on the role of ideological structures in
generating material and symbolic inequality, these insights
are not completely extraneous to the more psychologically
oriented literature. For instance, status theory formulates
the analogous argument that status inequality between
members of those groups is legitimated by associating dif-
ferent social identities with different levels of competence
(Ridgeway & Correll, 2006). Albeit in a less explicit way, Ely
and Thomas’s (2001) learning-and-integration paradigm
points in a similar direction. It underlines the importance
of encouraging employees to bring their entire demographic
and cultural knowledge to work, despite the fact that such
knowledge has been historically devalued by organizations,
as this fosters a ‘diversity mindset’ among the personnel,
leading to positive intergroup relations.
Most critically oriented diversity scholars take however a
skeptical stance toward turning to the logic of competencies
to enhance equality in organization. They warn that the
essentialistic and utilitarian conceptualization of identity,
which is typical of the ‘business case’, will not lead to more
equality (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000;Noon, 2007). Although we
agree that the valuing of multiple competencies alone is not a
sufficient condition to achieve ethnic equality, we hold that it
is likely to be a necessary one. Arguably, as within a capita-
listic logic employees are human resources functional to
producing value for the organization, employees who are
seen as possessing valuable competencies are in a more
favorable power position vis-à-vis both the employer and
employees who are seen as not possessing them. The associa-
tion of ethnic minorities with valuable competencies is thus
likely to reduce inequality along ethnic lines as it counters
the dominant assumption about (ethnic) minorities’ low(er)
competence. This is well illustrated by Zanoni and Janssens’s
(2007) study of organizations which, by valuing minority
employees’ competencies, offer them possibilities of
‘micro-emancipation’, despite the exploitative nature of
the employment relation.
A second key marker of ethnic equality originates in Cox’s
(1991, 1993) foundational model of the multicultural orga-
nization. Theoretically grounded in Gordon’s (1964) socio-
logical work, this model argues for pluralism through the
majority and the minority’s mutual acculturation. All
employees should be allowed to bring their entire set of
identities to work rather than be required to assimilate into
the dominant culture based on the majority’s identity. The
underlying idea is that power inequality originates in orga-
nizational settings which are infused with cultural norms
reflecting historically dominant (ethnic) identities, fore-
closing the expression of others. Many organizations remain
‘monocultural’ and require (ethnic) minorities to assimilate
to such norms. Yet such expectation is not only unethical, it
is also unrealistic. Studies on the experiences of ethnic
320
minority employees at the workplace indicate how, despite
minorities’ efforts to assimilate, the majority keeps seeing
them as ‘other’ (Healy, Bradley, & Forson, 2011;Ogbonna &
Harris, 2006;Van Laer & Janssens, 2011). Whiteness studies
have well theorized how the dominant ethnic group in
society acquires its structural social, political and cultural
advantage thanks to its social status. ‘White privilege’
indeed refers to the package of unearned assets which white
people can count on cashing in each day (McIntosh, 2004).
These advantages derive from existing inequality structures
and thus remain invisible to white people, but are obvious to
non-whites. As long as unspoken cultural norms remain
unquestioned, thinking about ‘‘equality and equity is kept
incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred
dominance’’ (McIntosh, 2004: 192). Acknowledging such
norms is thus an essential precondition to redesign social
systems such as organizations to attain structural equality.
Research design
The study site
This study is based on ten ethnically diverse organizations: a
call center, a wholesale producer dealer, a logistic company,
a scaffold construction company, a hospital, a transport
company, a chemical company, a hotel, a home for elderly,
and an NGO in development cooperation. They were inves-
tigated in a publicly funded research project aiming at
fostering the employment of ethnic minorities, officially
defined as nationals of countries outside the EU15 (i.e.
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portu-
gal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom) or whose parents (mini-
mum one) or grandparents (minimum 2) are non EU15
nationals.2 The organizations are small- and medium-sized
companies3 (SMEs) in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of
Belgium.4 They were identified from a list of organizations
participating in a government scheme providing public fund-
ing and consulting services for implementing diversity initia-
tives. Selection criteria were minimal size of the organization
to secure a sufficient number of interviews, and sectoral and
regional spreading.
These organizations represent a particularly suitable con-
text to look for effective DM for a number of reasons. Since
Belgium has no tradition of affirmative action legislation, DM
practices in Belgian organizations are less likely to be
adopted for merely legal compliance. This is even more
the case for SMEs, which, having less resources than larger
companies, tend not to implement practices solely for win-
dow-dressing (Bacon & Hoque, 2005). Finally, it should
further be observed that SMEs are particularly relevant for
2
This definition is used in work-related policy, as individuals with
origins outside the EU15 area score remarkably lower on work-
related indicators.
3
According to the EU definition, these are companies with less
than 250 employees.
4 5
Belgium is composed of three main regions: Dutch-speaking
Flanders, French-speaking Wallonia, and mainly French-speaking
yet officially bilingual Brussels.
M. Janssens, P. Zanoni
the employment of ethnic minorities in Europe as they
account for 99.8 percent of European enterprises and 69.8
percent of total employment (European Commission, 2003).
Ethnicity in our study can be best understood as a combi-
nation of low-education, culture, religion, and language.
Reflecting ethnic minorities’ disadvantaged position in the
Belgian labor market, most ethnic minority employees in our
ten cases were low educated and mostly employed in lower-
rank jobs. As in other European countries, ethnic minorities
suffer from high unemployment rates, and, when employed,
are concentrated in sectors at the low end of the economy
(OECD, 2008), due to their significant lower educational
qualifications (OECD, 2008) as well as discrimination (Arrijn,
Feld, & Nayer, 1998). Further, Flanders knows a strong soci-
etal discourse of ethnic minorities as ‘allochthons’ — from
the Greek, meaning ‘from another country’ — as opposed to
‘autochtons’ — individuals with origins in the country. In the
last decade, this discourse has been mainly used to refer to
Muslim labor immigrants and their descendants (Ceuppens &
Geschiere, 2005), who suffer from a particularly weak socio-
economic position and whose social mobility has, till today,
remained limited. In this discourse, minorities’ disadvan-
taged socio-economic position is often presented as resulting
from their alleged unwillingness to learn Dutch and ‘their’
culturally specific values and behaviors. The stress on lan-
guage likely derives from the historical exclusion of Dutch
from the public sphere, dominated by French. In Flanders,
the inability to speak Dutch retains today a strong negative
connotation as it is interpreted as contempt for Flemish
culture. Concerning employment relations more generally,
Belgium is characterized by institutionalized collective bar-
gaining at the sectoral level guaranteeing legally employed
individuals’ minimum protection standards and wages.
The call center stood out of our ten organizations for its
equality in terms of the recognition of competencies and the
expression of identities. Founded in 1998, this company grew
out of a socio-economic development project to stimulate
the revival of an underprivileged urban area with high unem-
ployment. Today, it is a for-profit company offering telemar-
keting, telephone market research and help desk services in a
variety of European languages. The company has a flat
organizational structure with four organizational levels:
operators (151), supervisors (3), management (5), and the
CEO. At the time of the study, 45 (28 percent) of the 160
employees of the call center had a foreign background, from
countries like Morocco, Ghana, Turkey, Senegal, Cameroon,
but also European countries such as Poland, Rumania, Italy,
and Spain. This percentage is rather high as 8.2 of the total
Belgian population has a foreign nationality (OECD, 2005).5
Most ethnic minority (97 percent) and majority (93 percent)
employees worked as call operators. One of the three super-
visors was Moroccan;no ethnic minority employees were in
any of the few management positions. The call center’s
workforce ethnic composition well reflects the composition
of the Belgian workforce resulting from various waves of
migration since the 1950s.
However, this figure is an underestimation as it does not include
the population with foreign origins who has obtained the Belgian
citizenship, on which no official data is available.
Alternative diversity management
Method
For each of the ten companies, we collected data through
semi-structured interviews and documents such as the ‘diver-
sity plan’ drafted to benefit from government support and
describing the organizations’ DM initiatives. In total, 116
interviews were conducted at the workplace during working
hours. They lasted between one and two hours and were
recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. In each case,
respondents included the person responsible for DM and/or the
human resource manager, managers supervising an ethnically
diverse group of employees, ethnic majority employees, eth-
nic minority employees, and if present, representatives of the
unions. The interviews aimed at exploring any organizational
practice that affected ethnic (in)equality, including not only
the classical DM practices but also the reason for recruiting
minority employees (Kossek & Pichler, 2006), work processes
(Janssens & Zanoni, 2005), and human resource practices
(Chen, Chanda, D’Netto, & Monga, 2009).
The interviews were conducted by four male and female
ethnic majority researchers who were part of the larger
research project team led by the first author, and who were
familiar with research on diversity. Drawing on our prior
experience with qualitative data collection on diversity in
the workplace, we drafted the interview protocol and dis-
cussed it with the interviewers. We specifically drew their
attention to the vulnerable position of ethnic minority
respondents and the importance of formulating questions
in a simple, concrete language as many interviewees would
not be speaking in their own mother tongue and some would
have limited schooling. A few interviews were conducted in
French. Overall, we stressed the need to engage in a dialog
with informants to understand their perspective, rather than
mechanically reproducing the questions. To avoid probing,
we put general questions first and more specific ones on
diversity later.
Data analysis was guided by the constant comparative
method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) whereby intra- and inter-
case differences and similarities in the two equality markers
were drawn out in relation to consistencies and variations in
organizational practices. We first assessed each organization
in terms of the two equality markers. We selected all inter-
viewees’ accounts that indicated whether or not employees
felt valued for their competencies and referred to the ability
or inability of expressing their identities at work and dis-
cussed them jointly.
We then identified the organizational practices related to
the two markers. To do so, we focused on the transcribed
data which explicitly referred to practices that were men-
tioned by interviewees as relevant to managing an ethnically
diverse workforce or as influencing minority and majority
employees’ working experience. We did not rely here on an a
priori definition of ethnicity to include/exclude practices but
rather incorporated all practices that respondents men-
tioned when asked about ethnic minorities, such as religion,
language, skin color, and weak labor market position. Within
each case, we checked the mentioned practices across inter-
viewees and how the organization’s diversity policy was
described in the documents but found only minor discrepan-
cies. For instance, in one organization, accounts by both
minority and majority employees pointed to a laissez-faire
approach that negatively influenced their work experience,
321
yet this practice was (unsurprisingly) not mentioned by
managers. We decided to incorporate all practices identified
by at least two types of respondents or data sources in our
analysis. Table 1 presents an overview of the results of our
analysis for all cases in our sample, indicating for each case
its equality outcome in terms of the two markers and the set
of identified organizational practices.
In the results section below, we focus our analysis on the
set of practices of the call center. However, to understand
how the practices of this organization foster equality, we
selectively compare them with those implemented in the
other nine organizations and report their less positive/
negative effects on the two equality markers. This analytical
approach allows developing an in-depth, nuanced analysis of
a best case organization without losing the explanatory
power of a cross-case comparative design (Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007).
Results
All the information we collected at the call center pointed to
a company characterized by a high degree of ethnic equality.
The words of a supervisor of Moroccan origins are illustrative
of respondents’ accounts:
The different backgrounds are enriching. I do not see that
somebody is black, disabled, etc. We are family. Here its
lively, warm, thanks to differences. There is solidarity and
togetherness. Also, the different nationalities make us
multilingual, a great advantage for this organization.
Equality was achieved by means of a virtuous combination
of organizational practices. Some of these practices — a
business/social recruitment policy, teamwork in multi-ethnic
teams, a competency-based job classification and a devel-
opmental evaluation system — valued multiple competen-
cies, while others — multicultural practices, a two-language
policy and a flexible work schedule policy — enabled the
expression of multiple identities.
Practices valuing multiple competencies
A business/social recruitment policy
A first practice crucial to valuing multiple competencies was
the call center’s recruitment policy based on both business
and social criteria. Specialized in multilingual services, the
company considered ethnic minorities’ linguistic skills a
strategic asset to deliver its services internationally. The
CEO told us:
We are multilingual and work with native speakers. People
who really speak their mother tongue are crucial in our
industry. This way we can deliver services in most Eur-
opean languages. For instance, an American company was
looking for somebody here to open the European market
for them. They came to us because we had the language
knowledge they needed. We have the basic languages:
French, Dutch, English, German, Italian, Portuguese,
Spanish, Romanian, Polish, etc.
At the same time, the company offered employment to
particularly vulnerable individuals in the labor market such
as migrant female single parents, political refugees, and
Table 1 Ethnic equality at the ten cases and their organizational practices.
Markers of ethnic Cases
equality
Call center
Valuing multiple High
competencies
Expression of multiple High
identities
Focus of organizational
practice
Work design and Ethnic minorities in same
ethnic minorities’ jobs as majority
position within it colleagues in ethnically
mixed project teams,
having both individual
and common goals
Job classification Competence-based job
classification, consisting
of developmental stages
of skill acquisition
Newcomers’ Developmental
introduction newcomers’ introduction
Job evaluation Developmental
performance appraisal
focused on improving one
particular skill
Recruitment Recruitment for ethnic
minorities’ language
skills and motivation as
well as offering them
chance to work
Religious practices Religious practices are
allowed
Discriminatory Anti-discrimination policy
behavior
Social activities Multicultural social
activities
Language Two-language policy
322
Wholesale produce Logistic company Scaffold construction Hospital
dealer company
Low Medium High Medium
Low Low Low Low
Ethnic minorities in low- Ethnic minorities in low- Ethnic minorities in same Ethnic minorities in
status, upstream job in a status, upstream job in a jobs as majority mainly segregated, low-
sequential work flow sequential work flow, colleagues in ethnically status job of logistical
complemented by weekly mixed permanent teams, assistant + acting as
team meetings responsible for common translator for ethnic
goal minorities’ patients
Adjusted newcomers’
introduction to address
language difficulties
Non-transparent Meritocratic evaluation Meritocratic evaluation
evaluation system based on explicit criteria based on explicit criteria
Recruitment based on Recruitment based on Recruitment based on Recruitment for ethnic
availability rationale availability rationale availability rationale minorities’ specific
cultural knowledge and
language skills
Religious practices are Religious practices are Religious practices are
tolerated not allowed not allowed
Laissez-faire policy Change of team member
composition if within
team conflict
Social activities based Social activities mainly
upon ethnic majority’s for majority employees to
habits learn other cultures
(neighborhood walks)
One-language policy One-language policy One-language policy One-language policy
M. Janssens, P. Zanoni
Table 1 (Continued )
Markers of ethnic Cases
equality
Call center Wholesale produce Logistic company Scaffold construction Hospital
dealer company
Work schedule Work schedule flexibility Work schedule flexibility Work schedule flexibility
policy attending policy attending policy attending
employees’ individual employees’ individual employees’ individual
needs needs needs

Markers of ethnic Cases

Alternative diversity management

equality
Chemical company Hotel Transport company Nursing home Social profit organization
Valuing multiple High Medium Medium Low Medium
competencies
Expression of Medium Medium Medium Low Low
multiple identities
Focus of organizational
practice
Work design and ethnic Ethnic minorities in same Specific ethnic minority Ethnic minorities mainly Ethnic minorities in low- Ethnic minorities in
minorities’ position jobs as majority groups concentrated in in operative jobs in small, status jobs different jobs and they
within it colleagues in ethnically specific jobs yet ethnic ethnically mixed are involved in projects
mixed permanent teams minorities in all permanent teams with their country of
organizational ranks origin
Job classification
Newcomers’ On-the-job training Company-oriented Ad-hoc newcomers’ Ad-hoc newcomers’
introduction newcomers’ introduction introduction introduction
Job evaluation Meritocratic evaluation Meritocratic evaluation Non-transparent Evaluation based on Ad-hoc evaluation
based on explicit criteria based on explicit criteria evaluation system to integration into specific oriented toward
receive promotion work culture identifying need for
training
Recruitment Recruitment based on Recruitment based on Recruitment based on Recruitment based on Recruitment based on
availability rationale availability rationale and availability rationale availability rationale social responsibility
ethnic minorities’ rationale
language and cultural
skills
Religious practices Religious practices are Religious practices are Religious practices are
tolerated mostly allowed but not allowed
when interfering with
work
Discriminatory Change of team member Informal mediation Anti-discrimination policy
behavior composition if within before laying-off the
team conflict person
323
324 M. Janssens, P. Zanoni

persons with disability. This policy was based on the double

focused on learning other

Social profit organization

Work schedule flexibility

idea that they deserved to get a chance to work and that they

employees’ individual
One-language policy,
language courses for
New social activities
would be more committed and loyal to the company than
somebody with better employment chances:

ethnic minorities

policy attending
For example, if four candidates are all good, we look at
their specific situations. The Belgian is 25 years old and

cultures
just got out of school. The African is 45, a refugee. We ask

needs
ourselves: ‘Who of the two experiences the most difficul-
ties in the labor market?’ And then we would say, let’s take
the African. The other is as good but has more chances.
That’s the philosophy behind it (manager).
upon ethnic majority’s
Social activities based

One-language policy

Our people really choose for this job and want to make
something of it. They are proud of what they do. This
Nursing home

positively affects the performance, how they are, their

communication. They make more effort to come to an
habits

outstanding result than somebody who’s just passing by

(CEO).
This recruitment policy effectively acknowledged and
valued the linguistic and motivational competencies of its
Work schedule flexibility

diverse workforce. Despite its clear business rationale, it was

upon ethnic majority’s
Social activities based

employees’ individual

strongly appreciated both by ethnic minority and majority

One-language policy
Transport company

employees, as illustrated by the following quotes:

policy attending

They need us because of our native language is French but

they also want to give us a chance. We really feel they
want to give us foreigners a chance to work. They [man-
habits

needs

agement] don’t say that officially, but you see that.

Because there are many foreigners here. So, it’s not just
business, it’s also a choice. Also the Belgians who work
here have a hard time finding a job. . . It’s not easy for me
to find work here, surely not as foreigner and as I don’t
upon ethnic majority’s
Social activities based

minorities’ festivities
One-language policy,

speak Dutch, and surely as a black (laughs). Really, people

language courses for
habits, a few ethnic

have a lot of negative prejudices. I have been looking for a

ethnic minorities

job in several places but when there is that negative

prejudice, you don’t have a chance. That’s very disap-
pointing. So, when I could start working here, I really took
that chance very seriously (operator of Senegalese ori-
Hotel

gins).

This company has a special regime. How or what, I don’t

know exactly, but in any case, a special goal to be open for
Social activities taking
into account cultural

One-language policy

those who have less chances, to focus especially on them.

Chemical company

differences (food)

On the phone, you don’t see who is on the line. It’s not just
people of a foreign origin. Here, you have for instance a
lot of fat people, if I may put it bluntly. That’s also a
handicap when you look for a job, just as skin color
Cases

(operator of Belgian origins).

Despite its clear business rationale, this practice redefines
competencies in a way that values those of a diverse work-
force, fostering ethnic equality in the organization. Rather
than using education and previous working experience as
Table 1 (Continued )

signs of competence — as organizations generally do, result-

Markers of ethnic

Social activities

ing in the exclusion of ethnic minority candidates —, the call

Work schedule

center stresses language skills, motivation and loyalty. While

equality

reflecting the exploitative nature of the employment rela-

Language

tion, this practice structurally redefines the organizational

understanding of who is ‘a good candidate’, countering the
dominant representation of ethnic minorities as lacking
Alternative diversity management
competencies (cf. MacKenzie & Forde, 2009;Zanoni & Jans-
sens, 2004) and resulting in occupational chances for ethnic
minorities (and, more broadly, disadvantaged candidates).
This does not often occur in Flemish organizations, which
generally either discriminate and exclude ethnic minorities
or hire them as second-best workers merely to solve the
shortage of majority candidates. Indeed, the other organiza-
tions in our sample at best stressed avoiding discriminating on
the basis of ethnicity in recruitment.
Teamwork in multi-ethnic teams
A practice that further contributed to valuing multiple com-
petencies was the organization of work in multi-ethnic teams
with both individual and collective goals. Operators were
instructed in teams and then independently called customers
by phone. This individually carried out task was embedded in
project teams, where operators helped and coached each
other by sharing their expertise and insights, enabling the
achievement of both individual and common targets. The
following quotes are illustrative:
In the team meetings, we discuss the best way to sell,
what can be improved in the calls, changes. . . Team
members can make suggestions. We look together for
the best manner to sell a product. If the client has
comments, we also discuss them. . . People learn from
each other, they coach each other and exchange tips
(female operator of Moroccan origins).
[Work as a call operator]is individual work, but it becomes
team work from the moment that you have the opportu-
nity to listen to different experiences. We help each other.
If somebody for instance is not reaching her sale targets,
then we can ask each other: ‘How are you doing that?’ We
all help each other out. We work as a team (female
operator of Turkish origins).
This work design makes competencies of ethnic minorities
(and of all employees) visible to co-workers. It fosters ethnic
equality because, similar to the recruitment policy, it under-
mines the societal ideology of minorities as less competent
workers (cf. MacKenzie & Forde, 2009; Zanoni & Janssens,
2004). The key role of this collaborative work arrangement in
fostering this equality marker was confirmed by comparison
with the other organizations in our sample. For instance,
where ethnic minorities were concentrated in low-status jobs
in a sequential workflow — e.g. the wholesale produce dealer,
the logistic company and the hospital — minority and major-
ity workers interacted largely when minorities made mis-
takes, interrupting the flow of activities. As a result, in these
organizations, minorities were perceived as less competent
than majority employees, in line with prevailing stereotypes
in Flemish society at large.
A competency-based job classification and
developmental evaluation system
At the same time, a competency-based job classification and a
developmental evaluation system enabled the call center to
value multiple competencies by highlighting their potential
rather than their shortcomings. The organization used a com-
petency-based job classification consisting of four stages of
skill acquisition. This practice allowed to define employees’
325
jobs based on their individual strengths and preferences. For
instance, an operator with local background told us:
I’m strong in helpdesk, less in sales. They know that I like
to hold longer calls;I haven’t yet received a remark about
that. . . they also have their goals, want to reach a certain
percentage but if they hear that somebody is very good in
serving the customer, then it’s less important if you have
sold or not;you gave good customer service. And there are
other criteria for all calls. . .. And this way, everybody is
good in something.
At the highest competence level, employees could decide
themselves whether to work on several projects or focus on
one, and they were free to change their preference over
time.
Practices with an evaluative component focused on an
individualized learning process in which employees could
grow at their own pace, according to their own potential,
rather than along an absolute norm. For instance, after the
introduction, newcomers were not monitored for a while to
allow them to learn the job at ease. Our respondents experi-
enced this practice as highly supportive:
In the beginning, they make you feel at ease. Here, it is
really so that they don’t force you. When you start working
here, you don’t know a thing, it’s all new. And if they then
force you in all these things: ‘You need to do that in that
way and this and that. . .’ They did say: ‘I hope you will get
good results’, but they didn’t push, pushing, no, that
doesn’t happen here. Of course, if you have no results,
then they will tell you: ‘Look, this can better, and that can
better’, but not in terms like. . . they really welcome you
here (operator of Moroccan origins).
Interviewees also referred to developmental performance
appraisals focused on their achievements and identifying, if
necessary, only one aspect for improvement at once. Thanks
to this orientation toward personal improvement, they felt
able to do their job and experienced a sense of value:
They correct you in a way that you become better every
time. They say: ‘You can better do it like this, when you
talk with a customer, and avoid saying this or that’
(operator of Turkish origins).
Managers indicated that these practices were meant to
enhance and broaden employees’ skills. They further
described how providing constructive feedback helped them
to become more self-confident and assertive, fostering not
only their performance but also their personal development.
For instance, the female supervisor of Moroccan origins told us:
There are many aspects of a person that change when
somebody starts working here, in terms of motivation,
character. There are people who come in who are very
insecure, but who now have much more punch. Some
operators were very timid, but they evolved completely.
We also do individual coaching. When somebody is shy,
afraid, or cries when being yelled at by a customer, we
provide individual support.
These practices further redefine the organizational under-
standing of what are ‘valuable competencies’. They empha-
size a multiplicity of competencies, focusing on employees’
326
strengths, potential and individual improvement (cf. Clifton
& Harter, 2003). By broadening the norms on competencies
and performance, various individual developmental paths
were created, letting all employees experience that they
were valued for what they could contribute to the organiza-
tion. This approach stands in strong contrast to other orga-
nizations where (ethnic minority) employees were evaluated
through a ‘meritocratic’ system based on mere compliant
behavior (i.e. coming on time, being a disciplined worker) —
e.g. chemical company, logistic company — or arbitrarily —
e.g. wholesale produce dealer.
Practices enabling the expression of multiple
identities
Multicultural practice
Several practices at the call center fostered equality by
allowing the expression of multiple identities. We discuss
them here together as they all contribute to enforcing multi-
cultural norms in the organization rather than ethnic major-
ity ones. For instance, the call center allowed religious
symbols and practices at work. Muslim respondents men-
tioned the importance of being allowed to pray and to wear
a headscarf. For example, a Muslim female worker told us:
For the girls who wear a headscarf, it’s really good that
they are allowed to. That they don’t have to take it off,
‘cause I know it’s very hard for them. It’s good for them,
that they don’t need to change that.
Also, the fasting hours during Ramadan were publicly
communicated so that everybody knew when practicing
Muslim employees would take a break to eat. According to
the managers, this enhanced ethnic majority employees’
understanding and support for their fasting colleagues.
The symbolic power of this religion-friendly policy can be
fully appreciated only by comparison with the other cases,
where these expressions were forbidden, reflecting the eth-
nic majority norm that expressions of one’s faith — especially
of non-Christian ones — are inappropriate in the workplace.
To ensure that all employees were able to express their
identities, the call center further implemented a strict anti-
discrimination policy. From the female supervisor of Moroc-
can origins, we learned that a temporary ethnic majority was
fired because she had made racist remarks on her. Other
ethnic minority and majority respondents confirmed this
strict anti-discrimination policy. Some interviewees men-
tioned that the company made it clear already during the
recruitment process:
Here you run into all colors, foreign origins, everything.
. . .If you don’t feel at ease with people with other origins,
then you are not going to start here, you wouldn’t get
through the first interview, your eyes would fall out. . . It’s
expected, although it’s not required to become best
friends or so. I think that they say it explicitly in the
beginning: ‘We have people like this and like that here, do
you think you fit here?’ (ethnic majority operator)
This anti-discrimination policy signaled to employees that
the company would use its power position when employees
showed no respect for the manifestations of other employ-
ees’ identities. In the other companies, discriminatory
M. Janssens, P. Zanoni
behavior was tolerated — wholesale produce dealer—or
solved by assigning the involved employees to another unit
— e.g. scaffold construction company, chemical company.
Finally, also enabling the expression of employees’ multi-
ple identities were the call center’s multicultural social
activities. Organized on a regular basis, often to celebrate
the end of a project, they created opportunities for ethnic
minority respondents to bring their own music and dishes to a
drink. Respondents emphasized that there were no specific
‘ethnic’ evenings but that this was something ‘normal’ to do.
An operator of Moroccan origins recounted:
There are often social events and then we go out together.
We once went bowling until midnight. Next to it was Café
Ile Afrique. I said, I know a bar here and then we all went
there. They [colleagues]liked it, we started dancing in an
African way. We laughed, we stayed until 4am. . . we also
went once to a Moroccan bar, or we go dance rai music.
Everybody was there, and everybody was Moroccan that
day, we laughed a lot. It was fantastic.
Such social activities create space for the expression of
multiple cultural identities. In contrast, other organizations —
e.g. hotel, nursing home, transport company — also organized
social activities for their personnel, yet these reflected ethnic
majority’s common leisure activities, such as BBQs and bowl-
ing, hereby creating a monocultural organization. Overall, the
various multicultural practices are in line with Cox’s (1991)
idea of the multicultural organization, allowing for multiple
expressions of religious and cultural identities rather than
imposing the ethnic majority norm on all employees.
Two-language policy
A second practice enabling the expression of multiple iden-
tities was the two-language policy allowing French as the
second working language next to Dutch. As French was
spoken by many ethnic minorities, employees were allowed
to use it and all official documents were translated in both
languages. This practice provided the possibility to express
oneself in the language in which one felt most comfortable.
For instance, an operator of Moroccan origins said:
. . . it’s easier for people to talk another language every
now and then. Above all French and Dutch. If you can’t
speak Dutch very well, but you can understand, then it can
happen that you talk French to me and I answer back in
Dutch to you.
The CEO presented the two-language policy as ‘‘a matter
of being polite’’ when working with a multilingual workforce.
The same politeness principle applied to ethnic minorities,
who were not allowed to speak their native language at work,
a frequent cause of inter-group conflict in the organizations
in our study. The symbolic power of including French as an
official language in the work place is particularly strong in the
Flemish context, where language remains a particularly
sensitive political issue. Indeed, all other organizations only
allowed Dutch on the work floor.
A flexible work schedule policy
A last practice allowing the expression of multiple identities
was the call center’s flexible work schedule policy. All
employees could obtain flexible schedules for a variety of
Alternative diversity management
personal needs and requests, independent of whether they
were related to care, religion, family or other. An ethnic
majority operator told us:
Our work schedules are adjusted to our needs, because of
small children or any other kind of reason. . . we can almost
decide ourselves.
Ethnic minority interviewees were highly appreciative of
this practice as it allowed them to take an extra day of
vacation during Ramadan or take longer vacation to travel to
their countries of origin. As the company did not close its
operations around Christmas, non-Christian employees could
keep working and save their vacation days for their own
religious holidays.
This individual-centered flexibility policy treated a broad
variety of requests as equally legitimate, allowing all
employees to arrange working hours in ways that were
compatible not only with religious practices but also, more
broadly, with their other social roles outside work. In this
way, the organization refrained from only considering ethnic
majority requests to be legitimate requests. This practice
was implemented in five of the ten organizations under
study, and facilitated in all of them the expression of multi-
ple identities (cf. Kamenou, 2008). Often, the flexibility
policy was presented by managers as compensating employ-
ees’ own flexibility in function of the employer’s needs. The
call center, however, tried to limit flexibility demands on
employees. The company had for instance refused to extend
working hours into the evening, anticipating the difficulties
this would have caused to employees with caring responsi-
bilities.
Discussion
Driven by our concern to envision possibilities for an alter-
native DM within the constraints of capitalist organizations,
this study aimed at advancing the current knowledge on
equality-fostering DM. We are aware that the call center
case might appear to the critical reader fairy tale-like,
especially in the light of the literature on work and employ-
ment conditions in call centers (Bain & Taylor, 2000;Fleming
& Sturdy, 2011;Knights & McCabe, 2003) and the exploitation
of ethnic minorities and migrants (Anderson & Ruhs, 2010;
MacKenzie & Forde, 2009). Still, the DM practices we identi-
fied were clearly exceptionally innovative and coherent,
recognized by respondents in various positions and supported
by other available data sources.
Reflecting on our empirical results, we propose two impor-
tant ways in which the organizational practices we identified
effectively foster ethnic equality. On the one hand, they
broaden the norms on both competences and identities. On
the other, they approach ethnic minority employees as full
subjects. Hereunder, we first discuss these key insights in the
light of the existing DM literature and then indicate their
contribution to the critical diversity literature. Our argument
is that, in order to foster ethnic equality within organiza-
tions, diversity management should not only address unequal
power relations between ethnic majority and minority
groups, as generally pled (cf. Linnehan & Konrad, 1999)
but also address the (culturally defined) relationship
between the employer and employees.
327
Alternative diversity management: countering
societal, institutionalized ethnic inequality
A main insight that emerges from our study is that equality-
fostering DM is about broadening norms on competences and
identities, countering societal, institutionalized understand-
ings of ethnic minorities both as workers and as ethnic
minorities. Our most equal organization, the call center,
refuses to apply institutionalized categorical identities
(and the relations between them) that are dominant in the
surrounding society within its own boundaries. This is crucial
as, according to Tilly (1989), such imitation is precisely one of
the key mechanisms of the reproduction of inequality along
socio-demographic lines. Organizations tend to copy social
structures including unequal categorical relations from other
locations because they are familiar, decreasing individuals’
transaction costs of learning them (not because they are
inherently better in terms of efficiency). Our ‘best case’
though refuses to just imitate. Rather, it redefines its under-
standing of ethnic minority employees so that representa-
tions of the ‘normal/ideal worker’ in the organization are
destabilized (Benschop, 2001; Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009;
Prasad & Mills, 1997) and ethnic minority workers are no
longer constructed as deviations from the dominant norm. It
does so by broadening norms which offer multiple position-
ings that are less hierarchical in value.
In particular, the recruitment, job classification and eva-
luation practices in the call center redefine the organizational
understanding of what valuable competencies are and, there-
fore, who is a good candidate and what is good performance.
Such broadened norms foster equality as they challenge the
societal assumption that ethnic minorities are less competent.
Instead of merely reproducing inequalities within the organi-
zational boundaries (Acker, 2006), contributing to their insti-
tutionalization, the broadened norms enacted through the
practices of the HR cycle decrease inequalities. Paraphrasing
Liff and Wajcman’s (1996) argument that gender equality will
not be achieved as long as the ‘‘perceptions of job require-
ments and procedures for assessing merit [are]saturated with
gendered assumptions’’ (1996, p. 89), we argue that ethnic
equality will not be achieved as long as the perceptions of job
requirements and procedures for assessing merit are saturated
with cultural assumptions. The work design further plays a key
facilitating role in enforcing broadened norms on competences
in the every-day functioning of the organization. Specifically
concerning the call center, multi-ethnic teams made ethnic
minority employees’ contributions to work visible to all,
countering the predominant ideology of ethnic minorities as
less competent.
Similarly, the broader norms on cultural identities
enforced by the practices of allowing religious symbols,
two official languages, flexible work schedules and the strict
non-discrimination policy make room for the expression of a
broader variety of identities. Refraining from an ethnocentric
judgment of religious practices, language use and requests
worthy of accommodation, the organization avoided repro-
ducing monocultural, institutionalized norms within its bor-
ders. Rather, it opened space for multiple identities. This is of
particular significance to ethnic minorities whose cultural
expressions are often considered illegitimate both at work
and in other public spheres (Modood, Triandafyllidou, &
Zapata-Barrero, 2006).
328
DM practices that broaden norms and offer multiple
understandings of competence and multiple identity posi-
tionings are effective in fostering ethnic equality because
they subvert Western perceptions of ‘otherness’ in terms
of, ethnicities, ‘races’, cultures, religions etc. Specifically,
they destabilize the dominant hierarchical system of bin-
aries which values the ethnic majority over the ethnic
minority in work settings: e.g. skilled/unskilled, produc-
tive/unproductive, and thus valuable/valueless. As argued
by postcolonial theory, such system serves to conceptually
maneuver the West into a position of ontological super-
iority over the Orient (Prasad, 2006; Said, 1978). The
pervasive structural inequality sustained by these collec-
tively shared linguistic categories cannot be corrected at
the level of individuals’ cognition — for instance through
training —, as individuals rely on them to make sense of
social reality and act upon it. Inequality rather needs to be
addressed by changing the discursive structures through
organizational practices and processes at the core of the
organization.
The destabilization of hierarchically ordered binary cate-
gories further opens up novel possibilities for DM because it
allows the organization to address ethnic minorities as
employees, rather than as members of ethnic minority
groups. By replacing binaries with multiple positioning,
diversity is normalized and the needs of ethnic minority
employees can be cast as analogous to those of ethnic
majority ones, rather than automatically ascribed to their
specific ethnic background. The advantage of this approach is
that ethnic minority employees are no longer essentialisti-
cally reduced to mere representatives of a stigmatized social
group but are approached as ‘full’ subjects, a key condition
for equality (cf. Zanoni & Janssens, 2004).
This point throws new light on the debate on whether DM
should rest on broad or narrow definition of diversity (Prasad
et al., 2006). Critically oriented diversity scholars have
traditionally argued that, to be effective in promoting equal-
ity, DM should focus on identity axes along which inequality
has historically been structured, such as gender, ethnicity or
sexual orientation (Holvino & Kamp, 2009;Liff, 1997;Linne-
han & Konrad, 1999). Yet, the problem with a ‘target group’
policy grounded on existing categories of employees as
members of historically subordinate social groups is that it
inevitably reproduces reified representations of minority
employees (Jones & Stablein, 2006; Litvin, 1997; Zanoni &
Janssens, 2004). Its emancipation purposes are undermined
because the predominant negative representations of min-
ority employees are perpetuated, denying them subjectivity
and agency. In this sense, the destabilization of identity
categories constitutes in itself a political act (cf. Butler,
1990;Yeatman, 1990), as it helps achieve the delicate bal-
ance between ‘‘recogniz[ing]otherness while making space
for individual experiences beyond categorization’’ (Ghorashi
& Sabelis, 2013: p. 83).
Alternative diversity management and its
contribution to critical diversity literature
The critical diversity literature has traditionally viewed
capitalist organizations as maintaining and reproducing eth-
nic inequality (Noon, 2010; Zanoni & Janssens, 2004) and
M. Janssens, P. Zanoni
considered DM as a particular tool to this end (Prasad, 2006).
Our study however suggests that a capitalist organization can
potentially be a site of social change, contributing to combat
ethnic inequality.
Until now, the diversity literature has largely discussed
power along socio-demographic identity groups, or the
historical relation between minority and majority groups
resulting in their unequal access to resources (Linnehan &
Konrad, 1999; Pringle et al., 2006). The argument is that
‘‘intergroup power relationships constitute a fundamental
issue that diversity initiatives must engage to be effective’’
(Linnehan & Konrad, 1999, p. 400). Although this is neces-
sary, we argue that it might not be sufficient to foster
equality, as an exclusive focus on intergroup power rela-
tions tends to obscure the specific role of the (majority)
employer in reproducing (or countering) inequality. In other
words, by conceiving power along socio-demographic iden-
tity lines, the power of management is seen as originating
solely in its membership to the dominant identity group.
Management is cast as powerful because managers largely
belong to the cultural ‘majority’, thus similarly to majority
employees.
Our findings however strongly indicate that management
is powerful also by virtue of its position in the employment
relation, which grants it power over labor. This power can be
effectively used to redefine the employment relation in ways
that no longer match the profile of ethnic majority labor,
avoiding the indirect discrimination of minorities. The
employer can namely craft an employment relationship in
which multiple competences are valued and multiple iden-
tity positionings are offered and enforced in all its practices.
As a result, an ‘alternative’ organizational space is created
where all employees’ contributions are valued and differ-
ences are normalized, and where all employees are
expected to comply with broadened norms (rather than
asking only minority employees to unilaterally adjust and
assimilate to historical majority employment norms). So,
paradoxically, it is its by virtue of its power over an ethnically
diverse labor that the call center is able to increase ethnic
equality within that same labor and, at the same time, to
harvest the business gains of doing so. In this sense, the
practices of the call center radically question institutiona-
lized power relations along ethnicity, but less fundamentally
those along class, which are constitutive of capitalistic
organizing.
In the light of our result, we argue that to understand the
dynamics of diversity and envision practices fostering ethnic
equality, organizations should be conceptualized at once as
expressions of cultural majority norms and as expressions of
capital within the employment relation. This double lens is
indispensable to account for the complexities of power in
real organizational settings and address them effectively
through DM. Such insight echoes the argument of intersec-
tionality scholars for researching and practicing more for-
cefully and intentionally the simultaneity of identities such a
race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality and class in
organizations (Holvino, 2010; McCall, 2005; Munro, 2001).
Specifically, our study brings to the foreground that to open
up new possibilities for understanding diversity manage-
ment and to challenge (in)equality in organizations we need
to interlock ethnicity in the employer—employee relation-
ship, or class.
Alternative diversity management
The (im)possibilities of alternative diversity
management in capitalist organizations: a future
research agenda
With this study we have presented one ‘best case’ organiza-
tion fostering ethnic equality by crafting broader norms on
competences and identities. The capacity of this organiza-
tion to challenge institutionalized inequality raises a whole
new set of important research questions for diversity scho-
lars. Considering the boundary conditions of the call center,
we propose the following directions.
Scholars may in the first instance examine what motivates
and drives an organization to enact multiple novel practices
rather than merely imitating dominant practices which insti-
tutionalize inequality. In our case, the origins of the call center
in a socio-economic development project likely played a key
role in its capacity to envision novel practices that attempt to
align business needs with ethnic equality. This calls for study-
ing organizations which have an explicit social goal next to a
business one, such as organizations within the socio-profit
sector. To date, this literature remains rather limited (yet
see Kalonaityte, 2010;Tomlinson & Schwabenland, 2010). But
research may also focus on leadership within profit organiza-
tions to study why an organization refuses to imitate social
structures, hereby identifying the values and motives that
initiate an organizational understanding of desirable practices
toward broader norms on competencies and identities. Insights
on this matter may raise important implications (as well as
research) for how change agents such as diversity managers
can help organizations consciously enact alternatives to mono-
cultural practices and norms.
Second, scholars may want to explore organizational
characteristics that facilitate the crafting of broader norms
on competencies and identities. We suspect that in our case
the small size and flat structure facilitated the enforcement
of alternative, broader norms throughout the organization. In
larger, hierarchical organizations, there is often a wider slack
in the application of official policies. Valuing a broader
variety of competencies is also likely to be more difficult
when wage and benefits differences between the low and
high ranks are large. Future research may therefore want to
search for larger, more hierarchical ‘best case’ organizations
and investigate how organizational characteristics facilitate
or hinder organizations in their capacity to establish equality-
fostering practices. In doing so, we invite scholars to take an
intersectional approach as many organizational factors point
precisely to the relevance of the employment relation (i.e.
‘class’) to foster equality.
Further, future research may want to consider the broader
institutional conditions that facilitate the redefinition and
enactment of the employment relationship toward more
equal ethnic norms. We suspect that the relatively high
degree of workers’ protection characterizing the Belgian
labor market (e.g. minimum wage and an institutionalized
system of collective agreements on wages, benefits and
employment conditions mainly at the sectoral level) might
be important as it enables single organizations to build the
employment relation on other aspects than wage. In con-
trast, when wages are negotiated at the organizational level,
they likely become the core aspect around which the employ-
ment relationship is built. Diversity scholars therefore may
want to investigate whether overall workers’ protection
329
institutions represent a precondition for equality-fostering
organizational practices to emerge, as if this is the case,
political efforts should better be enlarged to include not only
anti-discrimination legislation but also more general work-
ers’ rights (cf. Harvey, 1993).
Finally, future research may benefit from simultaneously
using multiple markers to assess equality. In our study, we
focused on the two structural equality markers of valuing
multiple competences and allowing multiple identities,
which are suitable to assess ethnic equality when there is
a large gap in formal qualifications between the ethnic
majority and the ethnic minority and thus more rank-sensi-
tive measures would skew results. However, when minority
and majority employees have similar educational profiles, we
recommend research to consider adding to these two markers
the ‘classical’ structural indicators of power re-distribution,
such as the degree of horizontal and vertical segregation.
This will allow diversity scholars to gain a fuller and more
fine-grained understanding of the way novel practices re-
shape power relations and thus (in)equality.
In the aftermath of this study, the question remains under
which conditions alternative business models can emerge in
capitalist organization. Despite our prudence toward the
very possibility of equality in such organizations, we invite
critical diversity scholars to take a tempered radical stance
and not to give up the search for organizational practices
calling into question institutionalized inequality.
References
Acker, J. R. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered
organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 139—158.
Acker, J. R. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in
organizations. Gender and Society, 20, 441—464.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Anderson, B., & Ruhs, M. (2010). Migrant workers: Who needs them? A
framework for the analysis of staff shortages, immigration and
public policy. In M. Ruhs & B. Anderson (Eds.), Who needs migrant
workers? (pp. 15—51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anthony, P. (1998). Management education: Ethics versus morality. In
M. Parker (Ed.), Ethics and organization (pp. 269—281). London:
Sage.
Arrijn, P., Feld, S., & Nayer, A. (1998). Discrimination in access to
employment on grounds of foreign origin: The case of Belgium.
International Labour Organisation .
Bacon, N., & Hoque, K. (2005). HRM in the SME sector: Valuable
employees and coercive networks. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16, 1976—1999.
Bain, P., & Taylor, P. (2000). Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopti-
con’? Worker resistance in the call centre. New Technology, Work
and Employment, 15(1), 2—18.
Benschop, Y. (2001). Pride, prejudice and performance: Relations
between HRM, diversity and performance. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1166—1181.
Bond, M. A., & Pyle, J. L. (1998). Diversity dilemmas at work. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 7, 252—269.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of
identity. London: Routledge.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Aca-
demic Press.
Ceuppens, B., & Geschiere, P. (2005). Autochthony: Local or global?
New modes in the struggle over citizenship and belonging in Africa
and Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 385—407.
330
Chen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing
diversity through human resource management: An international
perspective and conceptual framework. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 20, 235—251.
Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In A. K. S.
Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organiza-
tional scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 111—
121). San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women. London: MacMillan.
Cox, T. H. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 5, 34—47.
Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from
cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 25—32.
Ellis, C., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1994). Diverse approaches to managing
diversity. Human Resource Management, 33, 79—109.
Elvira, M. M., & Graham, M. E. (2002). Not just a formality: Pay
system formalization and sex-related earnings effects. Organiza-
tion Science, 13, 601—617.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work:
The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes
and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229—
273.
European Commission. (2003). Observatory of European SMEs.
Enterprise publications. 2003/7. European Commission.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. In D.
T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Stereotyping, pre-
judice and discrimination (pp. 357—411). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. (2011). ‘Being yourself’ in the electronic
sweatshop: New forms of normative control. Human Relations,
64(2), 177—200.
Foldy, E. G. (2002). ‘Managing’ diversity: Identity and power in
organizations. In I. Aaltio & A. J. Mills (Eds.), Gender, identity
and the culture of organizations (pp. 92—112). London: Routle-
dge.
Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions
and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations,
53, 7—32.
Ghorashi, H., & Sabelis, I. (2013). Juggling difference and sameness:
Rethinking strategies for diversity in organizations. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 29, 78—86.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glastra, F., Meerman, M., Schedler, P., & Sjiera de Vries, S. (2000).
Broadening the scope of diversity management: Strategic impli-
cations in the case of the Netherlands. Rélations Industrielles/
Industrial Relations, 55/4, 698—724.
Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford
Press.
Harvey, D. (1993). Class relations, social justice, and the politics of
difference. In M. Keith & S. Pile (Eds.), Place and the politics of
identity (pp. 41—66). London: Routledge.
Healy, G., Bradley, H., & Forson, C. (2011). Intersectional sensibil-
ities in analyzing inequality regimes in public sector organiza-
tions. Gender, Work and Organization, 18, 467—487.
Hite, L. M., & McDonald, K. S. (2006). Diversity training pitfalls and
possibilities: An exploration of small and mid-size US organiza-
tions. Human Resource Development International, 9, 365—377.
Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender
and class in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organization,
3, 248—277.
Holvino, E., & Kamp, A. (2009). Diversity management: Are we
moving in the right direction? Reflections from both sides of
the North Atlantic. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25,
395—403.
M. Janssens, P. Zanoni
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity and diversity of social circles in
managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
673—703.
Janssens, M., & Zanoni, P. (2005). Many diversities for many services:
Theorizing diversity (management) in service companies. Human
Relations, 58, 311—340.
Jones, D., & Stablein, R. (2006). Diversity as resistance and recup-
eration: Critical theory, post-structuralist perspectives and work-
place diversity. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.),
Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 145—166). London: Sage.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best
guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action
and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589—
617.
Kalonaityte, V. (2010). The case of vanishing borders: Theorizing
diversity management as internal border control. Organization,
17, 31—52.
Kamenou, N. (2008). Reconsidering work-life balance debates: Chal-
lenging limited understandings of the ‘life’ component in the
context of ethnic minority women’s experiences. British Journal
of Management, 19, S99—S109.
Knights, D., & McCabe, D. (2003). Governing through teamwork:
Reconstituting subjectivity in a call centre. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 40(7), 1587—1619.
Konrad, A., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures:
Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing orga-
nizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787—
820.
Kossek, E. E., & Pichler, S. (2006). EEO and the management of
diversity. In P. Boxell, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), Handbook
of human resource management (pp. 251—272). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kulik, C. T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Common goals and missed
opportunities: A research agenda for diversity education in aca-
demic and organizational settings. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 7, 371—375.
Liff, S. (1997). Two routes to managing diversity: Individual differ-
ences or social group characteristics. Employee Relations, 19,
11—26.
Liff, S., & Wajcman, J. (1996). ‘Sameness’ and ‘difference’ revisited:
Which way forward for equal opportunity initiatives? Journal of
Management Studies, 33, 79—94.
Linnehan, F., & Konrad, A. M. (1999). Diluting diversity: Implications
for intergroup inequality in organizations. Journal of Manage-
ment Inquiry, 8, 399—414.
Litvin, D. (1997). The discourse of diversity: From biology to manage-
ment. Organization, 4, 187—209.
Litvin, D. (2006). Diversity: Making space for a better case. In A. M.
Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace
diversity (pp. 75—94). London: Sage.
Lorbiecki, A., & Jack, G. (2000). Critical turns in the evolution of
diversity management. British Journal of Management, 11, S17—
S31.
MacKenzie, R., & Forde, C. (2009). The rhetoric of the ‘good worker’
versus the realities of employers’ use and the experiences of
migrant workers. Work, Employment & Society, 23, 142—159.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexities of intersectionality. Signs, 30,
1771—1800.
McIntosh, P. (2004). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knap-
sack. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the
United States (pp. 188—192). New York: Worth Publishers.
Modood, T., Triandafyllidou, A., & Zapata-Barrero, R. (2006). Multi-
culturalism, Muslims and citizenship: A European approach.
London: Routledge.
Mollica, K. A., Gray, B., & Trevino, L. K. (2003). Racial homophily and
its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organization
Science, 14, 123—136.
Alternative diversity management
Munro, A. (2001). A feminist trade union agenda? The continued
significance of class, gender and race. Gender, Work & Organiza-
tion, 8, 454—471.
Noon, M. (2007). The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for
ethnic minorities. Work, Employment and Society, 21, 773—784.
Noon, M. (2010). The shackled runner: Time to rethink positive
discrimination? Work, Employment and Society, 24, 728—739.
OECD. (2005). Trends in international migration. Paris, France:
OECD.
OECD. (2008). Jobs for immigrants. Labour market integration in
Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Portugal. Paris: OECD.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2006). The dynamic of employee
relationships in an ethnically diverse workforce. Human Rela-
tions, 59, 379—407.
Ostendorp, A., & Steyaert, C. (2009). How different can difference
be(come)? Interpretative repertoires of diversity concepts in
Swiss-based organizations?. Scandinavian Journal of Manage-
ment, 25, 374—384.
Pendry, L. F., Driscoll, D. M., & Field, S. C. T. (2007). Diversity
training: Putting theory into practice. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 80, 27—50.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of
intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 751—783.
Prasad, A. (2006). The jewel in the crown: Postcolonial theory and
workplace diversity. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 121—144). London:
Sage.
Prasad, P., & Mills, A. J. (1997). From showcase to shadow: Under-
standing the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity. In P.
Prasad, A. J. Mills, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organiza-
tional melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 3—27).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Prasad, P., Pringle, J. K., & Konrad, A. M. (2006). Examining the
contours of workplace diversity: Concepts, contexts and chal-
lenges. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook
of workplace diversity (pp. 1—22). London: Sage.
Pringle, J. K., Konrad, A. M., & Prasad, P. (2006). Conclusion:
Reflections and future directions. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, &
J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 531—
539). London: Sage.
Proudford, K. L., & Nkomo, S. (2006). Race and ethnicity in organiza-
tions. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook
of workplace diversity (pp. 323—344). London: Sage.
331
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and out-
comes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal
mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
529—550.
Reskin, B. F. (2003). Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive
inequality: 2002 presidential address. American Sociological
Review, 68, 1—21.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2006). Consensus and the creation of
status beliefs. Social Forces, 85, 431—453.
Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the
adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 247—270.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage books.
Steinberg, J. R. (1990). Social construction of skill: Gender, power,
and comparable worth. Work and Occupations, 17(4), 449—
482.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychol-
ogy of intergroup relations (pp. 7—24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race
matters. Harvard Business Review, 99—107.
Tilly, C. (1989). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Tomlinson, F., & Schwabenland, C. (2010). Reconciling competing
discourses of diversity? The UK non-profit sector between social
justice and the business case. Organization, 37, 101—121.
Van Laer, K., & Janssens, M. (2011). Ethnic minority professionals’
experience with subtle discrimination at the workplace. Human
Relations, 64, 1203—1227.
Yang, Y., & Konrad, A. M. (2011). Understanding diversity manage-
ment practices: Implications of institutional theory and resource-
based theory. Group & Organization Management, 36, 6—38.
Yeatman, A. (1990). Bureaucrats, femocrats, technocrats: Essays on
the contemporary Australian state. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2004). Deconstructing difference: The
rhetoric of human resource managers’ diversity discourses. Orga-
nization Studies, 25, 55—74.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2007). Minority employees engaging with
(diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency and
micro-emancipation. Journal of Management Studies, 44,
1371—1397.
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpack-
ing diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through
critical perspectives. Organization, 17, 9—29.