Learning from others 233

Learning From Others: ExpandingDiversity and Inclusion Across OurBorders

THERESE MACANUniversity of Missouri-St. Louis

BINNA KANDOLAPearn Kandola

JOHN MERIAC AND STEPHANIE MERRITTUniversity of Missouri-St. Louis

Organizations have grown to be global and,consequently, more diverse. The process of‘‘managing diversity’’ has taken a centralrole in the United States as well as inother Western cultures, such as the UnitedKingdom (Kandola & Fullerton, 1998). Evenin historically more homogenous cultures,the influx of more diverse workforces andcustomer bases has increased the need toconsider the diversity of one’s workforce(e.g., Devine, Baum, Hearns, & Devine,2007). Moreover, many organizations haveinitiated diversity and inclusion activities.Hays-Thomas and Bendick (2013) askedwhether voluntary professional practicestandards should be created to professional-ize these diversity and inclusion practices.We infer that the authors are focusing exclu-sively on US organizations because weknow that multiple organizations in othercountries, specifically the UK, have alreadyunited to create benchmarking tools or stan-dards on diversity and inclusion. Therefore,in this response, we hope to encourage ourcolleagues to consider learning from other

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Therese Macan.E-mail: therese.macan@umsl.edu

Address: University of Missouri-St. Louis, MO 63121

countries and allow inclusion to transcendgeographic boundaries by providing oneexample, the UK.

Benchmarking in the UK

The Equality and Human Rights Commis-sion (EHRC) is the government agency inthe UK that has a statutory remit to promoteand monitor human rights and to protect,enforce, and promote equality. It has a codeof practice that guides employers on what isexpected of them in a number of key areasincluding, for example, equal pay, disabil-ity, and recruitment. In addition, there is amandatory legal requirement for all publicbodies to have made efforts to:

• ‘‘Eliminate unlawful discrimination,harassment and victimization andother conduct prohibited by the Act.

• Advance equality of opportunitybetween people who share a pro-tected characteristic and those whodo not.

• Foster good relations between peoplewho share a protected characteristicand those who do not.’’ (www.equalityhumanrights.com)

234 T. Macan et al.

So there is guidance of various sortsavailable to employers to help them meettheir statutory obligations. However, thisapproach is unidirectional, where informa-tion flows from the EHRC to the organiza-tions. A growing need was recognized fororganizations to benchmark on these frontsin order to determine their relative diversityprogress compared to similar organizations.To address this need, a UK group calledBusiness in the Community (BITC) estab-lished benchmarking standards in the areasof gender and race 11 years ago. Originally,separate standards were provided based onrace and gender, but a unified set of stan-dards has now been developed. The stan-dard measures two broad areas describedas inputs (e.g., business cases, policies, andpractices, supplier diversity) and impacts(e.g., workforce profiles, recruitment met-rics, maternity return rates, pay gaps). Theresults of benchmarking comparisons onthese diversity assessment tools are confi-dential and provide participating organiza-tions with sector-specific performance data,feedback, and action plans to achieve spe-cific diversity goals (diversity.bitc.org.uk).Combining the standards for race and gen-der clearly makes sense, but this bench-marking procedure is still limited to thesetwo strands of diversity. In the meantime,there are other organizations that providesimilar benchmarking surveys for sexualorientation and disability.

These standards have assisted organiza-tions by giving them a set of actions theycan take, and by providing a sense of direc-tion and purpose. There has unfortunatelybeen almost no systematic evaluation of theimpact the standards have made in prac-tice. One issue in publicly sharing resultsis confidentiality and privacy of the orga-nizations’ data. The groups conducting theanalyses and audits are membership only,and little information is made availableto non-members on trends and results.Another issue is the consistency of thedata. That is, the members change; neworganizations join and others leave, cre-ating a challenge in terms of comparisonand identification of trends. Nonetheless,

data do exist, and learning from these pro-cesses and experiences could prove valu-able for the United States. In addition, itappears that the BITC has recently recog-nized the need to share some results. Incollaboration with Towers Watson, BITCinitiated the first BITC Workwell benchmarkof FTSE 100 companies (the 100 compa-nies listed on the London Stock Exchangewith highest market capitalization). Generalresults were released on April 16, 2013.It was found that ‘‘diversity and inclu-sion was the highest scoring area out ofa total of 25 indicators, highlighting theimportance our leading businesses placeon equal opportunities’’ (raceforopportu-nity.bitc.org.uk/Workwellbenchmark).

New Benchmarking Developments

A new organization has recently been estab-lished in an attempt to create a new bench-mark that covers all the legally protectedstrands of diversity. Called the NationalEquality Standard (NES), the purpose of thisorganization is to create a system of audi-tors who will independently assess eachorganization that wishes to be audited. Theaudits will provide organizations with adetailed and comprehensive report on theextent to which their policies and activitiesfit with best practice. There are 20 found-ing organizations, including Microsoft andCisco. Once audited, national certificationwill be awarded if all diversity require-ments have been satisfied. The UK’s EHRCis involved in developing the NES. How-ever, this new entity is interesting as itis primarily a business-led approach thatis attempting to bring about sustainablechange. Whether the NES succeeds or notwill only be evident over time. However,the developments give an indication of thethinking in the UK on this topic. First, orga-nizations do want to benchmark to evaluatehow they are doing and what they canlearn from others. Second, managers oforganizations desire to create one entity asopposed to having a fragmented, piecemealapproach. Whether the benchmarking itselfencourages or hinders progress is another

Learning from others 235

discussion altogether. Over time the impactof the benchmarking initiative will be evi-dent. Nonetheless, much can be learnedfrom our colleagues’ experiences in othercountries that can aid the SHRM group’sinitiative.

The NES is a response not only to thedesire to establish what best practicesrelated to diversity might be but is alsoa response to the frustration at the lackof diversity at senior levels in many UKand European organizations. Increasingly,calls are being made for quotas to be set,particularly for women in non executivedirector roles. Norway has established sucha policy that includes sanctions for com-panies that fail to meet mandated targets.Governments are also taking steps to actas role models. A recent review estimatesthat approximately half of the countries inthe world have adopted or recommendedsome element of an electoral gender quota(Whelan & Wood, 2012).

Additional Points to Consider

The encouragement of good practice, theprovision of a standardized system, andthe opportunity to benchmark are certainlybenefits of this proposed approach for allorganizations. Care must also be taken toensure that diversity and inclusion initia-tives do not have undesirable effects, suchas tokenism for minority group members,and are perceived as fair by majoritygroup members. To properly ensure theadoption of any new voluntary standards,we should consider the implementationprocess. In addition to monitoring whatorganizations ‘‘have done’’ in other cul-tures to implement diversity and inclusioninitiatives, practitioners in the United Statesshould also evaluate more specificallythe procedures that may result in positiveoutcomes (including intangible results suchas high quality group member relationsand employee job satisfaction). Managingfairness perceptions is essential if initiativesare to be accepted and viewed as importantby all organizational members (Heilman,Block, & Lucas, 1992; Shore et al., 2011).

Moreover, we need to recognize thatdiversity and inclusion is more thannumbers—it is manifested in theinteractions we have with others, betweenindividuals and between groups. Inshort, diversity management must addressthe ways people deal with each other.Therefore, diversity and inclusion issuesoccur at all levels in the organization andespecially at the top, making a focus on‘‘inclusive leadership’’ essential. To accom-plish inclusion, we each need to recognizeour biases, including our unconsciousbiases, and the effects that those biasesmay have on our interactions with others.A growing body of literature suggests thatalthough explicit goals for diversity may beset, implicit biases may affect our abilityto successfully achieve those goals (e.g.,Macan & Merritt, 2011). ‘‘While our preju-dices may vary, we’re all the same in havingprejudices’’ (Kandola, 2009, p. 3). Until wecan acknowledge our unconscious biases,they will interfere with true inclusion nomatter what standards are set in a country.As industrial–organizational psychologists,we also have an important role to playnot only in creating such standards butalso in evaluating their effectiveness acrossvarious aspects and levels, includinghow they affect individuals, teams, andorganizational culture.

Summary

We are a global society. We need to remindourselves to reach across the bordersand not stay cooped up in our owngeographic locales. Many countries aroundthe world have employment discriminationlaws (Myors et al., 2008) that aim toadvance the diversity and inclusion ofindividuals in the workplace. The SHRMgroup did the right thing to look beyondtheir expertise and commission a literaturereview of diversity metrics (Ramsey, 2011).Can we also expand our reach to colleaguesand information from other countries tolearn from them? Can inclusion transcendour borders? Can we begin to shed evenour unconscious biases? We believe so

236 P. Wilson

and encourage our colleagues to learn fromcountries that are also struggling with theseissues of professional standards for diversityand inclusion initiatives.

ReferencesDevine, F., Baum, T., Hearns, N., & Devine, A.

(2007). Managing cultural diversity: Opportunitiesand challenges for Northern Ireland hoteliers.International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 19, 120–132.

Hays-Thomas, R., & Bendick, M., Jr. (2013). Profession-alizing diversity and inclusion practices: Shouldvoluntary standards be the chicken or the egg?Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspec-tives on Science and Practice, 6, 193–205.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A.(1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatizationand affirmative action efforts. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 77, 536–544.

Kandola, B. (2009). The value of difference: Eliminatingbias in organisations. Oxford, England: PearnKandola.

Kandola, R., & Fullerton, J. (1998). Diversity in action(2nd ed.). London, England: CIPD.

Macan, T., & Merritt, S. (2011). Actions speak too:Uncovering possible implicit and explicit dis-crimination in the employment interview process.International Review of Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, 26, 293–337.

Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G.,Cronshaw, S. F., Mladinic, A., . . . Sackett, P. R.(2008). International perspectives on the legalenvironment for selection. Industrial and Organi-zational Psychology: Perspectives on Science andPractice, 1, 206–246.

Ramsey, L. (2011). Diversity metrics literature review.Alexandria, VA: Society for Human ResourceManagement.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusionand diversity in work groups: A review and modelfor future research. Journal of Management, 37,1262–1289.

Whelan, J. & Wood, R. (2012). Targets andquotas for women in leadership: A globalreview of policy, practice, and psychologicalresearch. Retrieved from Melbourne Busi-ness School website: http://www.mbs.edu/go/centres-of-excellence/centre-for-ethical-leadership/gender-equality-program/our-programs/targets-and-quotas