At a recent diversity event, our council was recognised for its progress in equality and diversity. However, I was left with a sense of unease. Were we being recognised for implementing good diversity practices or were we being recognised for statutory compliance? And is equality legislation getting in the way of good diversity practice?
 
To test this concern, I asked the views of some colleagues, who raised the following points:
- people are complex and diverse and their needs cannot be adequately captured by labelling them as belonging to one group;
- the legislation assumes that people “belong” to a particular group and have homogenous needs;
- anyone not from a “target” group may believe that resources are being taken away from them;
- the legislation diverts attention and resources away from the culture change needed to get the best out of individuals;
- organisations get away with the minimum needed for compliance.

On the other hand, equality legislation was seen by some as necessary because society has tended to focus on the individual, rather than on collective needs. Without legislation, some colleagues considered that businesses would be reluctant to make adjustments to accommodate individuals unless absolutely necessary. One colleague expressed the view that, without equality legislation, recognition and rights for same-sex partners would not have happened.

So, while we all agreed that equality legislation was a blunt instrument that failed to emphasise the uniqueness of individuals, there was a shared concern that if we left equality and diversity to market forces then it just wouldn’t happen. After all, what is the incentive for business leaders to change when they make plenty of money by perpetuating homogeneity? Why would politicians change when they can win votes by appealing to people’s fear and ignorance?

You may hope, as do I, that the business case for diversity, especially in a recession, could not be clearer to employers. With a diverse workforce and the range of views this brings, creativity and innovation – skills needed to weather the economic storm – are likely to be fostered. However, that can still sound like so much “motherhood and apple pie”; I still don’t see sufficient evidence that the business case for diversity has been won.

We have to ask why we want diversity. Will it make us more competitive? Will it improve standards of living and the life chances of our children? Without this clearly articulated business case, related to individual circumstances, we will still need equality legislation to make us feel that we are doing something.

In conclusion, I was reminded that organisations which really appreciate diversity will deliver excellent practice and the culture change needed for sustainable performance, with or without legislation. I just wish more organisations really understood this point and weren’t merely adopting a tick-box mentality.

For me, however, the killer point is that if legislation was really working there would be much better representation at senior levels in both government and organisations. We have a long way to go, it seems.