Diversity in the British NHS: the business versus the “moral” case

Abstract

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:448207 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the business case for ethnic diversity in the British National Health Service (NHS). It seeks to contextualise issues around diversity within the current political environment, and identify the barriers to diversity in the NHS. The business case has been very strongly argued as justification for introducing both managing diversity and equal opportunity initiatives -here the paper examines the inconsistencies of using that argument, and maintains that the only justification worth presenting is that based on (deontological) moral arguments. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is conceptual in nature exploring the respective cases for diversity using a broad range of the available literature brought together as part of a rapid evidence assessment. It does so in order to make some far-reaching claims about the future justifications for active diversification of senior management in key public sector institutions. Findings -The distinctions between the business and moral cases are false, in that both have ethical reference points. However, the business case is not only difficult to translate to public sector institutions; there are also evidential problems with its adoption. In light of this the conclusion here is that the moral (deontological) case is the only one that has any long term value for proponents of diversity. Originality/value -The value of this paper is that it examines the confusion that surrounds different cases for advancing diversity as a policy aim and presents a clear delineation of them. It also draws out some of the -perhaps deliberate -blurring of the cases and underlines the huge problems with this all too common approach. Ultimately, it suggests that morality (deontological) arguments have most purchase in public sector organisations.

Realising the Business Case for Diversity: A Realist Perspective on the British National Health Service

“…Put another way, we argue that it is necessary to develop contingent ‘best fit’ practices (if and where the BCD works) rather than assume a universal ‘best practice’ approach to ‘what works’. This fits with the concerns of some commentators on the BCD (such as, Ryan et al ., 2002; Bleijenbergh et al ., 2010; Heres and Benshop, 2010; Johns et al ., 2013). Noon (2007: 781) puts it nicely when he says: ‘the argument for the moral case based on the human rights of all employees and job seekers must not be abandoned for the current fashion of diversity and the business case’.…”

Equal Opportunities and Diversity: Exploring the Relevance of Le Grand's Models of Service Provision

“…Do the ‘knavish’ aims associated with the business case conflict with the knightly objectives of the moral case? (Johns et al ., 2012) Does choice (suggesting greater local devolution) conflict with the tighter line management of command and control? Can the intersectionality central to the Equality Act 2010, which is an attempt to challenge multiple layers of discrimination in and through the same means (an acknowledgement of the importance of ‘interaction’) achieve positive ends for every protected group (Squires, 2008; Bagilhole, 2009; Chatoo and Atkin, 2012)?…”

Diversity Branding Strategy: Concealing Implicit Stereotypes and Biased Behaviors

“…Valuing diversity refers not only to valuing diverse talents and perspectives; it refers to an ethical and moral responsibility that values human dignity and respect. On one hand, diversity is seen as a product of practicality (a business perspective); on the contrary, it is viewed as upholding a sense of justice (an ethical and morals perspective; Johns, Green, & Powell, 2012). Both perspectives are needed to build a holistic way for organizations to brand diversity.…”