EURAM, Stockholm, 9th-11th May 2002

The role of HR managers in managing equality and diversity

C. Cabral-Cardoso
(School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal)

Abstract: The issues of equality and diversity have emerged in the last two decades as the
most controversial, debated and researched topic in the HRM literature. Different
perspectives and concepts were translated into different management policy measures,
ranging from equal opportunities, to affirmative action and diversity management. These
views are briefly examined and their implications for HR management explored. The paper
reports the preliminary findings of a study of HR views on diversity and equality in the
workplace and the role played by the HR function in dealing with those issues in the
particular context of a culture described in the literature as high on femininity.

1. Different views of managing equality and diversity

In the nineties, the management of diversity emerged as an alternative model to equal

opportunities. It emphasises the difference rather than the ‘sameness’ and values the
individual’s contribution to the organisation for its own merit regardless of the individual
characteristics, backgrounds, orientations and religious beliefs. But many steps have been
taken before diversity management came to taking into account the multiple identities in the
workplace.
The initial approach became known as equal opportunities and was to a large extent a
product of the civil rights movement of the sixties and the liberal political philosophy (Webb,
1997). This perspective relies on legislation, statutory codes and internal formalised
procedures intended to ensure, along the lines of the political action that resulted from the
civil rights movement, universal justice and equal opportunities for all. Legal measures were
taken and discrimination based on gender and ethnic origin was ruled out by new labour
legislation. Such legal instruments were progressively extended to the disabled, the older
(over 40) and other social groups who tend to be discriminated against in work settings. The

1
purpose of equal opportunities is to adopt fair procedures and create a ‘level playing field’ at
work where individual members of disadvantaged groups, primarily women, ethnic minorities
and the disabled, are to be treated the same as members of the demographic ‘dominant’
groups.
Overt discrimination was to a large extent prevented, thanks to the implementation and
enforcement of equal opportunities regulations. However, the evidence to date suggests that
the legalistic approach to equality is far from effective. In fact, despite all the regulations, law
enforcement and court settlements, it is generally agreed that equal opportunities did not meet
the expectations and failed to make substantive changes in the labour market. Because the
roots of discrimination go very deep and are embedded in the prevailing culture, those
procedures are frequently ignored in routine practices and can easily be evaded by neglect or
by design.
Reflecting social and political forces in society, the equal opportunities perspective
was therefore challenged by a more radical view, rooted in the feminist theories. Such a view
argued for a positive discrimination of the demographic groups that were traditionally
underrepresented or less favoured in the distribution of jobs and resources (Webb, 1997;
Shappiro, 1999), through the adoption of a transformative agenda, one that is interested in
equalising outcomes, rather than opportunities (Richards, 2001). This perspective was
translated into affirmative action programmes intended to increase the representation and
facilitate the career opportunities of women and members of ethnic minorities through
instruments such as quota hiring and preferential treatment.
The overall balance of the implementation of affirmative action programmes is still a
matter of dispute. It is believed that these initiatives have contributed to the increasing number
of women in the labour market, and an increasing proportion of them becoming established in
professional and executive occupations. But it is also acknowledged that the majority of
women have not benefited in a direct sense from these policies since the occupational
segregation and differences in remuneration remain largely unchallenged (Anker, 1997;
Marini & Fan, 1997). Above all, these programmes were criticised for unfairly discriminating
members of the majority or demographic dominant groups and for stigmatising their intended
beneficiaries by making inferences of substandard competence (Heilman, Block & Lucas,
1992). “It seeks to put right old wrongs by means which themselves are felt to be wrong...”
admits one of its strong supporters (Cockburn, 1989: 217). The politics and controversy
surrounding the implementation and effectiveness of those programmes run high at times,
particularly in the U.S. (Skrentny, 1996). They do not fit into the current liberal policies in
Western societies and have been gradually abandoned.

2
 In contrast with the former approaches, the management of diversity that emerged in
the nineties tries to emphasise the difference rather than suppressing it. Whether that
perspective is an evolution or extension of equal opportunities or a new management
paradigm remains controversial (Kandola, 1995; Liff & Wajcman, 1996). A major difference
between the two concepts appears to lie in the fact that equal opportunities starts externally
and is enforced through legislation, whereas the diversity starts internally through the efforts
to create an atmosphere of equality at work. Further, it is adopted voluntarily and is based on
the advantage of cultural pluralism (Gordon, 1995).
Diversity management considers people as individuals and not as members of certain
social groups (Liff, 1999). It was initially presented as a reaction against the view of
organisations as made of unified groups within which each and every individual facing the
same problems in the workplace. Such a homogeneous approach led to a biased view of the
workplace environment by missing some important aspects of organisational life. Liff &
Wajcman (1996: 80) put it quite clearly: “discussions about whether women are the same as,
or different from, men construct unitary categories which suppress differences between men
and between women and ignore similarities between men and women...”
In the diversity perspective, the individual's contribution to the organisation is valued
for his/her own merit regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or
religious faith. It takes better advantage of the growing cultural pluralism that results from the
internationalisation of business organisations, the development of world markets, the growing
workforce mobility, and the increasing awareness of individual differences (Lawler, 1996).
As pointed out by Thomas (1990), competence counts more than ever, and today’s non-
hierarchical, flexible, collaborative management requires an increase in tolerance for
individuality. The question is not, therefore, one of accepting that individuals are different but
creating an atmosphere of inclusion and making a commitment to valuing diversity (Gilbert &
Ivancevich, 2000). “Far from pretending workplace differences do not exist, managers should
be trying to actively manage and value diversity”, argue Liff & Wajcman (1996: 80). The
popularity of the diversity approach comes from the assumption and increasing empirical
evidence that valuing the diversity may become a source of competitive advantage, increase
the quality of organisational life and ultimately be good for business (Cox & Blake, 1991;
Herriot & Pemberton, 1995; Thomas & Ely, 1996; Cassell, 2000).
Besides, developing policies on equal opportunities and promoting diversity
programmes may also be positively perceived by the public opinion and, therefore, contribute
to enhancing the company's reputation. By transmitting an image of a caring, respectful, good
organisation to work for, the company is able to attract more and better employees and

3
improve its competitiveness. It is no surprise, therefore, that equal opportunities became part
of the (HR) management discourse. There is a certain instrumental character in this approach
in the way that the adoption of equal opportunities practices and policies does not translate a
genuine concern with the issue but it is merely regarded as a means to obtain strategic
competitive advantage. Similar criticism has been pointed out to HRM. But regardless of the
view adopted, human resource (HR) managers have a crucial role to play in dealing with
issues of equality and in promoting and valuing diversity.

2. Current views on human resource management

Human resource management (HRM), originally an American concept, sees human resources
as valuable assets and a key source of competitive advantage. By making full use of its human
resources through the extensive adoption of teamwork, careful recruiting and selection,
commitment to training and development, a new approach to quality, flexibility of the
workforce, among other features, a company will gain competitive advantage, a claim that
constitutes the apparent novelty of HRM (Legge, 1995). John Storey (1995: 5) defines HRM
as a “distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive
advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce,
using an integrated array of cultural and personnel techniques”. Particularly where the unions
were powerful players in industrial relations, the relative decline in union membership and
union influence in the workplace is considered a decisive element in facilitating the
implementation of the new HRM practices (Legge, 1995). Although the extent and depth of
change to management practices introduced by HRM remains controversial, leading some
authors to argue that academic rhetoric has run far ahead of reality (Guest, 1998), there is
growing evidence that effective human resource management practices are associated with the
company’s performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996) and play a key role in gaining competitive
advantage (Pfeffer, 1994). These results provide encouragement to those who had been
advocating the case for a distinctive approach to the management of people in organisations
(Guest, 1999).
Strategic integration and the promotion of employees’ commitment are key features of
the HRM model that bring about a new role and scope for the personnel function in the
organisation. Human resource managers are required to be more business-oriented and part of
the HR function is devolved away to line and general managers. In that sense, the HRM

4
model may also be seen as a way of reconceptualising and reorganising the role of the
personnel function in the organisation.
Despite an obvious common ground, it should be stressed that different theoretical
perspectives on HRM are available in the literature and much is happening in the name of
HRM (Mabey, Clark & Skinner, 1998). In fact, HRM has been used meaning different things
to different people and used in different contexts to describe a wide variety of management
practices. The prospect of a single HRM model has, in fact, long been abandoned, in favour of
multiple perspectives. Differences of approach to people management have been identified
between the two sides of the Atlantic and between the two sides of the Channel. And despite
the process of economic and political integration, Europe still is a continent of diversity when
it comes to employment practices and traditions, and the social and economic contexts
(Sparrow & Hiltrop, 1994; Mayne, Tregaskis & Brewster, 2000). HR practices remain largely
identified with the national cultures, industrial relations practices, institutional backgrounds,
and the business structure. They also depend on the skills and competencies available in the
HR function. All these factors lead to distinctive patterns of HR management across Europe
(Hiltrop, Despres & Sparrow, 1995). Different traditional roles and demographics of HR
managers have also been identified in specific European contexts (Cabral-Cardoso, 2001a and
2001b), stressing the contextual nature of HRM (Brewster, 1999).

3. HR management and diversity management

As pointed out above, it is increasingly acknowledged in the literature and within the business
community that non-discrimination policies and a diverse workforce are good for business.
The perspectives on diversity and on the management of people in organisations have evolved
along the same business-oriented lines. Since the main goal of HRM is to get the best out of
each and every member of the workforce taking the individual to his/her full potential with
the ultimate aim of improving organisational performance, it would not make sense to ignore
the contribution of important sectors of the workforce. HRM and diversity management share
a considerable common ground. HRM, as it is understood since the eighties is mainly
concerned with the contribution of the personnel function to the competitive strategy of the
business. So is diversity management. HRM, particularly in its soft version (Truss, Gratton,
Hope-Hailey, McGovern & Stiles, 1997), takes into account individual differences and is
concerned with the development and well being of each and every individual. So is diversity
management. Both are rooted in the U.S. thinking, and both have been the objects of a long

5
debate about the adjustments required in order to fit into the European context. Gender issues
have prevailed in Europe where discrimination based on ethnic grounds have not received the
level of attention it received in the U.S.
HR managers have, therefore, a crucial role to play in defining the way the
organisation deals with equality and diversity. In practice, equal opportunities and diversity
issues are at the heart of human resource management practices and policies (Storey, 1999).
Cox (1991) argues for the so-called multicultural approach to human resource management,
defined as the extent to which an organisation values cultural diversity and is willing to use it
and encourage it.
In the promotion and development of cultural diversity, particular attention is paid to
the operational level in which vulnerable individuals may easily become victims of subtle
forms of discrimination. In recruitment and selection processes, for instance, the barriers to
women and minorities in the access to employment appear to remain. The reason is that in
general candidates that fit the ideal stereotype for the job have better chances of being
selected. In other words, candidates who conform are welcome, because conformity is
expected and reinforced by the management practices. Diversity management requires a
considerable shift from this traditional view of organisations as a “homogeneous group which
should be managed with the accent on conformity – standardised job practices, employment
packages, standardised reward systems and so on” (Lawler, 1996: 163).
Similar issues are raised with regard to other HR operational practices. Take training
and development, for instance. Despite the importance of training to the individuals'
development and the business effectiveness, there is some evidence that training programmes
present lower rates of female participation, therefore becoming an obstacle to women’s career
advancement and access to management positions (Powell & Butterfield, 1994; Tharenou,
1996). Other mechanisms of discrimination can be pointed out in performance appraisal
processes, in which women seem prone to get lower ratings, according to some studies
(Ohlott, Ruderman & McCauley, 1994). The women's exclusion from informal networks
(Ibarra, 1993; O’Leary & Ickovics, 1992), and their greater difficulties in the establishment of
mentoring relationships (Ragins & Scandura, 1994) can also explain extra difficulties in
reaching top positions, a process that has been described as the ‘glass ceiling effect’. As
members of a disadvantaged group in most workplaces, women face powerful barriers to their
professional advance simply because they are women, and not because they lack the adequate
competencies to occupy positions of greater responsibility and power, according to a number
of studies (O'Leary & Ickovics, 1992; Powell & Butterfield, 1994).

6
 Human resource managers are increasingly aware of diversity issues and can do a lot
to overcome those barriers. A good example is the relationship between work and family and
the influence of the latter on individual’s performance, job satisfaction, involvement and
organisational commitment (Scandura & Lankau, 1997). Some business organisations have
been committed to developing and adopting family-friendly programmes and policies that
help to accommodate the balance between work and family obligations and promote the fit
between these two conflicting spheres of an individual’s life (Cox, 1991). This is achieved
through the introduction of new work arrangements, such as flexible work schedules and
telework, thus contributing to overcome at least part of the problem while helping the
company to remain competitive (Lewis, 1997). Such policies can also play a major role in
reducing the impact of gender stereotyping and the segregation of women to subordinate and
peripheral jobs (Jacobs, 1995).

4. Studying the role of HR managers in managing equality and diversity

The literature shows an increasing interest in equality and diversity issues and in the
HR practices and policies that promote them, though it remains largely speculative rather than
empirically based. On the other hand, the literature is mainly of American or Anglo-Saxon
origin, and not much in known about what happens elsewhere. But bearing in mind the
contextual nature of these issues, it casts doubts on the extent to which the conclusions drawn
from those studies are also valid in other rather distinct contexts.
To explore these issues further, a study is being conducted among HR managers in
Portugal. The Portuguese context is a good example of an organisational environment rather
distinct from the ones most often described in the literature. According to the Hofstede (1991)
studies, it scores rather distinctly from the US and the UK cultures in all four dimensions. In
one dimension in particular, masculinity-femininity, Portugal scores among the highest on
femininity, which may be influential in shaping the individual’s behaviour and attitudes
towards gender, equality and diversity. It is worth pointing out that such a score is in clear
contrast with the very masculine cultures found in the Anglo-Saxon world where most of the
studies reported in the literature have been conducted. And the background data available
appear to support this assumption. In the mid-nineties, Portugal had the highest percentage of
female students in higher education in Europe, and twice the European average of women in
management positions in public administration (Cunha & Marques, 1995). The relevance of
studying those issues elsewhere is, therefore, fully justified. It also draws on what Brewster

7
(1999) calls the contextual paradigm, in the sense that it tries to understand what is
contextually unique and why in the role played by Portuguese HR managers in dealing with
equality and diversity.
This on-going study seeks to identify the HR views and practices with regard to
diversity and equality in the workplace in the particular context of a culture described in the
literature as high on femininity. A mail survey has been conducted of a sample of business
organisations from all sectors and sizes. The assumption is that HR managers play a key role
in shaping the company’s policies on these matters, which makes them privileged informants
in a study of this kind. Where the human resource function is not formalised, the
questionnaire was addressed to the individual in charge of personnel matters.
Preliminary findings are based on data obtained from over one hundred replies,
followed by a set of fourteen in-depth interviews of HR managers. Both respondents and
interviewees were basically asked to describe their personal views on equality and on the role
of the HR function, as well as their perceptions of the company’s policies towards equal
opportunities and the management of diversity. In the interviews, the unstructured format with
broad open-ended questions was considered the most adequate. Interviewees were encouraged
to reply using their own words in order to avoid the kind of ‘politically correct’ discourse with
plenty of media jargon.
The results obtained so far are not clear-cut. Briefly, they seem to portray a very
dynamic picture of the composition and role of the HR function and of the views on equality
and diversity that go with it. The change in the role played by HR managers, which became
increasingly clear during the 1990s, is also associated with a considerable swing in the
demographics of the HR function, as reported in previous papers (Cabral-Cardoso, 2001a and
2001b). According to those studies, HR management is increasingly a feminine occupation
and one in which the legalistic background of its members is quickly becoming residual.
The diversity perspective is clearly the dominant rhetoric, widely shared by most
informants. Concern for the minorities and for ensuring equality is clearly part of the
management discourse. However, the general concern for equality matters does not reflect an
equal concern for the different diversity matters. In other words, the management discourse
reveals the political influence of the different constituencies in the organisation, with the gay,
the lesbian and the elderly loosing out in the internal power struggle in favour of the more
powerful and visible groups such as ethnic minorities and, particularly, women. The political
nature of these issues is pretty clear.
On the other hand, men seem to show a slightly broader view of diversity than women,
the latter appearing to favour gender matters in their actions. Previous studies had already

8
detected a gendered view of equal opportunity issues among HR managers (Cabral-Cardoso,
2001b), with women showing narrower but less homogeneous attitudes towards equal
opportunities than men. In that study, some women showed a high level of awareness and
were quite outspoken about it, while others were quite dismissal of its relevance and
spontaneously rejected the assumption that equal opportunities was a major concern for HR
managers in Portugal. On the other hand, women who were aware of equal opportunities
tended to reduce the problem to gender issues whereas men equally aware were also
concerned with other groups such as the disabled and the ethnic minorities. In the current
study, results seem perhaps less clear, but they still appear to go along the same lines.
Another interesting finding worth exploring further is the general preference to deal
informally with issues of diversity, which appears to confirm the strong political nature of
equality and diversity issues. And again in this case, differences seem to emerge between men
and women. Male HR managers appear to have found more effective mechanisms to get their
diversity message across to the top management. If that is the case, it reveals an unequal
distribution of political influence between genders. In other words, when it comes to the very
top, management still appears to remain mainly a male game. The unions, on the other hand,
and this is rather puzzling, do not even take part in the diversity game... Their role is
perceived as irrelevant as far as equality and, above all, diversity is concerned, which has
some interesting implications for industrial relations academics and practitioners.
In sum, two major preliminary conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, HR
managers appear to be the key elements in determining what goes on in the organisation in
terms of equality, and particularly diversity. Second, the political nature of diversity
management comes out very clearly from the analysis with the outcomes determined, to a
large extent, by the relative influence of each constituency. Further analysis is required in
order to shed some more light on the role of HR managers in the management of equality and
diversity.

References

Anker,R. 1997. Theories of occupational segregation by sex: an overview. International

Labour Review, 136(3): 315-339.
Becker,B. & Gerhart,B. 1996. The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 779-
801.

9
Brewster,C. 1999. Strategic human resource management: the value of different paradigms. In
R.S. Schuler & S.E. Jackson (Eds.) Strategic human resource management: 356-372.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Cabral-Cardoso,C. 2001a. The European HRM debate revisited: a southwestern perspective,
presented at the Founding Conference of the European Academy of Management,
Barcelona, 18th-21st April.
Cabral-Cardoso,C. 2001b. HRM in the Portuguese context: challenges and contradictions,
paper presented at the HR Global Management Conference, Barcelona, 19th-22nd .June.
Cassell,C. 2000. The business case and the management of diversity. In M.J. Davidson & R.J.
Burke (Eds.) Women in management: current research issues (vol.II): 250-262.
London: Sage.
Cockburn,C. 1989. Equal opportunities: the short and long agenda. Industrial Relations
Journal, 20(3): 213-225.
Cox, T. 1991. The multicultural organization, Academy of Management Executive, 5(2): 34-
47.
Cox,T. & Blake,S. 1991. Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational
competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3): 45-56.
Cunha,R.C. & Marques,C.A. 1995. Portugal. In I. Brunstein (Ed.), Human resource
management in Western Europe: 211-229. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Gilbert,J.A. & Ivancevich,J.M. 2000. Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations. Academy
of Management Executive, 14(1): 93-105.
Gordon,J. 1995. Different from what? Diversity as a performance issue, Training, 32(5): 25-
33.
Guest,D.E. 1998. Beyond HRM: commitment and the contract culture. In P. Sparrow & M.
Marchington (Eds.), Human resource management: the new agenda: 37-51. London:
Financial Times/Pitman Publishing.
Guest,D.E. 1999. Human resource management and performance: a review and research
agenda. In R.S. Schuler & S.E. Jackson (Eds.) Strategic human resource management:
177-190. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heilman,M.E., Block,C.J. & Lucas,J.A. 1992. Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and
affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 536-544.
Herriot,P. & Pemberton,C. 1995. Competitive advantage through diversity: organizational
learning from difference. London: Sage.
Hiltrop,J.M., Despres,C. & Sparrow,P. 1995. The changing role of HR managers in Europe.
European Management Journal, 13(1): 91-98.

10
Hofstede,G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Ibarra,H. 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual
framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 56-87.
Jacobs,J.A. (Ed.). 1995. Gender inequality at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kandola,R. 1995. Managing diversity: new broom or old hat? In C.L.Cooper & I.T.
Robertson (Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
vol.10. Chichester: Wiley.
Lawler,J. 1996. Managing diversity at work. In C. Molander (Ed.), Human resources at work:
159-185. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Legge,K. 1995. Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Macmillan Business
Liff,S. 1999. Diversity and equal opportunities: Room for a constructive compromise?.
Human Resource Management Journal, 9(1): 65-75.
Liff,S. & Wajcman,J. 1996. ‘Sameness’ and ‘difference’ revisited: which way forward for
equal opportunity initiatives?. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1): 79-94.
Lewis,S. 1997. ‘Family friendly’ employment policies: A route to changing organizational
culture or playing about at the margins?. Gender, Work and Organizations, 4(1): 13-23.
Marini,M.M. & Fan,P. 1997. The gender gap in earnings at career entry. American
Sociological Review, 62: 588-604.
Mabey,C., Clark,T. & Skinner,D. 1998. Getting the story straight. In C. Mabey, D. Skinner &
T. Clark (Eds.), Experiencing human resource management: 237-244. London: Sage.
Mayne,L., Tregaskis,O. & Brewster,C. 2000. A comparative analysis of the link between
flexibility and HRM strategy. In C. Brewster, W. Mayrhofer & M. Morley (2000). New
challenges for European human resource management: 72-96. London: Macmillan
Press
Ohlott,P., Ruderman,M. & McCauley,C. 1994. Gender differences in managers’
developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1): 46-47.
O’Leary,V.E. & Ickovics,J.R. 1992. Cracking the glass ceiling: overcoming isolation and
alienation. In U. Sekaran & F.T. Leong (Eds), Womenpower: Managing in times of
demographic turbulence: 7-30. Newbury Park: Sage.
Pfeffer,J. 1994. Competitive advantage through people: unleashing the power of the work
force. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Powell,G.N. & Butterfield,D.A. 1994. Investigating the “glass ceiling” phenomenon: An
empirical study of actual promotions to top management. Academy of Management
Journal, 37(1): 68-8.

11
Ragins,B. & Scandura,T. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4): 957-971.
Richards,W. 2001. Evaluating equal opportunities initiatives: the case for a ‘transformative’
agenda. In M. Noon & E. Ogbonna (Eds.) Equality, diversity and disadvantage in
employment: 15-31. Houndmills, Hamps.: Palgrave.
Scandura,T.A. & Lankau,M.J. 1997. Relationships of gender, family responsibility and
flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18(4): 377-391.
Shappiro,G. 1999. Quality and equality: Building a virtuous circle. Human Resource
Management Journal, 9(1): 76-86.
Skrentny,J.D. 1996. The ironies of affirmative action: politics, culture, and justice in
America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sparrow,P. & Hiltrop,J.M. 1994. European human resource management in transition. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Storey,J. 1995. Human resource management: still marching on, or marching out? In J. Storey
(Ed.), Human resource management: a critical text: 3-32. London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Storey,J. 1999. Equal opportunities in retrospect and prospect. Human Resource Management
Journal, 9(1): 5-8.
Tharenou,P. 1996. Influences on women´s managerial advancement. In P.D. Dubeck &
Borman (Eds), Women and work: 351-354. New York: Library of Congress.
Thomas,D.A. & Ely,R.J. 1996. Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing
diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5): 79-90.
Thomas Jr.,R.R. 1990. From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business
Review, 68(2): 107-117.
Truss,C., Gratton,L., Hope-Hailey,V., McGovern,P. & Stiles,P. 1997. Soft and hard models of
human resource management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1): 53-
73.
Webb,J. (1997). The politics of equal opportunity. Gender, Work, and Organization, 4(3):
159-169.

12
13