200903479

Lifelong Learning Centre

Diversity and Inclusion in Leadership in the United

Kingdom: Is the glass half full or half full?

200903479

2018

LLLC3964 Dissertation

Supervisors
Dr S Gibbs and Dr C.V Bates

Contemporary and Professional Studies

(BA Hons)

pg. 1
 200903479

Lifelong Learning Centre

Assessed Coursework Coversheet

For use with individual assessed work

Student Identification
2 0 0 9 0 3 4 7 9
Number:

Module Code: LLLC: 3964

Module Title: Dissertation

Module Tutors: Dr C.V Bates and Dr R Mas Giralt

Declared Word Count: 12552

Students with a Specific Learning Difficultly (SpLD) confirmed by Disabled Students

Assessment and Support (DSAS) should tick the appropriate box to indicate that their work
should be marked for content only.

I have been assessed as having:

Dyslexia X
Dyspraxia X
Other (please
specify)

pg. 2
 200903479

Contents

Abstract 5

Introduction 5

Literature Review 9
Diversity 9
Inclusion 10
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 10
Black And Minority Ethnic (BAME) 11
Leadership 13
Diversity Management 15
The First Half Full 16
Legal 16
Business Case 17
The Moral Case 18
The Second Half full 19
Practice 20

Methodology 21
Considerations and Methods 21
Sampling, Piloting and Analysis 23
Confidentiality and Informed Consent 24
Ethics and ethical considerations 26
Limitations 27

Analysis and Discussion 28

Perception and Understanding of Diversity and Inclusion 29
Self 29
Their role 30
Organisational Response to Diversity and Inclusion 31
General Responses 31
Practical Responses 33
BAME Individuals in Your Organisation 34
The future for Diversity and Inclusion 36
BAME 36
Organisation 38

Conclusion 39

Bibliography 42

Appendix (i) 55

Appendix (ii) 57

pg. 3
 200903479

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank every single person in the Lifelong Learning Centre, a school and
centre, for everything you have done to support my learning and, in exhausting, my full
student experience. I especially thank you, the teaching staff on my degree programme, to
my personal tutor, supervisors and skills tutors Thank you!
I came as a caterpillar and I leave as a butterfly.

I thank those in the wider University of Leeds community and everyone who has
informed and enriched my student journey. My family, unfailingly, have been the extra
wind I’ve needed at all times!

Joshua, Jadon and Jethro, seize the world! There is always Hope, granted Time!

pg. 4
 200903479

Abstract

Research shows that BAME diversity has faced, and still faces, challenges in the UK.
Through an interdisciplinary approach of theory, the research explores BAME diversity.
Through interviews with six CEOs the research explores the drivers for diversity and
inclusion policies from a leadership perspective. The title of this project is a play on a
common phrase that normally implies that any situation can be read as either positive
or negative. The first ‘half full’, or positive interpretation, of the title acknowledges
the current gains, while the second ‘half full’ explores the future of diversity and
inclusion in leadership in the UK specifically for people who identify as BAME. The
leaders interviewed for this research showed a real awareness and understanding of
diversity and inclusion, specifically for BAME individuals, and the challenges they
face in their ascent into positions of senior leadership. However, this remains an area
of ongoing challenge. Only one CEO had a percentage above the national
representation of BAME individuals in senior leadership positions.

Introduction

That Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) remain topics of discussion in 21st century United
Kingdom, necessitates this research project. The 799th anniversary of the Magna Carta, was
marked in 2014 where David Cameron, described the British values as ‘belief of freedom,
‘tolerance of others’, accepting personal and social responsibility and respecting and
upholding the rule of law’ (Gov.uk, 2017). It is unfortunate, that the, ‘In-Tolerance of others’;
was a tenet employed as recently as the referendum campaign on Britain’s exit from the
European Union in 2016. The values espoused in the Magna Carta speak to the need for
leadership that demonstrates these values and importantly this research suggests, an inclusive
and representative leadership to broach the discourse and lead through example.

Shore et al (2009) have concluded, that diversity is typically considered as something to deal
with or manage. They argue for research to move away from the originating negative
paradigms of discrimination and victimization to exploring diversity more from a ‘positive
and proactive view’. Sawyerr et al (2005) argue, ‘such

pg. 5
 200903479

an approach leads to a more successful diversity management’ (p, 127). The aim of the
current research is to contribute positively to the ongoing research and discourse on diversity
and inclusion. Due to the transferable nature of the topics of discussion, some literature and
examples are outside of the UK. The research will look at leadership in the UK, with a focus
on ‘ethnic minorities’ also known as, Black, Asian, Mixed or Other Ethnic (BAME). This
remains an area of ongoing research. In the context of this research, diversity and inclusion in
the workplace must involve everyone.

Solanke (2017), offers a contemporary approach to the diversity and inclusion discourse, by
arguing, from a law perspective, rooted in sociology, the need for ‘the anti-stigma principle’.
Solanke (2017) argues that stigma, the consequence of a continuum of disempowerment, is
the source of all discrimination (p,208) and that discrimination is a ‘social practice’, a
process in which interpersonal and institutional power, combine to create a ‘persistent
predicament’ (p, 210). As the process exists within an enabling social environment (p,211),
this results in a contamination of certain attributes, e.g. in the case of the Equality Act 2010,
‘characteristics’ lead to the ‘dehumanisation’ of those with these characteristics (p,210)
which includes ethnicity. Solanke (2017) concludes, that the purpose of ‘the anti-stigma
principle’, would be to complement existing legislation, by improving anti-discrimination
law in society, so it will legislate for not only by what it sees, but adds an element through
how it sees discrimination (p,213). This principle would be an important contribution to
anti-discrimination law and is central to the analysis in this research.

Berger and Luckman (1967), offer a sociological perspective, The Social Construction of
Reality, which helps understand how diversity and inclusion as terms of reference, are used
to define and discuss symptoms of alleviating inequalities; which results in the need for laws
and policies to afford opportunity for people who are disadvantaged in any way. Berger and
Luckman (1967), posit that, everyday life is created through thoughts and actions which in
turn maintain this reality (p,33).
These thoughts exist in each own person (i.e. as in a dream state), and through
‘intersubjectivity’, when shared with others (p,37). It is through this sharing that common-
sense knowledge is established, which with repetition removes any doubt of the knowledge,
thereby creating a social structure which is an essential element of

pg. 6
 200903479

the reality of everyday life (p,48). Once the language is established, this allows for
commonality, in everyday life interactions, given the knowledge of the situation and the
limitations individuals face (p,56). Berger and Luckman (1967) conclude, ‘the sociology of
knowledge’, which is how humans understand their reality, is ‘socially constructed reality’
(p,210). Solanke’s (2017) theory, in taking a sociological theory to enhance a law that
prevents and protects discrimination allows for an awareness and better societal
understanding of all kinds of discrimination, importantly the ‘how’, discrimination impacts
the representation gap. Berger and Luckman’s (1967) theory captures something, about how
the situation, i.e. the shortfall in equity of representation, of people from ethnic minorities in
roles of leadership in the UK comes to exist.

Ethnic minorities, who according to official 2011 census figures are 13 percent of the UK
population, are defined as Black, Asian, Mixed or Other Ethnic (BAME) or Black or
Minority Ethnic (BME). 87 percent of the UK population, the majority, is made up of who
the government defines as ‘white’, including white minorities, and whites born outside of the
UK (ONS, 2017). ‘The socially constructed reality’ theory (Berger and Luckman, 1967,
p210), speaks to the creation of terminology that comes to define people as a minority in any
society. ‘The Anti-Stigma Principle’ theory (Solanke, 2017, p,213) begins by acknowledging
discrimination, a by-product of the social construct and looks to challenge discrimination,
arguing for its eradication. Kandola (2018) makes the point that every society has its
minorities, adding that the collection of such data is an indicator of society’s desire to tackle
bias through the quantification and analysis of such data (p,6). However, there remain
inherent complexities and ongoing problems in how different groups are described and how
they describe themselves (Kandola, 2018; Beech et al, 2017). Green Park, (2017) use the
term ‘ethno-cultural’, in which they classify people who identify as being BAME, through
their ethnic category and/or their cultural or religious categories (p,6). Parker et al, (2017)
have employed the terms ‘people of colour’ or ‘people from a non-white ethnic group’ (p,7).
With these definitions established, this research will use the terms, BAME, ethno-cultural,
people of colour interchangeably in reference to diversity in the workplace.

pg. 7
 200903479

The initial idea for this research topic presented itself through an engagement opportunity
with an organisation that has been operating for centuries, who had appointed a head of
diversity and inclusion. The words that lit the spark were, “the new leaders of the
organisation had made a strategic decision, integral to their future, to take diversity and
inclusion seriously from the perspectives of their employees, customers and their
organisational culture.” This statement was profound in its impact. Researching this area
identified a report entitled ‘Revealed: Britain’s most powerful elite is 97% white’ authored by
Duncan (2017) for the Guardian Ford Foundation report. In a separate report Beech et al
(2017), concluded that, BAME people are under- represented in business and in management
roles, with only six percent in managerial roles. Beech et al (2017) say add if a full
representation of BAME, (currently 64.5%, by equalling the white employment rate of
75.6%) (BEIS, 2017), this would be worth £24 Billion a year to the UK economy (p,12). This
gap in representation in industry and leadership presents as either a challenge or an
opportunity to industry, to be discussed in the literature review section of this research.

The research will explore leadership within the workplace through investigating current
Diversity and Inclusion leadership in the UK literature, and by conducting interviews with
leaders in organisations. Through a literature review the research will analyse diversity and
inclusion in leadership in the UK, and the challenges which impact representation of
minorities in leadership positions in the UK. It will also identify current and recommended
strategies. The aim of the research is to explore the drivers for diversity and inclusion
policies from a leadership perspective. The title of this project is a play on a common phrase
that normally implies that any situation can be read as either positive or negative. The first
‘half full’, or positive interpretation, of the title acknowledges the current gains, while the
second ‘half full’ explores the future of diversity and inclusion in leadership in the UK
specifically for people who identify as BAME.

pg. 8
 200903479

Literature Review

The review looks at diversity and Inclusion and leadership in the UK. Diversity
management will be explored to establish the current situation. The following quote
informs the review;

“Diversity and Inclusion is not about ticking the boxes; it’s about creating an
environment where Inclusion is at the core of our culture, where our talent
acquisition practices, prioritize Diversity and where we encourage and celebrate the
broadest range of perspectives possible as we collaborate toward world class
products, service and solutions for our clients. Our future success depends on it.”-
Bill Tyree, Managing Partner –Brown Brothers Harriman (2018)

Diversity

Diversity as, a condition or quality of being different is about, ‘every single person’
(Sweeney and Bothwick,2016). Konrad et al (2006) describe diversity as, ‘one of few social
phenomena, to have attracted so much attention this century’ (p,1) adding, that while the
USA was considered the pioneer in the diversity movement (Knights and Omanovic, 2017;
Nkomo and Cox Jr, 1996; Kelly and Dobin,1998; Zanoni et al, 2010), this is now echoed
across the world. In part, this is due to the large population movements and globalisation of
culture (Appadurai, 1990) and the rise of globalisation (Cho et al, 2017). Loden and Rosener
(1991) have defined diversity as having a primary and secondary dimension, with ‘primary
diversity’ being immutable differences, such as age and race, while ‘secondary diversity’ are
mutable differences such as education and beliefs (p,18-19). Shore et al (2009) have
examined, six dimensions of diversity, namely race and ethnicity; gender; age; disability;
sexual orientation and cultural and national origin. They argue that their approach allows for
a basis to understand similarities and differences, that inform a meaningful, appropriate and
better understanding of diversity in the workplace (p,117).

pg. 9
 200903479

Inclusion

Inclusion is defined as,

‘the action or act of including, is described as being the creation of an environment
where everyone can be themselves, feel that they are able to contribute and have their
contribution valued, and it is this aspect that is a real challenge in making diversity
work conclude’ (Sweeney and Bothwick, 2016,
p. xv).
In defining inclusion, Brown (2016) suggests, ‘the golden rule: treat others as you would
like to be treated, has been surpassed by the platinum rule: treat others as they would like to
be treated’ (p,46) This she suggests, will allow for a real change through seeing the world
and the workplace through the perspectives of others, concluding, ‘this mutually beneficial
coexistence, (which) is needed in the workplace is- inclusion’ (p,66). Mor Barak and Cherin
(1998, in Roberson, 2006) define inclusion as the extent to which individuals can access
information and resources and have the ability to influence decision-making processes
(p,215). Cottrill et al (2014) posit that the concepts of diversity and inclusion are distinct but
interrelated, adding, that definitions of diversity focus on a demographic make-up, while,
definitions of inclusion emphasize encouraging participation and moving beyond
appreciating diversity and importantly the integration of diversity into everyday work life
(p,275). A point Roberson (2006) affirms, when she concludes, inclusion is developing the
organisation’s capacity to leverage diversity as a resource (p,234).

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

In academia, equality, diversity and inclusion studies (as a field), is vast and spans many
disciplines (Farndale et al, 2015; Shore et al, 2009). Ahmed and Swan (2006) argue, the term
‘diversity’ ‘has been viewed as being problematic, as it individuates difference, conceals
inequalities and neutralises histories of antagonism and struggle’. This is possible they argue
as, ‘diversity’ as a term has replaced other terms with more complex histories, terms such as
‘equal opportunities’, ‘anti-racism’, ‘social justice’ and ‘multiculturalism’, their central
concern being that when such terms are removed from policy discourses, their histories
disappear’ (p,96). Oswick

pg.
 200903479

and Noon (2014) found that the discourse of diversity has followed that of management
fashion, meaning when stakeholders through rhetorical strategies, seek to establish the
dominance of a management solution, thereby diminishing the value and effectiveness of
anything that preceded their new solution. This is reflected in the progressions of equality,
to diversity and now inclusion in the workplace. They conclude, discrimination is a
pervasive and insidious phenomenon affecting organisations and communities, and as such
it differs from management fashions in two ways, firstly, the seriousness of what they tackle
and the intensity of responses they invoke and, secondly, unlike management fashions they
can be implemented in combination rather than consecutively, as management fashions
require (p,35).

Brown (2016), suggests workplace diversity and inclusion mean respecting all people’s
inherent differences equally (p,46). Anderson and Metcalf (2003 in CIPD 2006) identify
three types of workforce diversity, namely, Social category diversity- relating to
demographic differences; Informational diversity- which relates to diversity of background in
areas such as educational and experience and finally, Value diversity- which speaks to
differences in personalities and attitudes (p,6). Sherbin and Rashid (2017) argue that in the
workplace, ‘Diversity and Inclusion are often assumed to be the same thing; concluding that,
diversity alone does not drive inclusion, but, rather may lead to a “diversity backlash” as
measuring diversity is a matter of a headcount, while quantifying inclusion may be difficult’
(p,2). Diversity work is necessary even if it means working with difficult terms, as such
exposing the inequalities it conceals is important, and importantly for people who identify as
being from a BAME background as they are considered to embody diversity (Ahmed and
Swan, 2006).

Black And Minority Ethnic (BAME)

The UK government uses ethnicity as a term, to describe a section of UK society. ‘Race’

along with other characteristics is defined as being, ‘an intrinsic physical difference between
people, including skin colour, nationality and ethnic origin (Cabinet Office, 2017) Race and
ethnicity are interchangeable, and as government

pg.
 200903479

they use the term ‘ethnicity’ for, ‘accuracy, consistency and interpretation’ of data
according to the Cabinet Office (2017). Four groupings with sub groups constitute BAME,
namely, Black/ African/ Caribbean/ British/ Other; Asian/ Indian/ Pakistani/ Bangladeshi/
Chinese/ other Asian; Mixed/multiple ethnic groups/White and Black Caribbean/ White and
Asian/White and Black African/Other mixed and Other ethnic group/Arab/any other ethnic
group who total 7. 5 million people (ONS, 2018). An important note is that this number
could be higher as the census number only considers BAME people born outside the UK
(ONS, 2015).

BAME are not homogenous, while some are described through both their characteristics and
heritage, others are defined purely by their heritage. All Government bodies use the term
‘ethnic minorities’, when referring to anyone other than ‘white’ British, according to the
ONS (2017). The BAME UK population, is expected to grow to 20 percent by 2030
according to Beech et al (2017) and to over 30 percent of the UK population by 2051
according the Parker et al (2017). Yet they face challenges in the workplace. An Equalities
Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (2016) report, found the unemployment rates across
Britain were higher (9.9%) for BAME people combined when compared to (6.3%) for white
(p,21). The report also found a BAME pay gap when compared to their white colleagues,
5.6 % for all BAME, regardless of educational attainment and 12.8% for Black workers
(p,25). A direct result of this gap is that, ethnic minorities are hugely underrepresented in
senior positions of power Beech et al, (2017).

Duncan (2017), in a report for The Guardian/ Ford Foundation Inequality project, found that,
of the ‘1049’ most powerful and influential people in the UK only 36 individuals or 3.4
percent, identify as BAME. The report observes that despite decades of legislation to address
discrimination representation in leadership remains a true challenge as in sectors such as the
police, military, supreme court and security services, law firms and top consultancies remain
without non-white senior leaders. The report acknowledged the progress made, in the civil
service, judiciary, politics and police officers compared to 2000 figures, but makes the point
that this progress has not been reflected in the senior roles. ‘Role models in leadership, for
younger BAME people, representation in order to serve society more ably and creating
spaces where people from a BAME background are allowed to fulfil their

pg.
 200903479

potential without glass ceilings and other barriers to their ambition’, should be an
important consideration for leaders in their organisations Duncan (2017).

The Leadership 10000 Report (Green Park, 2017) of the 10000 senior leaders in the FTSE
350 (FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 combined) companies, found a total of 894 individuals out of
10,129 individuals identified as being from an ‘ethno-cultural’ background (8.8%). A similar
report, Public Service Leadership 5000 Report (Green Park Public, 2017) found of the five
thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven individuals working in central and local government,
public agencies and corporations and the healthcare sector, only 4 percent of these leaders
were from an ‘ethno-cultural’ background To help address this the EHRC (2010)
recommends that race inequality in the UK could be tackled effectively through a
comprehensive long- term approach that examines all the areas in which BAME are ‘held
back’ areas which write include discrimination, race, and socio-economic factors (p,10).

Leadership

Brown Brothers Harriman (2018), a global financial services firm based in the USA, say they
are committed to progress, adding that diversity drives their business results and concluding
that their work in partnerships with organisations championing diversity and inclusion in the
workplace, allows them to broaden opportunities for professionals of every background
(BBH, 2018). While this is an American company, their approach is transferable to a UK
context. Groysberg and Connolly (2013), argue that when business leaders demonstrate a
commitment to diversity and inclusion, this is a powerful message, that goes beyond rhetoric.
Chelmers (1997, cited in Kalra et al, 2009) defines leadership as “a process of social
influence in which one person enlists the aid and support of others to the accomplishment of
a common task”. The aid and support of a ‘representative’ other may bring ‘informed’
accomplishment.

According to Huczynski and Buchanan (2017);

pg.
 200903479

‘Leadership as a key determinant of organizational effectiveness, involves three

aspects, an interpersonal process, of influencing others; a social context, by
which leadership influences other members of the group, who are subordinates; and
third, a goal achievement aspect, by which a leader identifies a guiding principle
for effective leadership’(p,598).

Bryman (1996) describes true leadership as the active promotion of values which give shared
meanings of the organisational nature (p,277). Thomas (1991) on the other hand suggests
broader concerns, that a leader should confront when managing diversity, namely
understanding their organisation’s corporate culture; identifying the fundamental elements of
the culture; determining whether the roots support or hinder aspirations of managing
diversity and working to change the cultural roots that are a hindrance to the organisation’s
aspirations (p,24).

Cottrill et al (2014), have placed an ‘emphasis on the importance of leadership in diversity

management, adding,

‘leaders must, model comfort with diversity, alter rules for acceptable behaviours to
ensure wide application, create opportunities for dialogue across all differences,
demonstrate an interest to learn and be authentic about their own challenges and
triumphs to encourage authenticity in others’ (p,276).

Beech et al (2016) offer considerations for senior leaders in relation to improving diversity in
the workplace, specifically for individuals from a BAME background. These include, leaders
breaking the silence and leading on BAME diversity, talking publicly and using company
communication channels to make clear the organisation’s commitment to diversity, and
making every leader in the organisation accountable while identifying champions so that this
has ownership beyond the head of the organisation, in order to embed diversity in business
decisions.

pg.
 200903479

Diversity Management

Oswick and Noon (2014) suggest ‘Diversity’ as a term has been studied in academia as early
as 1987. For the workplace, William et al, (1987) produced ‘The Workforce 2000 Report’,
for the US government which highlighted a demographic shift for the 21st century. The
Report found there was a need to rethink hiring strategies, in government and private
organisations, if they were to survive the 21st century, specifically the change in their
demographic composition. Zanoni et al (2010) critique the early ‘diversity’ approach, as the
re-appropriation of equal opportunities by business, as through the notion of ‘diversity’, was
initially described as a positive empowering approach for employees with different
capacities. Zanoni et al (2010), argue further, the identities subsumed under the term, being
socially produced, where in a process that reflected existing unequal power relations, thereby
maintaining such relations (p,10).

Over time, Diversity management has seen many definitions produced according to
Kandola (1998), whose definition of managing diversity means,

“Starting by accepting 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” (p,8).

As established earlier, the demographic picture in the UK is changing. CIPD (2006), make
the point that not only is the UK labour market becoming more diverse in terms of the
characteristics identified in Kandola (1998)’s definition of diversity management, but due to
increasing globalisation, diversity is not an option, rather a necessity and that corporate
capital today requires a multicultural, multinational management and labour force (p,4). The
report concludes,
‘for organisations to meet the challenges of the new economy, the recruitment of a
more diverse workforce and the development of effective diversity management
strategies, which allow for flexibility, motivated employees and

pg.
 200903479

for an enabling culture for employees to perform efficiently as a team, as

essential’ (p,5).
Thomas (1992) concludes, that managing diversity is a comprehensive managerial process
for developing an environment that works for all employees (p,20), driven by a managerial
perspective which creates organisations that work naturally for everyone (p,10).

The First Half Full

This section establishes the current situation of diversity and inclusion in the workplace
and its management in the United Kingdom. This is achieved through three main drivers
of the agenda.

Legal

The discrepancy, identified earlier in the report between population mix and
leadership representation, requires an answer, as to why, current measures
including the Equality Act 2010, are not addressing this situation.

According to Gov.UK (2017), The Equality Act 2010, protects society from discrimination
(actions), defined in nine characteristics, for which ethnicity is one such protected
characteristic. In the workplace, this is the law. More so for public bodies, the Act informs
the Public-Sector Equality Duty, which requires among others, that public bodies eliminate
discrimination, advance equality and, importantly, through the ‘specific duties regulations’,
requires them to publish information showing their compliance with the Equality Duty
regulations (Gov.UK, 2017). Powell and Johns (2015), suggest diversity in employment has
been on the UK government’s agenda since the passage of the Disabled Persons
(Employment) Act in 1944, however as the Green Park report (2017) notes, despite some
progress, this remains a challenge for the UK government.

The Equalities Act 2010, lays out the new term ‘protected characteristics’, which are, age,
disability, gender, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex,

pg.
 200903479

sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity; the law is now a single statute protecting against
discrimination and is enforced by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)
(Solanke, 2011). The EHRC (2017) describes itself as an independent statutory body,
responsible for encouraging equality and diversity, eliminating unlawful discrimination and
protecting the human rights of everyone in Britain. Within the Equality Act 2010 there is a
provision for “positive action”, this section of the law allows employers to favour a person
with a ‘protected characteristic’ or who is an under-represented person, when recruiting or
retaining employees according to Johns et al (2014). Powell and Johns (2015) also note that
the NHS has had a long history of diversity initiatives (p,163), although Kalra et al (2009),
that ethnicity and diversity are now core to the business (p,104).

Business Case

Konrad et al, (2006, cited in Benschop et al 2017) and Janssens and Zanoni, (2007 cited in
Benschop et al 2017) posit, in today’s globalized world, it is acknowledged that
organisations need a diverse workforce in terms of skills, knowledge and abilities. They
conclude, ‘as such Diversity in the workforce has become a prime concern for both private
and public organisations’ (p,553). Stone and Deadrick (2015) have suggested, with the rise
of the knowledge economy, the demand for talented workers is high, adding that the
knowledge economy requires innovation, autonomy, continuous improvement, and
participative decision-making processes, as skill sets, which are in a short supply in a
competitive global environment concluding that organisations need to change their human
resources approaches (p,140).

The direct result is a more diverse workforce in labour organisations, driven by global
migrations, changing gender relations and ageing populations in the west. Diversity therefore
is believed to engender ‘competitive advantage’, through establishing a better corporate
image, improving group and organisational performance (Bleijenbergh et al, 2010; Pless and
Maak, 2004). Bebbington and Ozbligin (2013) conclude that the talent pool for leadership is
becoming more diverse and, if tapped, represents a huge potential for change (p,22) and as
Cox (1993 cited in Ng and

pg.
 200903479

Stephenson 2017) posits the role of leaders in capitalising on the benefits must not be
underestimated (p,245). Having a diverse workforce leads to increased market share,
increased customer and employee relations, improved quality of an organisation’s
performance, in terms of creativity, problem-solving and flexibility (CIPD, 2006;
Government Equalities Office, 2013).

Robinson and Dechant (1997), offer four steps informing the business case; the first step,
considers the business strategy and identifies the business needs, that require diversity.
Secondly, Identifying actions required for each objective or need- is a step that identifies the
nature and magnitude of the diversity initiative, i.e. whether it will be focused or
comprehensive in scope. The third step, is conducting a cost benefit analysis- specifying the
costs involved in the implementation of the identified initiative and what the organisation
stands to make in return. The fourth and final step, looks at developing tracking mechanisms
to assess progress and financial impact- a way in which to measure or evaluate progress is
key, this should be at the start of the initiative and through its lifecycle and all progress
measures should replicate how the organisation or industry, measures its business
performance (p, 29). The business case for diversity must focus on attaining a firm’s
specific objectives

The Moral Case

There remain challenges, Carvel, (2003 cited in Kalra et al 2009) whose interview with
Trevor Phillips, brings a description of the NHS as being a ‘snow-capped’ mountain, this is
because, Phillips argues, at its base is 1.3 million employees, of whom BAME people
constitute, thirty five percent of doctors and dentists, sixteen percent of nurses, and eleven
percent of non-medical staff, but less than one percent have a BAME chief executive (p,104).
This was more than a decade ago, yet these findings are echoed by the latest Public Service
Leadership 5000 Report (Green Park Public, 2017) which found that BAME are
unrepresented at senior levels in the NHS. There however, is progress in other areas of
diversity, the government has supported reviews into gender diversity and ethnicity and
cultural background (Green Park Public, 2017). The gender diversity of FTSE 100 boards,
target of 25% was met

pg.
 200903479

in 2015 and subsequently has been updated to 33% by 2020 (Green Park Public, 2017).
Gender diversity in the public sector is now seven times better than in the private sector, this
progress, however, has not translated for BAME talent according to the Green Park Public,
(2017).

Research has shown that in the UK, BAME and gender discrimination persists (Bilghen et al,
2017). There is an awareness of the need for diversity and its management to go beyond just
the law or reacting to labour market shifts (Pless and Maak, 2004). The Civil Service aims to
be the UK’s most inclusive employer by 2020 according to Green Park Public, (2017).
Brewis (2017) argues for compassion in moral reasoning with regard to diversity
management, positing that while there may present practical and ethical challenges, to moral
reasoning, individualism has currency in the managing diversity discourse (p,529).

In considering ethical approaches to conducting business Paine, (1994 cited in Kandola,

1998) describes two kind of values, i) core values- that reflect basic social obligations and ii)
ethically desirable, but not morally obligatory values- which allow for an environment that
supports ethically sound behaviour, while instilling a sense of shared accountability among
employees (p, 17). If values are a starting place, organisations should work beyond
legislation and the business case the moral case suggests. Sanyal et al (2015), argue that
humans have a capacity to change their perception of things and conclude that diversity and
inclusion are an integral part of organisational and institutional policy, planning and
operations (management) in the UK.

The Second Half full

The future of diversity and inclusion in leadership for people who identify as BAME in the
UK is progressing. Where the law is the basis of all action, as complex as it is, it too, is
subject to improvements. Intersectionality, when two or more dimensions of diversity
(gender and race) result in multiple and intersecting layers of discrimination and
disadvantage (April and Syed,2015), is an area of anti- discrimination law that Solanke
(2017) has identified as needing improvement. Solanke (2017) argues for

pg.
 200903479

anti-stigma principle, for an anti-discrimination law that will go beyond identity and address
the ‘interlocking systems of oppression’ (p,212). Solanke (2017), reasons that society is
complicit in discrimination, through the use of justified ‘social mores’. It is in this social
sphere, that stigma is at its most powerful, as stigma at this level is diffuse, subtle and
invisible. Current anti-discrimination law does not focus on this sphere (p,212). Given the
need for the law to be improved, this suggests there are still approaches and strategies that
can be drawn on and adapted to better inform the future of diversity and inclusion for BAME
individuals in the UK workplace.

Practice

As business globalises and the world around it is getting more and more connected, building
inclusive diversity, will require long-term commitment (Pless and Maak, 2004, p,144).
Leadership has a key role in this commitment. Among their key findings Beech et al (2017)
recommend leaders to: find their voice and show their commitment to diversity; secondly,
work to build inclusive business cultures; third, transfer lessons from the progress made on
gender diversity, importantly, the power of transparency; fourth, leaders need to ensure that,
managers at all levels support diversity through sponsoring emerging leaders and tackling the
‘Fit’ argument. The latter is driven by, ‘the ‘white, male’ discourse, which has affected what
is seen as ‘acceptable criteria’, which in turn disadvantages BAME candidates as they are
seen as not meeting these ‘traditional’ criteria (p,13), concluding that, leaders must work to
bridge this argument, that blames BAME talent for not navigating ‘fit’, i.e. not founding a
way round these criteria, through tackling outdated cultures (p,7).

Bourke and Dillon (2018) in their report, the Deloitte Diversity and Inclusion Maturity
Model, identify four levels of maturity: i) Compliance- predicated on the belief that
diversity is a problem to be managed; ii) Programmatic- the value of diversity is starting to
be recognised; iii) Leader led- the CEO and influential leaders challenge the ‘status quo’
and address barriers to inclusion and iv) Integrated- this is when diversity and inclusion are
fully integrated into employee and other business processes such as innovation, customer
experience and workplace design. They conclude meaningful change will never be achieved
until organisations go beyond

pg.
 200903479

tick box exercises (p,94). CIPD (2006) found diversity per se will not automatically lead
to business success, concluding that organisational and contextual factors condition
workforce diversity and that unless managed effectively diversity is not a competitive
strength (p,10). In the UK, our ‘social reality’, is such that laws have been constructed, in
part, to mitigate and regulate the ‘intolerance of others.’ Solanke (2017) highlights the
inadequateness of this law, a point which Tatli (2011) affirms by arguing for stronger
equality legislation. In conclusion Bebbington and Ozbligin (2013) argue the UK needs a
change in the demography of its leaders, as they claim it is naïve to think a homogenous
group of leaders can effectively champion diversity (p,22). Healy (2017) points out that the
politics of diversity are complex, as interconnected contradictions, are multi-layered and
inherent in the nature of inequalities and diversity (p,15). Evidently, there is yet more
progress to inform diversity and inclusion in leadership in the UK for BAME individuals.
The research will through interviews explore current thinking from leaders in industry,
guided by the findings of this review.

Methodology

This research project used both primary and secondary research methods. Through an
empirical research method, the research seeks to consider the importance of leadership in
bringing meaningful change.

Considerations and Methods

Due to the nature of the topic the human perspective was deemed most relevant and
important. For this reason, a qualitative approach was decided on. Qualitative research allows
an understanding of the context within which decisions and actions take place. It is
impossible to understand when something has occurred or someone has done something in an
organisation without talking to people (Myers, 2013). Kirk and Miller (1986) suggest
qualitative research has four stages: ‘Invention’- which is the preparation stage; ‘Discovery’-
the phase of observation and collection of data; ‘Interpretation’- the stage of analysis and
finally ‘Explanation’ -communicating the message (p,60). This is the structure this research
has assumed and as such this

pg.
 200903479

section engages all four stages. Qualitative research, by its nature, is intrinsically
exploratory and retains the ideals of hypothesis testing approaches, which are meaning-
centred (Fairhurst and Cooren, 2018), however, it has its limitations according to Kirk
and Miller (1986).

The two main challenges for this research are firstly, the balance between rigour and
relevance, which is meeting standards of social science research and being of immediate
relevance to the business professional (Myers, 2013) Secondly, reliability and validity, which
are important for objectivity, through collection of data and reporting it to allow others to
carry out similar research and be able to measure it (Arksey and Knight, 1999). Qualitative
research is now found in areas of business that, traditionally, were seen as being founded on
quantitative approaches (Casell et al, 2018). This qualitative approach is validated by Beech
et al (2017) who, as part of their research, adopted interviews as a tool. The interviews were
semi-structured, and open question were used as they would allow the interviewee to depict
the past, when reflecting, while allowing for natural conversation to flow, giving the
interviewee space to follow their own sense of what was important (Arksey and Knight,
1999).
The research chose to employ one to one interviewing as the tool, as this allows for the in-
depth exploration of an individual’s opinions and thoughts (Stroh, 2000). While eliciting
information is not simple, the challenge is greater when interviewing in contexts of
‘distinctive characteristics’ such the interviewees in this research (Arksey and Knight,1999;
Harvey, 2010). The leaders the research is focusing on are an elite group, as people used to
exercise power and influence they are an important group as their input increases the
purchase of the enquiry (Arksey and Knight, 1999, p,122). A semi- structured interview
approach was decided upon as this, was guided by key themes gleaned from the literature
review.

The challenge for the research, was the status of the interviewer being lower than that of the
interviewees. Strategies to mitigate this imbalance include, preparation, a sound
understanding of the area of enquiry, the need to draw on cultural capital and access further
background knowledge to allow for trust ad rapport in the interviewer- interviewee
relationship. The failure of which risks a loss of credibility and the flow of information
(Arksey and Knight, 1999). The key aspect of one to one interviews are open questions as
these are less restrictive, compared to closed questions and can

pg.
 200903479

use probing responses or clarifying questions (Arksey and Knight, 1999). This approach
allowed for more flexible questions (Stroh, 2000) and allowed for an observation of the
power dynamics. While the research was able to call on the interviewees and ask them
questions, their power lay in them answering the questions honestly and in an open manner
(Stroh, 2000). Upon reflection all the participants in this research were open and came across
as sincere in their replies.

Sampling, Piloting and Analysis

The research approached the sample size by looking at three areas of industry. The aim for
the research is not to generalize from a sample to a population as that would require a large
and representative sample to for generalization to be made with confidence, a point the
research observes, however, all research has some generalizability (Arksey and Knight,
1999). The size of the population, discussed earlier, this research could have engaged with is
too big to be engaged given the constraints on the research. A spread across sectors and a
small sample was deemed appropriate for the size and scale of this research. The breakdown
of the industries was into: A- Charitable sector; B- Public sector and C- Private sector (See
Appendix ii). A snowballing sampling technique while considered opportunistic, involves
asking for one interviewee to nominate others, this works with a smaller sample with
generalization and conclusions not the main goal of the research, but rather recommendations
and directions for future research (Arksey and Knight, 1999). Snowball effect, was
successful for two interviews in this research. This sampling technique is suitable for the
purposes of this research and allows for, ‘describing and understanding, of the complexity of
this research topic as opposed to measuring of the research question’ (Arksey and
Knight,1999, p,5,).

The target sample were individuals in positions of leadership. The organisations the research
approached, while all had a turnover of one million pounds and above, not all employed at
least 200 employees as originally stated in the proposal. The leaders ranged from very large
organisations to smaller organisation. The first of many identified challenges to the research
was the number of businesses in the UK. According to the ONS (2018) as at March 2017,
2.67 million businesses paid Value

pg.
 200903479

Added Tax (VAT) and Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) in the UK, with 170,000 of these in
Yorkshire and Humberside. The most feasible approach, given the limitations on the
research, was to look for a smaller sample, which allowed for a qualitative research (Arksey
and Knight, 1999), meaning the research was now going to explore the experience of leaders
in the specific context of their roles (Lee, 2012). Qualitative research generates a lot of data
and difficulties in seeing meanings in such data are daunting, as such an appropriate analysis
procedure is required (Myers,2013; Arksey and Knight, 1999; Stroh 2000; King, 2012).
Alvesson and Ashcraft (2012) make the point that, ‘analysing comparing, categorising,
interpreting and creatively deploying the interview material is the most demanding activity of
interview research’ (p,250). A form of thematic analysis was used, specifically ‘template
analysis’, as this approach allows the research to define some key concept themes in advance,
while allowing for flexibility in using new themes should they appear (King, 2012). The
research in analysing the data established four a priori themes with sub themes: a) Perception
and understanding of Diversity and Inclusion as a theme; b) How the organisation has/will
respond to Diversity and Inclusion; c) BAME individuals in the organisation; and the final
theme d) The future for diversity and inclusion for their organisation. The research will
synthesise the discussion of results drawing illustrative examples from all the transcripts, the
reasoning for this would be to offer a clear and thematic discussion (King, 2012).

Confidentiality and Informed Consent

The topic of Diversity and Inclusion is potentially sensitive, so all interviews were held on a
one to one basis. Participants were emailed the information form, prior to the interview to
allow them time to read the information and all six CEOs ticked all boxes and signed their
consent forms at the beginning of the interviews. The consent forms informed the leaders of
their right to withdraw. Before the start of each interview participants were able to reread the
participant information sheet (Appendix (iv)), ask questions and sign printed copies of the
consent form. Participants were free to withdraw even after they had taken part, up until the
interviews were transcribed and anonymized.

pg.
 200903479

The first CEO to be approached to take part in the research was an in-person approach at a
conference held at the University of Leeds. The second CEO was approached through an
introduction by the CEO who helped pilot the questions. For the public-sector CEOs, a direct
email allowed access to the first and through a student-led initiative University of Leeds
conference. access to the other public- sector CEO was gained. The two private sector CEOs
engaged, were both as a result of introductions by the two public sector CEOs which
effectively was the snowballing effect as established above. The leaders interviewed are
identified as ‘elite members’ or elites, whose power and influence in decision making
processes is very important (Harvey, 2010; Arksey and Knight, 1999). The biggest challenge
when working with ‘elites’ is gaining access to them, as they are either constrained for time
and/or protected by lower level personnel (Arksey and Knight, 1999). This raises challenges
in drawing a sample. The research proposal identified potential participants as leaders in roles
or positions that directly influence diversity and inclusion in their organisations. This group
was seen as less of a challenge to gain access to, as compared to individuals in the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) role.

What soon became apparent were the constraints in the time limits placed on the research. In
order to sound out the validity of the area of research, conversations with three heads of
diversity and inclusion, (one from the public sector and two from the private sector) and two
PhD students both, studying at the Leeds University Business School and engaged with
through events at the University of Leeds, all validated the research’s aims. What was
apparent from these interactions was how contemporary and relevant this topic is. Secondary
research gathered through the review of literature helped contextualize the subject areas of
enquiry. This information informed the formulation of the interview questions. The structure
of the interview questions was formulated according to the sections in the literature review.
The questionnaire (see Appendix (i)) shows the questions asked in the interviews.
An initial set of data questions, established industry and size of organisation (See Appendix
(ii)). Questions 1 and 3, explored the leaders’ perspective. Questions 2 and 4, explored the
current state of diversity and inclusion in their organisations. Question 5 and 6, sought the
current and future situation of BAME representation in the organisation and what the leader
thought were barriers, if any. Questions 7, was future focused. The questions explored
diversity and inclusion and considered

pg.
 200903479

practical strategies that the leaders felt would inform the diversity and inclusion agenda,
specifically to move people who identify as from a BAME background into positions of
leadership in the workplace.

To pilot the questions, a CEO and a head of human resources from the charitable sector were
approached, this resulted in there being slight contextual and structural revisions, such as
follow up questions for clarity. The leaders identified for the research were CEOs as in most
organisations they have an important directing role in strategic decisions that affect ‘all’ of
the organisation. The reasoning behind the decision was to explore the value such leaders
placed on diversity and inclusion in their organisations when they deal with it as one of
many strategic issues. In the end the research secured six interviews with individuals and
given the time constraints this was deemed sufficient for this small research study. All the
interviews were conducted in the leaders’ places of work and all the consent forms were
signed and, as agreed, their details will remain confidential and anonymous.

Ethics and ethical considerations

The interviews were conducted in the premises and offices of the interviewees as this was
deemed comfortable and allowed for the researcher to become part of the rhythm of the
interviewee’s office or space (Adams-Hutcheson and Longhurst, 2017).

The individuals engaged in this research are key informants, the interviews were held under
the rules of transparency, confidentiality and anonymity. This was a challenge as some
readers may want to identify the participants to understand context. This is a perspective that
was considered, however this may have hindered full and open participation on the part of
the interviewees, given the sensitive nature of their roles. The initial step with regard to
ethical considerations, was seeking the ethics approval which was granted by the ethics
board at the Lifelong Learning Centre. All the participants will have access to the final
report.

Time was an important consideration and, as such, the aim was for each interview not to be
more than half an hour. This would encourage participants to take part

pg.
 200903479

(Keanely,2012) This allowed for appointments to be booked and accepted in the busy diaries
of the leaders, given the time constraints placed on the research, however key feature, was
that all the interviews ended up being longer than half an hour but less than an hour. None of
the leaders expressed any displeasure with this. Holt (2012), posits, ‘integrity, tireless
experiment, research practices have a certain kind of ethics associated, with personal
disciplines of detachment, sufficient to test the value commitments of the research, for
internal consistency, practical implication and possible alternatives’ (p, 95). Holt (2012)
concludes self-discipline in the researcher’s methodological commitment in a selfless
manner is important for good research. The research has committed to these ethical values in
all its approach and is not under the influence of interests, financial or in kind. Pseudonyms
are used to protect the identities of all participants. The results will be accessed by two
markers, and an External Examiner. The interview recordings and typed notes were stored on
the University password protected drive. Any recordings and written notes will be destroyed
after the final report has completed the marking process. This not only protects the
participants but allows for the impartiality of the research results.

Limitations

Constraints that were considered included limited research time. Transcribing the interviews
took a lot of time, which would have made it impossible had there been more than 6
interviews. Diversity and inclusion in leadership discourse, as a people related issue, would
possibly benefit more from an ethnographic approach, as this allows for recording of all the
interactions with the interviewees (Kirk and Miller,1986). However, this would require
more time than was available to this research. Another tool would have been an online
survey of a wider range of organisations in the form of a combination of both closed and
open questions.
However, as Myers (2013) argues quantitative research is best when the intention is to
generalise and is not concerned with in-depth understanding of the topic.
Granted more time the research could have employed online? survey questions for better
reach that would allow generalising and a greater geographical spread of participants.
Geographical constraints imposed on the research meant most of the CEO leaders were
based in the Midlands and the North of England. With more time

pg.
 200903479

a more geographically wide representation would have been sought. This will have also
impacted the sample size of six instead of the ten desired at the beginning.

Analysis and Discussion

In this section, the research analyses and discusses material from the interviews conducted
with the six CEOs. Of the six CEOs interviewed, only one has been in office for less than a
year. The six organisations vary in size, as evidenced through their turnover figures (See
Appendix (ii)). All of the CEOs are aware of diversity and inclusion and each of the
organisations have BAME employees across roles including in positions of leadership. The
discussion focuses on the drivers for diversity and inclusion from a leadership perspective. It
does not focus on detailed approaches, which would require further investigation, as
discussed in the recommendations.

Qualitative research generates a large amount of data. This research is no exception. The
confidentiality and anonymity of the CEO data, means information that would identify any
of the CEOs has not been used in the discussion. Template analysis (King, 2012), a style of
thematic analysis especially used to analyse data from individual interviews informed by the
interdisciplinary nature of the research, was used. This style of analysis allows for flexibility,
is less time consuming and importantly encourages the analysis of the data to develop themes
in a wide-ranging manner allowing for the richest data to be found. Furthermore, template
analysis is largely the preferred form of analysing organisational research, according to
Kenny and Briner (2010 cited in King, 2012). There are two aspects to this analysis. Firstly,
themes are defined as recurrent and distinctive in interviewees’ accounts, which are deemed
relevant to the research question. Secondly, codes which are labels attached to indexed text,
sum up what is of interest, in relation to a theme (King, 2012). As the research took a semi-
structured and an open-ended question approach, emphasis was placed on the meaning and
understanding (Arksey and Knight, 1999) of the interview material. Each theme is outlined
below.

pg.
 200903479

Perception and Understanding of Diversity and Inclusion

The CEOs have many priorities and the research sought to explore their perception and
understanding of how they approach diversity and inclusion in their organisations. These
perceptions were explored through the two approaches that were coded as ‘self’ and ‘role’ to
distinguish between the person and their leadership position.

Self

In the descriptions of how they personally understood diversity and inclusion in their
organisations all the CEOs spoke about valuing people and inclusivity. CEO B1 described
their approach as, “diversity and inclusion to me means allowing every individual to achieve
their potential regardless of their characteristics within the organisation”. What was also
clear was that the leaders also observed the different agendas of diversity and inclusion. CEO
C1 spoke of “a workplace with a broad range of people who have different viewpoints and
thought”. This he said was important for the success of the business. CEO C2 spoke about
their approach to diversity being, “thinking globally,” this was in relation to an experience
they had with launching product and penetrating a diverse market, adding, “understanding
the diversity of that market was critical and allowed for the success of our product”. CEO B2
said, “the importance of diversity and inclusion, specifically as ours is a big organisation, it is
critical for the organisation to reflect the community they are serving”. CEO A2 broke down,
using specific inclusion vocabulary, how they understood diversity and inclusion, saying, ‘it
is about equity, respect, dignity, ensuring individual characteristics are valued and that as a
leader I do not pay lip service to diversity and inclusion”. CEO A1, said for them “diversity
meant people being authentic and safe in who they are”. All the CEOs said they saw diversity
and inclusion in their organisations as a key and of strategic importance. In all the interviews
each CEO appeared to be genuinely passionate when describing how they understood
diversity and inclusion to be important to them personally.

pg.
 200903479

Their role

Having established how they as individuals perceived and understood diversity and inclusion,
the research sought to understand their perception and understanding of diversity and
inclusion in their roles as CEO. Key descriptions included creating a vision and the
importance of them leading through a culture of openness and inclusivity for their
organisation. As a leader they felt they should be personally involved in the process which
would affirm their belief in the agenda and this was important for them to see the progress of
their diversity and inclusion strategy. For example, CEO A1 mentioned their organisation had
been awarded, “platinum status for an award (Investors in People), the requirements to
achieve this, are rigorous and it is through a transparent process, which is a positive sign for
the organisation”.
Emott and Worman (2008), describe ‘Investors in People’ as a, ‘business excellence
initiative, that reflects quality assured policies and work practices, as diversity fits well with
business excellence’(p,31).

With regard to the importance of leadership, CEO B1 said, "I am ‘egalitarian’ in my

approach to my role, I believe in teamwork, you need difference within teams to avoid
groupthink which leads to creativity suffering". CEO C1 said, "I am passionate about
diversity” and that they felt it important to, “challenge behaviours and language and the
‘unconscious biases’ which target underrepresented groups within the organisation". CEO C2
focused, on breadth and the long-term, “my role is in promoting the right agenda of inclusion
in all areas of the business, this will be set through a long-term strategy of inclusivity”. CEO
A1 centred on the importance of their role in creating the right environment, “I am
responsible for creating the environment for diversity and inclusion to flourish, and when
processes are in place then people's confidence in the process, is increased. The proof of
which is in our Stonewall award”. Stonewall (2018) work with organisations to ensure
inclusive, equal and inspiring workplaces are available for individuals. This is the only
organisation in the research that does have above proportionate representation of BAME in
leadership positions.

According to Beech et al (2017) ‘Senior Leaders must ‘break the silence’ and speak up with
strong leadership on BAME diversity. They should call out any bias and

pg.
 200903479

encourage all managers do likewise’. The personal involvement approach was one all the
leaders spoke to, with CEOs B1 and A1 adding that they took part in induction days with
new staff, to speak to them among other things about the value the organisation places on
diversity and inclusion. CEO B2 understood their role as being,
“aware, understanding context and ensuring that the importance of this issue is not
lost among other priorities”, they went on to say, “I lead through my behaviour
setting a personal example, this ensures that the management of the organisation,
promote the idea.” They concluded, “I sit on two committees to do with diversity and
inclusion, one of which I chair”.
In terms of leadership diversity this organisation still has less than 3% BAME individuals in
positions of leadership.

CEO A2 said part of their culture,

“is creating ownership and commitment with the employees, as imposing solutions is
not always helpful; allowing people to feel safe to raise their points and be listened to
and the difference between a lived experience and a perceived experience is good for
diversity and inclusion".

What CEO A2 is alluding to is the question of how inter-ethnic understanding and

engagement is achieved through daily negotiation of difference where people can come to
terms with ethnic differences (Amin, 2001). As once people have formed a relationship with
somebody, this relationship gives them a ‘lived’ understanding of the person with a
difference as opposed to the ‘perceived’ understanding of this individual.

Organisational Response to Diversity and Inclusion

General Responses

The research sought to understand how the CEOs’ organisations had responded to diversity
and inclusion internally and importantly in what practical ways. All the CEOs interviewed
said their organisations had, or were, responding to diversity and

pg.
 200903479

inclusion in their workspaces, albeit through different approaches. CEO A2’s

summation was poignant for how candid they were in saying,
"we have responded inconsistently, as we have struggled with inclusion i.e. our
employers and the beneficiaries we serve are not representative”.
Continuing they explained, “The upside of this, is that everybody is now committed
to doing this right thing including the board, as through the use of data and an annual
report, that shows us a change in our diversity and inclusion policies”. They
concluded in saying, “diversity and inclusion should not have to be a talking point”,
sharing that, “in the past, staff would come to tell me whenever we had hired
somebody from BME background”.

CEO A1 spoke of their achieving the highest mark for the “‘Stonewall award’ and our focus
has been sexual orientation, as if it's not safe for people who identify as LGBTQ what about
the others?". CEO C1 said whilst, “we consider all diversity and inclusion issues, our
organisation has focused on gender and sexual orientation diversity, as our industry is male-
dominated, as a result there has not been a great focus on BAME diversity”. Shore et al
(2009), argue against focusing on a single dimension of diversity, positing, in a boundaryless
globalized world, a more integrative approach that considers all diversity as more
appropriate.

The larger organisations in the research have set up what they termed as, ‘equality units’,
departments in the organisation whose responsibility was to, as CEO B2 put it,

“track numbers, comment on policy, encourage and drive the values of

equality and inclusion".
This was echoed by CEO B1 who added. “The equality unit works on all forms of diversity
and inclusion. We are a values-driven organisation, where fairness is at the core, diversity
and equality, i.e. difference, is celebrated and people progress on merit”. These values they
said, “permeated through everything we do”. They paused for a moment and continued,
“even with all we have done there remain gaps, as such we have active programmes which
promote BME, disability and gender pay gaps".

pg.
 200903479

Training was a common response for all the organisations, the main one being unconscious
bias training. With CEO B2, saying in their organisation "no one who hasn't taken
unconscious bias training should take part in an interview panel”. ‘Unconscious bias’, is the
unconscious use of stereotypes (Kandola, 2018) in decision making. The training reinforces
the point that once we become aware of our biases individuals are able to change them
(Kandola, 2018). This is something CEO C2 described as being in his philosophy and which
informs how his organisation will respond to diversity and inclusion,

“in having the best people, I will instil in my management team the awareness of how
important diversity is". Reflecting on training he had taken, he went on to say, “the
gender prejudice assumptions and biases that need to be challenged has certainly
helped and will make people think differently”. (This CEO felt this happened for
them).
Although training was in place it was not clear from the interview that there were
strategies in place to measure its impact.

Practical Responses

All the CEOs have responded to diversity and inclusion within the workplace in their
personal capacities by involving themselves in inductions or by leading committees. All the
CEOs spoke of their responsibility to society and the communities they served. Their main
drivers in diversity initiatives vary across industry, in the public sector, legal obligations
and better delivery to diverse communities are the main drivers (CIPD,2006) for example,
CEO B2 spoke of how,
“as an organisational priority, it is not just about engaging people in the system, it is
about talking to, learning and listening, so as to identify best practice. The most
productive approach being a networked approach as this is a lot better than a top-
down approach".
The business case arguments, particularly those about retaining talent and improving
competitiveness in the market are drivers in private sector (CIPD,2006) for example,
CEO C1 said,

pg.
 200903479

"in our organisation we have been active in ensuring a higher number of female
graduates’ roles promotions and awards, as I alluded before our focus has been
gender and sexual orientation, which means other diversities may have suffered as a
result such as BAME diversity”.

and finally, for the charitable sector the main drivers tend to be those of aligning volunteer
profiles with communities they serve (CIPD,2006) for example,

CEO A1 spoke of how,

“diversity and inclusion is a ‘moral imperative” for the organisation”, adding, “staff
had taken ownership together with management informing a co- production
approach”, concluding, “Together we identified who we could bring in to help inform
our diversity and inclusion needs”. The reasoning behind this was, “It should always
start with an honest conversation and you should never be too arrogant to say I don't
know, as we are not perfect, but we can learn". An example of which was, “we
brought in a specialist to come and speak to us about how Islamophobia was affecting
some of the Muslim staff".

These were people at the highest levels of their organisations and during the interviews, they
refereed to people in charge of the detail of their diversity and inclusion delivery. Only CEO
B1 referred to particular targeting, which seemed to be having a positive impact,
"we have actively targeted certain communities to work for us which has resulted in
a more diverse workforce, this approach, ‘augmented by cultural leadership from the
top people know what we say is what we mean’, we respect and celebrate
difference, and everyone gets this message, unwritten and written".

BAME Individuals in Your Organisation

The CEOs interviewed for this research all have BAME individuals represented in their staff
body (see Appendix (ii)). In the UK, the BAME working population has increased, but this is
not reflected in diversity at senior management levels according to Beech et al (2017). Only
one of the CEOs organisation has a percentage higher

pg.
 200903479

than the 13% representation total of BAME individuals in the UK population (CEO A1 33%
BAME in this organisation in leadership positions). The five CEOs of the organisations with
the lower percentages of BAME in positions of leadership, acknowledged there were not
enough representative numbers of BAME individuals in positions of leadership within their
organisations. The CEOs acknowledged that getting BAME individuals into position of
leadership remained a challenge which they were working on.

CEO B1 said about perception,

“our organisation is seen is a ‘white organisation’, with such a perception, you will
not be as attractive, to non-white applicants, this is a practical fact which then acts as
a barrier", adding, in a wistful manner, “the BAME agenda has suffered from
caricature in the media, statements and words such as political correctness, tick box
exercise, overcompensating, ‘penalising’ the white majority, have all added to this”.
They concluded, “as well, acronyms that are used to describe people can simply turn
people off, the government may have better language on this than we do".

This point confirms ‘the socially constructed reality theory’ (Berger and Luckman, 1967).
Acronyms and perceptions are socially constructed. A step to help address the area of
recruitment could be having diversity of race and ethnicity of members on recruitment panels
(Beech et al, 2017). CEO A2 said;
"when recruiting we must recruit for the best person for the job the right person,
concluding, that fit is an argument that is used often as an excuse I think it's about
comfort zones because diversity matters at all levels even diversity of thought,
harmony isn't always what we want but it is always the right object". This implies
that people tend to recruit in their own image.

An important solution five of the CEOs related to was, the importance of developing a
pipeline of talent. CEO B1 stressed this,

pg.
 200903479

“having a pipeline of people coming through, ‘promoted on merit’, whilst time-

consuming, is important. Middle management becomes a key area of focus as, this is
where the contracting and expanding of barriers is".

CEO C1 said "having a pipeline of appropriate candidates has a positive effect, as it will
allow us to reach out and present ourselves” (Implying the ease of then recruiting more
BAME individuals). CEO A1 said “’embarrassingly’ we have lots and lots of BME staff, key
to getting them into positions of leadership was mentoring all the senior management team to
mentor employees within the organisations”. This allowed them to work with their staff on
how best to support them within the organisation. CEO A1 discusses practical initiatives
deemed effective for BAME career development, which Beech et al 2017) listed as
mentoring, leadership development programmes, sponsorship and access to placements.

The future for Diversity and Inclusion

In considering the future of diversity and inclusion in the United Kingdom all of the
leaders were clear about the importance of diversity and inclusion in general and
specifically for BME individuals in the UK and for the future of their organisations. Key
points raised included: seeing employees reflecting who we serve; barriers broken down;
diversity not talked about and more representation of BAME CEOs and directors in the
UK.

BAME

All the CEOs reiterated this was a very important area for their organisations but spoke of
two specific areas of concern for BAME individuals in their organisations, which also
impact their ascent to positions of leadership. These two areas were recruitment and
promotion reflected in the themes below of ‘positive action’ and ‘allies’.

Positive action, where an organisation employs varying actions such as the provision of
targeted training and mentoring with a view to overcome disadvantage and under-
representation, was discussed (Beech et al, 2017). CEO C2 would consider positive

pg.
 200903479

action, “should I have two candidates with the same qualifications, if it meant getting the best
person by promoting the BAME individual, then this would be good for the organisation as a
whole". Positive action was also mentioned as a way of helping BME individuals into
positions of leadership. CEO C1 said "I would support measures that would get us to look at
different routes for recruitment, such as ‘the Rooney rule’”. (The Rooney rule is a rule in
National Football league (NFL) in America, which is designed to eliminate the disadvantage
faced by African Americans with respect to NFL head coach positions (Solow et al, 2011)).
Measuring impact is important to help track this progress as this will show how the
successful management of diversity can improve business performance. Importantly the
ability to manage diversity is what will make the difference for BAME individuals
(CIPD,2006). CEO B2, spoke of his concerns with “the current national equality” agenda.
They felt this was not helping, as post Brexit there had been an increase in the anti-immigrant
rhetoric. They concluded, “the equality agenda needed to be extended to other aspects such
as disability”. It’s not clear how this relates to BAME diversity and inclusion in positions in
leadership.

Allies were said to be important for furthering the BAME cause. CEO C2 spoke of the
importance of building awareness through education and training to get people to think
differently, “people should know and understand their biases, yes, conversations will be
difficult and challenging but they should be”. This also informed the view on quotas and
targets, CEO C1 was of the view "quotas are a challenging thing to go down". CEO C2
affirmed this by saying " if they are government declared, this may be different" Both felt
quotas would be inappropriate as they would be hard to sell to their current, majority, non
BAME staff.

CEO A1 suggested that, “allies are ‘critical’ all who can help” adding, “BAME shouldn’t
reinforce their victimhood, as this does not help”. However, this suggests an
individualising approach rather than a positive organisational strategy.

CEO B1 said;

"I am optimistic, even if migration reduced, post Brexit, possibly trade will need
us to embrace our diversity,” adding, “the success of mixed race

pg.
 200903479

individuals in sports stars and BAME representation in leadership, (e.g. Mayor of

London) all these will challenge perceptions”, before declaring, “it will happen, I see
it in my kids".

A point CEO A2 affirmed, “I am hopeful because I see the challenge; the young people are
not tolerating the status quo”. There is clearly some optimism but also a clear challenge for
the CEOs in identifying particular strategies in their recruitment and promotion of BAME
individuals within their organisations.

Organisation

Speaking of the future of diversity and inclusion of BAME individuals in their organisations,
CEO A2 made the point “I doubt it will go away, there will be different levels of stick and
carrot approaches, it is not a thing, we actually have to write strategy and policies to bring
the change". CEO C2 noted that, “in the future the dialogue will be much more open as there
will be more awareness of the benefits of diversity inclusion, this will be reflected in the
numbers in boards and middle management". CEO A1 said, "I want to see diversity
disappeared, inclusiveness remaining, we should be included, our differences should be
included, and importantly there should be no focus on difference". CEO B1 was optimistic,
“the future is bright, I will be at the forefront of this agenda. The look and feel of our
organisation will be more diverse and people (myself included) will be much more
comfortable in our skins as advocates and all parts (of the organisation) will see that the
organisation speaks to their lives". CEO C1 affirmed the point of advocates feeling
comfortable, “I have people in my team who are also passionate about diversity, even though
they are white men”.

CEO C1 concluded,
"everyone has biases, openness around the dialogue is critical making sure the
balance is right so that the deliberate focus of getting numbers doesn't feel like it's
going against the members of the current over-represented groups”, concluding,
“going to a point where it's not talked about, is not an issue anymore a decade is
optimistic but perhaps a 50-year journey".

pg.
 200903479

CEO A2 brought an interesting insight saying, "it should be about acceptance not about
imposing and dealing with white fragility and micro aggressions". Micro aggressions
describe the casual insults and dismissals (Kandola, 2018). White fragility is the state where
even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive
moves (Corrigan, 2016). CEO B2 summed up the future of their organisation as, “we should
be reflective of the community we serve and the wider community; importantly, we must be
examples of social responsibility by reflecting a cultural richness, which is important to
society as a whole".

Recommendations and Conclusion

The research question sought to explore whether the glass is ‘half full’ or indeed ‘half full’ for BME
individuals and their representation in positions of leadership in the United Kingdom.
The social construction of reality theory seeks to understand how a group comes to be identified as a
‘minority’. These terms which are socially constructed in turn work to stigmatise groups of
individuals which leads to disadvantage. This research speaks to the challenges still faced by all
minority groups, but for the purposes of this research the BAME individual. Through the Anti-stigma
principle, the research argued that even the existing law is inadequate in addressing all the areas of
discrimination. Through the literature review, the perpetuation of a power structure in diversity and
inclusion and its management, was discussed.

The research has been constrained and limited in many ways and it remains a small preliminary
exploration into understanding diversity and inclusion for BAME individuals in leadership in six
organisations in the United Kingdom. Specific to this area, the research recommends a longer-term
study into successful strategies that help BAME individuals move into positions of leadership. Such
research would inform organisations on how they can attract and recruit and importantly retain more
BAME individuals. There is no doubt this remains a rich area for exploration, regardless of the ‘terms
used to define’ the agenda in the future, the research suggests engaging heads of diversity and
inclusion in organisations as they will be able to speak directly to the detail of their organisations’
responses, as opposed to the CEOs for whom diversity and inclusion is a part of many of their
responsibilities and priorities, allowing for sharing of best and poor practice.

pg.
 200903479

That all the CEOs in this research are engaged with diversity at all is encouraging, as Beech et al
(2017) found 45 of the FTSE 100 companies showed no engagement with any specific diversity
agendas. The current research suggests a long-term approach that captures small wins. Dialogue is
critical to this process of change. In the interviews strong leadership was seen to be integral to this
being successful, but some concerns were raised about continuing barriers, including terminology and
acronyms. An area the interviewees suggested government should consider addressing. Some BAME
individuals are described by their heritage, while others by their race. While used interchangeably,
race typically refers to observable physical differences while ethnicity refers to cultural differences
according to Jenkins (2004). This removes the stigma of names used as a mechanism in application
processes. The negativity identified in the research to current terminology, such as a characteristic to
describe an individual, may immediately disadvantage an employee even internally when it comes to
promotion.

The CEOs felt that dedicated and strong leadership is important, so too are allies and advocates.
Kandola (1998) alluded to the importance of measurements, organisations should maintain as much
accurate data to help them identify gaps and celebrate gains. Unconscious bias training as a start is
important. Organisations could also consider bringing all their employees together, even engaging
with them outside of work, as the research established this relationship building could be translated to
better understanding the communities/markets the organisations serve. Whatever new term will be
used in the future, it is clear on two fronts that the demographics in the United Kingdom are
changing, by 2051 30% of the UK population will be BAME. Secondly, these will be customers and
employees meaning not only will organisations need to respond to workplace diversity but to
customer diversity too (Bourke and Dillon, 2018). Perceptions, while they remain a challenge for
some of the CEOs interviewed, are an important area to tackle as people regardless of how they
present, form a perception of an organisation when considering which organisations to join. The
research concurs with the CEOs’ assessments, in the main, that the future for getting the best person
for any role, will be critical for competitive advantage regardless of their background. However, the
majority of the CEOs were less clear about the specific strategies they could already be using to
provide opportunities for BAME employees to help move them into positions of leadership.

Bourke and Dillon (2018) argue, in the equality vs equity debate once the barrier to equal access
is removed there remains no need for varying levels of support for accessing

pg.
 200903479

opportunities. Bourke and Dillon (2018) identify seven actions to inform diversity and
inclusion in the future namely:
i. Recognising that progress will take a culture reset;
ii. Creating a shared purpose and meaning;
iii. Building inclusive leadership capabilities;
iv. Taking middle managers on the journey;
v. Nudge behaviour change by rewiring processes and practices;
vi. Strengthening accountability, recognition and rewards
vii. Paying attention to diverse employees and customers (p,95).

These seven actions are positive actions whose impact on the two areas highlighted by the CEOs,
recruitment and promotion, should inform a more meaningful deep change for better BAME
diversity in leadership.

pg.
 200903479

Bibliography

ACEVO, 2018. Pay and Equalities Survey 2018. London: ACEVO.

Adams-Hutcheson, G and Longhurst, R. 2017. At least in person there would have been a
cup of tea: interviewing via Skype. Area. 49 (2), pp, 148-155.

Ahmed, S. 2014. Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press.

Ahmed, s and Swan, E. 2006. Introduction: Doing Diversity. Policy Futures in

Education. 4(1), pp, 96-100.

Alvesson, M and Ashcraft, K. 2012.Interviews. In: Symon, G and Cassell, C. 2012. eds.
Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges.
London: Sage, pp, 239-257.

Amin, A. 2002. Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity. Environment
and Planning. 34, pp, 959-980.

April, K and Syed, J. 2015. Race and Ethnicity in the workplace. In: Syed, J and Ozbligin,
M: Managing Diversity and Inclusion: an international perspective. London: Sage, pp,
134-180.

Arksey, H and Knight, P. 1999. Interviewing for Social Scientists. London. Sage.

Appadurai, A. 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.

Theory, Culture and Society.7, pp, 295-310.

Bebbington, D and Ozbilgin, M. 2013. The paradox of diversity in leadership and leadership
diversity. Management International. 17 (2013), pp, 14-24.

pg.
 200903479

Beech et al, 2017. Delivering Diversity: race and ethnicity in the management
pipeline. London. British Academy of Management/ Chartered Institute of
Management.

BEIS, 2017. BEIS analysis to estimate the potential benefit from full representation of
Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) individuals across the workforce. [Online]. [Accessed
19 May 2018]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/bme-individuals-
in-the-labour-market- analysis-of-full-representation

BEIS, 2017. Race in the workplace- The McGregor Smith Review. [Online].
[Accessed 19 May 2018]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/bme-individuals-in-the-labour-market-
analysis-of-full-representation

Bendl et al. 2017. Introduction Mapping the Field of Diversity in Organizations.

Bendl, E. et al eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations.
Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Berger, P and Luckman, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. London.

Penguin Press.

Benschop et al, 2017. Future Challenges for Practices of Diversity Management in

Organizations. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in
Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, pp, 553- 574.

Bilghen et al, 2017. Global Diversity Management: Breaking the local impasse. In: Bendl, E.
et al eds. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford.
Oxford University Press, pp,370-387.

Bleijnbergh et al, 2010. Diversity management beyond the business case. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion. 29 (5), pp, 413-421.

pg.
 200903479

Bleijenbergh, I and Fielden, S. 2017. Examining diversity in organizations from critical

perspectives. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in
Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, pp, 539-552.

Bloomberg Businessweek, 2017. Deloitte Thinks Diversity Groups are Passé. [Online].
[Accessed 22 October 2017]. Available
from:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/deloitte-thinks-diversity-
groups-are-pass

Bourke, J and Dillon, B. 2018. The diversity and inclusion revolution: Eight powerful truths.
Deloitte Review. 22, pp, 82-95.

Brewis, D. 2017. Social Justice ‘Lite’? Using Emotion for Moral Reasoning in Diversity
Practice. Gender, Work and Organisation. 24(5), pp, 519- 532.

Broughton, A and Strebler, M. 2008. Reaping benefits from diversity. Strategic HR

Review. 7(5), pp 5-10.

Brown Brothers Harriman, 2018. Diversity and Inclusion. [Online]. [Accessed 19 December
2017]. Available from: https://www.bbh.com/en-us/our-firm/diversity-and- inclusion

Brown, J, 2016. Inclusion: Diversity, The New Workplace and the Will to Change. Hartford:
Purpose Driven Publishing.

Bryman, A. 1996. Leadership in Organizations. In: Clegg et al. eds. Handbook of Organization
Studies. London. Sage Publications, pp, 276- 292.

Burke, R and Ng, E. 2006. The changing nature of work and organizations:
Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review.
16 (2006), pp, 86-94.
Cabinet Office, 2017. Race Disparity Audit: Summary Findings from the Ethnicity
Facts and Figures Website. London: Crown Copyright.

pg.
 200903479

Cabinet office, 2018. Ethnicity facts and figures. [Online]. [Accessed 30 April 2018].
Available from: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk

Cassell et al, 2018. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research
Methods. London: Sage.

CBI, 2008. Talent not Tokenism. The business benefits of workforce diversity, CBI,
TUC, EHRC Report. London: CBI.

Cho et al, 2017. Does diversity matter? Exploring workforce diversity, diversity
management and organizational performance in social enterprises. Asian Social Work
policy Review.11, pp, 193-204.

CIPD, 2006.Managing Diversity Measuring Success. London: Chartered Institute of

Personal and Development.

Clegg et al.1996. Handbook of Organization Studies. London. Sage Publications

Corrigan, L.2016. On rhetorical criticism, performativity, and white fragility. Review of

Communication. 16(1), pp, 86-88.

Cottrill et al, 2014. How authentic leadership and inclusion benefit organizations.
Equality and Diversity and Inclusion Journal. 33 (3), pp, 275-292.

Cole, B and Salimath, M. 2013. Diversity Identity Management: An Organizational Perspective.

Journal Business Ethics. 116. Pp,151-161.

Dye, K and Golnaraghi, G. 2017. Organizational Benefits Through Diversity Management.

In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford.
Oxford University Press, pp, 256-277.

Duncan, P. 2017. The Colour of Power. Revealed: Britain’s most powerful elite is
97% white. [Online]. [Accessed 23 October 2017]. Available from:

pg.
 200903479

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/sep/24/revealed-britains-most-
powerful-elite-is-97-white

EHRC. 2010. How fair is Britain? Equality, Human Rights and Good Relations in 2010
The First Triennial Review. London: Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

EHRC. 2016. Healing a divided Britain: the need for a comprehensive equality
strategy. London: Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

EHRC, 2017. What we do. [Online]. [Accessed 17 December 2017]. Available from:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/about-us/what-we-do

Emmott, M and Worman, D. 2008. The steady rise of CSR and diversity in the
workplace. Strategic HR Review. 7(5), pp, 28-33.

EY, 2018. Do you change your people or the way your people work?. [Online].
[Accessed 6 May 2018]. Available from:
https://betterworkingworld.ey.com/workforce/will-your-people-remain-your-greatest- asset-
or-become-your-biggest-problem?wt.mc_id=11003112

Fairhurst, G and Cooren, F, 2018. In: Cassell et al, 2018. eds. The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: Sage.

Farndale et al, 2015. A Global perspective on diversity and inclusion in work

organisations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 26 (6),
pp, 677-687.

Foster, C and Harris, L. 2005. Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail.
Human Resources Management Journal. 15(3), pp, 4-17.

Gov.UK, 2017. Cameron, D, 2014. British Values. [Online]. [Accessed 20 October

2017]. Available from:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-values-article-by-
david-cameron

pg.
 200903479

Gov.UK, 2017. Discrimination your rights. [Online]. [Accessed 25 November 2017]. Available
from: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

Gov.UK, 2017. Guidance Equality Act 2010. [Online]. [Accessed 25 November 2017].
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance

Gov.UK, 2017. Review of Public Sector Equality Duty. [Online]. [Accessed 17 December
2017]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/review-of- public-sector-
equality-duty-steering-group

Government Equalities Office. 2013.The Business Case For Equality and Diversity: A
survey of the academic literature. London: Business for Innovation and Skills.

Green Park, 2017. The Green Park Leadership 10000. Green Park: London

Green Park Public, 2017. The Green Park Public Service Leadership 5000: A
Review of Diversity in the UK’s Public Sector. Green Park: London.

Groysberg, B and Connolly, K, 2013. Great Leaders who make the mix work.
Harvard Business Review. 91(9), pp, 68-76

Guardian, 2018. Starbucks to close 8000US stores for racial-bias training. [Online].
[Accessed 10 May 2018]. Available from:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/17/starbucks-racism-training-close- stores-
may-us

Harvey, W. 2010. Methodological Approaches for interviewing Elites. Geography

Compass. 4(3), pp, 193-205.

Healy, G. 2015. The Politics of Equality and Diversity. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford
Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, Pp. 15- 38.

pg.
 200903479

Herd, M. 2017. The Inequality Project: the Guardian’s in-depth look at our unequal
world. [Online]. [Accessed 19 May 2018]. Available from:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/apr/25/inequality-project-guardian-in- depth-
look-unequal-world-equality

Holt, R. 2012.Ethical Research Practice. In: Symon, G and Cassell, C. 2012. eds.
Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges.
London: Sage, pp, 90-108.

Huczynski, A and Buchanan, D. 2017. Leadership. In: Huczynski and Buchanan 9th ed.
Organisational Behaviour. Harlow: Pearson

Hunt et al, 2015. Diversity Matters. McKinsey and Company.

Janssens, M and Zanoni, P. 2007. What makes an organisation inclusive? Work

contexts and diversity management practices favouring ethnic minorities’ inclusion.
SUS.DIV Annual Meeting, 20-21 September, Athens.

Jenkins, R. 2004. Social Identity. London: Routledge.

Johns et al, 2014. When is positive action not positive action? Exploring the conceptual
meaning and implications of the tie-break criterion in the UK Equality Act 2010.Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 33 (1), pp, 97-113.

Kalra et al. 2009. Developing leadership interventions for Black and minority ethnic staff.
Journal of Health Organization and Management. 23 (1), pp 103-118.

Kandola, B, 2018. Racism at Work: The danger of indifference. Oxford: Pearn

Kandola.

Kandola, R. 1998. The Diversity Mosaic. In: Diversity in action: managing the
mosaic. 2nd ed. London: Institute of Personal Development, pp,6-20.

pg.
 200903479

Kenealy, G. 2012. Grounded Theory: A Theory Building Approach. In: Symon, G and
Cassell, C. 2012. eds. Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current
Challenges. London: Sage, pp, 408-425.

Kelly, E and Dobbin, F. 1998. How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management.
American Behavioural Scientist. 41 (7), pp,960-984.

Kirk, J and Miller, M. 1986. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Newbury
Park, California. Sage.

King, 2012.Doing Template Analysis. In: Symon, G and Cassell, C. 2012. eds. Qualitative
Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges. London: Sage,
pp,426 -450.

Konrad et al, 2006. Examining the Contours of Workplace Diversity. In: Konrad, A. et al eds.
Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London. Sage Publications, pp, 1- 22.

Knights, D and Omanovic, V. 2017. Rethinking Diversity in Organizations and Society. In:
Bendl, E. et al eds. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford.
Oxford University Press, pp 83- 108.

Lee, B. 2012. In: Symon, G and Cassell, C. 2012. eds. Qualitative Organizational
Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges. London: Sage, pp, 389-407.

Loden, M and Rosener, J. 1991. WORKFORCE AMERICA! Managing Employee

Diversity as a Vital Resource. Homewood, Illinois. Business One Irwin.

Lozano, j and Escrich, T. 2017. Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection on the
Ideology of Tolerance. Journal of Business Ethics.142, pp, 679-696.

Marks and Spencers, 2017. Plan A 2025 Commitments. [Online]. [Accessed 22

October 2017]. Available from:
https://corporate.marksandspencer.com/documents/plan-a/plan-a-2025-
commitments.pdf

pg.
 200903479

Miller, F, A and Katz, J, H. 2009. The Inclusion Breakthrough. San Francisco. Berret-
Koehler Publishers.

Mutsaers, P and Trux, M. 2017. In search of the ‘real’: The subversive Potential of
ethnology in the field of diversity management. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford
Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, pp, 317-
336.

Myers, M. 2013. Qualitative Research in Business and Management. London: Sage.

National Equality Panel, 2010. An anatomy of economic inequality in the UK: Report of
the National Equality Panel. London: Government Equalities Office.

Ng, E and Stephenson, J. 2017. Individuals, Teams and Organizational Benefits of Managing
Diversity. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford.
Oxford University Press, pp, 235-254.

Nkomo, S and Cox Jr, T. 1996. Diverse Identities in Organizations. In: Clegg et al. eds.
Handbook of Organization Studies. London. Sage Publications, pp, 338-356.

O’Leary, B. and Weathington, B. 2006. Beyond the Business Case for Diversity in
Organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 18(4), pp 283-292.

Oswick, C and Noon, M. 2014. Discourses of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion: Trenchant
Formulations or Transient Fashions?. British Journal of Management.25, pp, 23-39
Onaran, O and Guschanki, A. 2016. Rising inequality in the UK and the political
economy of Brexit: lessons for policy. [Working paper]. Greenwich. University of
Greenwich.

ONS,2017. Guidance on Gramma Language and Spelling. [Online]. [Accessed 25

November 2017]. Available from:

pg.
 200903479

https://style.ons.gov.uk/category/house-style/language-and-spelling/#race-and- ethnicity

ONS,2017. Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales:2011. [Online].

[Accessed 30 April 2018]. Available form:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/artic
les/ethnicityandnationalidentityinenglandandwales/2012-12-11

ONS, 2015. 2011 Census analysis: Ethnicity and religion of the non-UK born population in
England and Wales:2011. [Online]. [Accessed 6 May 2018]. Available form:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/artic
les/2011censusanalysisethnicityandreligionofthenonukbornpopulationinenglandandw
ales/2015-06-18

ONS, 2018. UK business; activity, size and location:2017. [Online]. [Accessed 12 May
2018]. Available from:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/activitysizeandlocation/b
ulletins/ukbusinessactivitysizeandlocation/2017

Ozkazanc-Pan, B and Cala, B. 2017. From Here to There and Back Again: Transnational
perspectives on Diversity in Organizations. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford Handbook
of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, pp,575-602.

Ozgen et al, 2013. The impact of cultural diversity on firm innovation: evidence from Dutch
micro-data. Journal of Migration. 2 (18), pp, 1-24.

Ozbligin, M and Tatli, 2008. Global Diversity Management: An Evidence Based

Approach. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

Parker et al, 2017. The Parker Review: A Report into the Ethnic Diversity of UK
Boards. London: EY and Linklaters.

pg.
 200903479

Pless, N and Maak, T. 2004 Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Process and
Practice. Journal of Business Ethics. 54, pp, 129-147.

Powell, M and Johns, N. 2015. Realising the Business Case for Diversity: A Realist
Perspective on the British National Health Service. Social Policy and Society. 14 (2), pp,
161-173.

Pringle, J and Strachan, G. 2017. Duelling Dualisms. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford
Handbook of Diversity in Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, pp, 39- 61.
Risberg, A and Just S, N. 2017. Ambiguous Diversities: practices and Perceptions of
Diversity Management. In: Bendl, E. et al eds. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in
Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, pp, 218 -234.

Roberson, Q. 2006. Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion I organisations.

Group and organisation Management. 31(2), pp, 212-236.

Robinson, G and Dechant, K. 1997. Building a business case for diversity. Academy of
Management Executive.11(3), pp, 21-31.

Sanyal et al 2015. Diversity and inclusion depend on effective engagement: It is everyone’s

business to ensure that progress is maintained. Human Resource Management
International Digest. 23(5), pp, 21-24.

Shehata et al, 2017. Board diversity and firm performance: evidence from the U.K. SMEs.
Applied Economics. 49(48), pp, 4817-4832.

Sherbin, L and Rashid, R, 2017. Diversity Doesn’t Stick Without Inclusion. [Online]
[Accessed 4 May 2018]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2017/02/diversity-doesnt- stick-
without-inclusion

Shore et al, 2009. Diversity in organisations: Where are we now and where are we going?.
Human Resource Management Review.19(2009), pp, 117-133.

pg.
 200903479

Skype. 2018. About Skype. [Online]. [Accessed on 01 February 2018]. Available from:
https://www.skype.com/en/about/

Stroh, M. 2000. Qualitative Interviewing. In: Burton, D. ed. Research Training for
Social Scientists. London: Sage.

Solanke, I. 2011. Infusing the Silos in the Equality Act 2010 with Synergy. Industrial Law
Journal. 40 (4), pp, 336-358.

Solanke, I. 2017. Discrimination as Stigma: A theory of antidiscrimination law.

Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Solow et al, 2011. Moving on up: The Rooney Ryle and minority hiring in the NFL.
Labour Economics. 18(3), pp,332-337.

Stone, D and Deadrick, D. 2015. Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human
resource management. Human Resources Management Review. 25(2015), pp, 139-145.

Stonewall, 2018. Our Mission. [Online]. [Accessed 27 May 2018]. Available from:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/our-mission

Sweeney, C and Bothwick, F, 2016. Inclusive Leadership. Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited.

Symon, G and Cassell, C. 2012. Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods

and Current Challenges. London: Sage.

Tatli, A. 2011. A Multi-layered Exploration of the Diversity Management Field:

Diversity Discourses, Practices and Practitioners in the UK. British Journal of
Management. 22 (2011), pp, 238-253.

pg.
 200903479

Thomas Jnr, R. 1992. Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total
Work Force by Managing Diversity. New York. America Management Association

United Nations, 2017. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. [Online].

[Accessed 23 October 2017]. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org

William, J et al. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century.
Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.

Zanoni et al, 2010. Unpacking Diversity, Grasping Inequality: Rethinking Difference

Through Critical Perspectives. Organization. 17 (1), pp 9-29.

pg.
 200903479

Appendix (i)
Interview Questions.
Context Q’s:
Organisation and Industry? -
Annual turnover? -
Your Role? -
Total Number of employees? -
Total number of Employees from a BAME background? -
BAME in leadership? -
Your Tenure as an individual? -

Q1: What does diversity and inclusion mean to you? (Two question, question if you want…)

a) what challenges or opportunities have diversity and inclusion presented in your

organisation?
b) (Given the current socio-political climate)

Q2: How has your organisation responded to diversity and inclusion? Follow up
question...

a) What if any are the challenges in implementing these actions or policies (strategy)?

Q3: What do you understand is your role as leader with regard to Diversity and Inclusion?

a. In what way do you encourage others (esp. your senior leadership team) in your
leadership to delivering on the organisation’s D and I strategy?

Q4: The first ‘half full’ in the title recognises the progress made in diversity & inclusion
in organisations to date. What have you done to make progress in your organisation?

a) Three aspects, the legal case, the business case and the moral case

Q5: Thinking of people from a BAME background, what challenges have you faced if any,
(i.e. structural barriers) to getting people from a BAME background into positions of
leadership for your organisation or industry?

a) What barriers if any do you think may hinder or promote their mobility what they think
they are and what kind of initiatives
b) For this specific group, what strategies do you use in tackling the BAME leaders or lack
off?

Q6: The second ‘half full’ speaks to the future of diversity and inclusion. Building on the
current gains, how do you see the future of Diversity and Inclusion in relation to BAME
leadership in the UK?

pg.
 200903479

Follow up: What further plans does your organisation have to make more progress?

a) Positive action, Quotas, training

b) Managing perceptions and meanings?

Q7: To End! The future! How do you think diversity and inclusion for your organisation or
industry and for you as a leader will look like? – Say 5/10 years from now?

Follow up: will we need this?

a) will we need the laws? Equality Act 2010

b) Is it simply about making money? Business Case
c) Voluntary or benevolent?
d) Will there be a greater driver?

pg.
 200903479

Appendix (ii)

Sample Grid
A B C
CHARITABLE PUBLIC PRIVATE
SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR
CEO 1- North England CEO 1- North England CEO 1- North England

Tenure: Over 10 years Tenure: Over 5 years less Tenure: 10 years

Turnover: £4.7 million than 10 years. Turnover: £600 million
TTL Employees: 170 Turnover: £800 million TTL Employees: 1400
TTL BAME employees: TTL Employees: 15 000 TTL BAME employees:
48% TTL BAME employees: 10-20%
BAME in Leadership: 16% BAME in Leadership:1%
33% middle management BAME in Leadership: 8-
33% senior management 10%

CEO 2- Midlands CEO 2- North England CEO 2- North England

Tenure: Over 5 years less Tenure: Over 5years Tenure: less than a year*
than 10 years. Turnover: £600 million Turnover: starting up TTL
Turnover: £9.0million TTL Employees: 8644 Employees: 8
TTL Employees: 450 TTL BAME employees: TTL BAME employees: 1
TTL BAME employees: 888 BAME in Leadership:
22% BAME in Leadership: None
BAME in Leadership: 7 258*

*Those who have declared *The CEO has been in such a

their BAME identity- role for more than a decade.

Pseudonym Pseudonym Pseudonym

CEO (A1) CEO (B1) CEO (C1)

CEO (A2) CEO (B2) CEO (C2)

pg.
200903479

pg.