The Emerging Agenda: EEO in the New Zealand Public Service

EEO is a term used to describe both an outcome and a strategy for change for specified EEO groups and for organisations.

The outcome is an effective workplace in which all individuals are able to participate and compete equitably, to develop to their full potential and be rewarded fairly, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or family circumstances. The performance of both the organisation and the individuals is enhanced.

The strategy involves:

• identifying and eliminating discriminatory practices;
• attracting and retaining a diverse staff; and
• creating an environment which encourages and supports the full participation of staff.

The specific EEO groups listed in Section 56 of the State Sector Act 1988 are Maori, ethnic or minority groups, women or persons with disabilities. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, age or family status is illegal under the Human Rights Act 1993.

A comprehensive analytical framework

In implementing this strategy, the New Zealand Public Service has always used a comprehensive analytical framework which has encompassed:

• human resource policies and practices - the systems of an organisation;
• organisational culture - the physical and emotional environment of an organisation; the way things get done and the values that influence organisational behaviour and beliefs;
• affirmative action - a focus on what EEO groups need in order to participate fully, feel included and be able to compete on merit within the organisation.

This analytical framework has been applied within each of the different phases of development examined in the section on the evolution of the New Zealand approach to EEO. Understanding how to effect change in these three areas has developed over time. As our understanding of organisations has grown, the sophistication of the specific strategies adopted to address these three areas has also increased.

An emphasis on EEO groups

EEO concentrates on groups of people who experience unfair discrimination and are excluded from full participation in the workforce. The "collective" characteristic of discrimination is fundamental to understanding EEO, and underpins the concept of EEO groups. Unfair discrimination refers to the way in which a person or a group of people are treated because they have a common characteristic that puts them outside the mainstream or dominant group (in terms of numbers or power, or both). Traditionally these characteristics include ethnicity, race, colour, gender and disability.

The result is that people from these groups are concentrated at the lower salary levels, and may lack access to decision-making roles and influence. Even early career success may end when the "glass ceiling" is met. This systemic disadvantage arose because the design, practices and values of most organisations reflected the needs and realities of groups of people who were either numerically dominant or occupied the majority of decision-making positions within the organisation and in society as a whole.

Disadvantaged groups initially listed in the good employer section of the State Sector Act 1988 (and subsequently in other Acts such as the Defence Act 1990 and the Education Amendment Act 1996) were Maori, women, ethnic or minority groups, and people with a disability. In practice, most organisations identified Pacific Islands people as a group separate from other ethnic minority staff.

In the last five years understanding of the personal characteristics and life issues which impact on work life has increased. As a result, and in line with the intent of the Human Rights Act 1993, most Public Service departments have since 1994 begun to expand the list of EEO groups to include lesbian and gay staff, and/or people with family responsibilities and/or people of different age groups. Some have also focused on the needs of Asian staff as distinct from other ethnic minority people.

Whilst the focus has been on groups, it is recognised that the groups are not homogeneous. Not all women have the same needs; the issues for people with different disabilities may vary.

There has also been a growing appreciation of the complexity of the concept of EEO group membership. People may fluctuate in how strongly they identify with a group at particular times or in particular contexts. Others may ascribe people to particular groups on the basis of real or imagined characteristics, and treat them accordingly. People move in and out of some groups at different stages of their lives. Belonging to a number of groups can have a compounding effect on the opportunities experienced in the workplace.

Thus organisations can no longer just "do something for women" or "do something for Maori". Their systems and practices must be sufficiently flexible and inclusive to ensure the full participation of diverse staff, regardless of their particular group membership or memberships.

However, in order to effect long-term change, there has been a particular focus on systemic changes to address common needs or a range of individual needs within organisations, rather than the requirements of individual staff members. Experience demonstrated that changes made for individuals do not always "flow on" to others in the group. These changes may be of a discretionary or "special" nature and may imply that the individual concerned is somehow outside of the "norm" and should be grateful for the special treatment.

Focusing on groups has been a way of identifying and addressing common issues, but the objective has been to broaden the way organisations do things, not to create special conditions for a select few and certainly not to create a situation of reverse discrimination.

The evolution of the New Zealand approach to EEO

The context

Since the early 1980s, the New Zealand Public Service's approach to EEO has developed in response to changes in New Zealand society itself, in the development of a legislative framework for EEO, in the structure and functioning of the Public Service, and in the nature of the employment relationships with which EEO is so concerned.

As with any other social change, both the development and the agenda of EEO in the New Zealand Public service have been influenced by the social and political context of the time. EEO in the early 1980s took place in an environment which had seen the ideas of the women's movement affect society's perception of the role of women, had witnessed the rise and articulation of Maori sovereignty, had engaged in debates around racism and the Springbok tour, and had begun to appreciate the place of New Zealand in a global and international community. All of these changes heightened the sense of a social justice agenda - one in which the concept of EEO found political and social favour.

As the initial steps were taken to implement EEO, the Public Service was a highly centralised and unionised employment environment. It was also an industrial and economic environment which favoured an interventionist approach. It was an environment in which edicts could be issued and action would follow. Until 1988, the key roles were played by the State Services Commission as the employer of all Public Service staff and the Public Service Association as the only union. The Public Service departments were hierarchical and structured in ways that had changed little since their inception. It was a Public Service that took pride in having led the way on such issues as equal pay for women and the dissolution of the marriage bar in employment. It was a Public Service that had stated its commitment to EEO through the 1984 Statement By Government Employing Authorities on Equal Employment Opportunities. The commitment to taking a leading role in promoting the government's policy on equal opportunities was endorsed by the Public Service employers at that time, including the Police, Armed Forces and Fire Service.

The enactment of the State Sector Act 1988 and the Employment Contracts Act in 1991, the repeal of the Employment Equity Act in 1990 and the passing of the Human Rights Act 1993 signalled a new environment. Chief executives of government departments were now employers of the staff in their organisations. EEO was a legislative requirement in the Public Service while in the private sector a voluntary approach to EEO was taken.

In common with the private sector, employment practices and policies in the Public Service became more market-driven and organisation-specific. In spite of a legislative mandate for EEO and a strong social justice perspective, government departments increasingly began to use business reasons as a rationale for the implementation of EEO in a social and political environment where the dominant new philosophy was economic liberalism.

EEO's response to the context

In examining both the past and present industrial and organisational context of EEO development and implementation, and the actual agenda of current EEO practice, it is clear that the approach to EEO has evolved over time. It has been both a proactive and reactive development.

It has been reactive in that EEO has needed to adapt and keep relevant to the changes in departments. The understanding and practice of management in the Public Service changed, as did the way in which work is organised and organisations themselves are structured. The core business of many Public Service departments changed, and this was often accompanied by extensive restructuring. The EEO agenda has striven to keep abreast of all of this.

Those with responsibility for EEO also sought to influence the agenda and processes of Public Service and organisational change. They used EEO principles to inform practice, anticipate equity issues, and integrate EEO into the vision and the reality of the Public Service of the 1990s and beyond.

The current EEO agenda and practice have been informed by past experience both here and overseas. However, it has generally been a cumulative process, building on previous ideas and developments, rather than discarding or replacing ideas or practices along the way. Some of the basic tenets developed in the 1980s about the legitimate and appropriate scope for EEO, as well as a belief in the sort of package which would bring about change in organisations, have remained.

Overseas influences

The practice of EEO in other countries has had two kinds of influence. The first is that Public Service EEO practitioners in New Zealand have made a deliberate decision not to emulate some overseas practices. The second is that other overseas examples have provided guidance and inspiration for activity here.

Examples of the first influence include the important decision to target EEO to EEO groups, rather than to follow a more generalised anti-discrimination/human rights approach to employment such as was practised in Australia in the early 1980s. This EEO group approach has underpinned EEO in the New Zealand Public Service.

Another important decision of this kind was to avoid any association of EEO theory and practice 'with USA-type quotas. While there has been a cautious acceptance of the setting of numerical targets in terms of the representation and distribution of EEO groups within departments, quotas are associated with reverse discrimination and the backlash against EEO that is currently being experienced in the USA.

A further example is the decision not to imitate the Canadian monitoring processes of the 1980s and early 1990s. Canada's heavy emphasis on detailed numerical reporting was seen as not sufficiently inclusive of qualitative measures of progress.

Examples of willing adaptation of successful overseas practice include the 1988 Public Service Census to capture service-wide information on ethnicity and disability. This process was adapted after studying the experience of the Australian Public Service. Other initiatives or practices which have happily coincided with either the message or intent of EEO practice and thinking here include using the managing diversity model from the USA, with its reinforcement of the business benefits of EEO interventions, and the adoption of workplace reform including concepts such as workplace democracy and a different approach to workplace systems.

The evolutionary stages

The understanding and practice of EEO continues to evolve. The following sections attempt to describe that past evolution and current practice, and to extrapolate from them the potential for EEO practice and influence in the future.

The discussion framework is necessarily simplistic and linear. It is a tool for understanding how EEO has evolved and why particular issues came to be addressed at different times - a tool for unpacking the different focuses of EEO practice.

In reality, the picture is more blurred. The phases were not necessarily separate and discreet. Individual practitioners' understanding of EEO and organisations' EEO practice were often at different stages at one time.

The development over time includes periods of particular focus. These are:

• a focus on EEO groups;
• a focus on individual workplace systems and practices;
• a focus on strategic human resource management;
• a focus on business outcomes.

All phases were characterised by the application of the analytical framework, discussed earlier, which encompasses human resource policies and practices, organisational culture, and affirmative action. Each new phase expanded the previous one, building on rather than discarding the earlier strategies.

Phase One: A focus on EEO groups

This section describes a period of EEO development in the early 1980s which focused heavily on the members of EEO groups themselves. The initiatives taken in each of the three areas -affirmative action, human resource management practices and policies, and culture - were either targeted at EEO groups or designed to adjust the impact on them.

What was involved

Fundamental to the EEO of this period was an analysis of organisations which illuminated how some people in the workplace experienced direct and indirect discrimination. The 1984 Statement By Government Employing Authorities on Equal Employment Opportunities provides a good example of this. It said:

Indirect discrimination occurs when the outcome of rules, practices and decisions which treat people equally in fact reduce significantly the chances of a particular group of people from obtaining a benefit or an opportunity. This happens because people are not identical. Employing authorities in the government sector have a responsibility to ensure that groups such as women, ethnic minorities and disabled persons can as far as possible achieve equality with other members of the community.

What was it trying to achieve?

The foundation for EEO action came from a social justice perspective. It aimed to give people a "fair go" in employment, stop employees having to put up with unacceptable behaviour such as sexual harassment in the workplace, identify the barriers to people getting employed or progressing in their jobs, and equip people from EEO groups to succeed. While the Human Rights legislation (Human Rights Commission Act 1977) had provided a rationale for such a perspective in terms of individual human rights, EEO moved beyond this and identified the need for organisational change for specific groups of staff.

In many ways EEO practice at this time was based on a "deficit" model - fix up the people concerned, moderate some of the more blatant discriminatory behaviour in organisations and EEO should be the result. It implied that the locus for change was primarily EEO group members themselves rather than the organisation - a view that was hardly surprising given the general experience of Public Service departments as somewhat static and unchanged over many years.

Typical strategies

Action included very direct analysis of the issues for EEO group members in particular departments by means of surveys and research programmes. The results of such studies highlighted the difference between EEO groups and other groups of staff in terms of representation within the organisation, salary distribution and experiences such as sexual harassment or discrimination. At a service-wide level and in most government departments, data was available only on women, which meant that much EEO activity at this time was principally focused on women.

The results of the research within organisations, and the human rights/social justice context of the thinking behind the studies, produced an agenda for remedying the situation. This agenda primarily depended on providing the EEO group members themselves with whatever it was they needed to participate and compete in the organisation.

Typical affirmative action strategies included:

• career development programmes for EEO group members;
• assertiveness training for women;
• mentoring programmes.

Typical human resource strategies included:

• whanau and support interview procedures;
• introducing part-time work options.

Typical organisational culture strategies included:

• an anti-sexual harassment programme;
• the establishment of childcare centres.

A number of the larger organisations appointed EEO coordinators with responsibility for addressing issues for a specific EEO group, such as women, Maori or Pacific Islands people.

EEO in the 1980s in the New Zealand Public Service was characterised by a lot of discrete activity, a heavy emphasis on affirmative action programmes, some very prominent EEO programmes (Equality Management Programme, hui, fonos, etc.) and a fairly high public profile.

What was achieved?

Raising the awareness of EEO was a primary achievement of this period. There was an increased understanding of the impact of organisational behaviour on different people's opportunities and of the responsibility of the departments not to discriminate directly or indirectly.

Beyond this, few organisations had specific goals, except that they wanted more people from and better conditions for EEO groups in the organisation. "More" and "better" were not defined. Although EEO goals were implicit in the 1984 Statement By Government Employing Authorities on Equal Employment Opportunities, few of the employing authorities translated them to explicit goals for their organisation. Nor did many of these organisations have the information or the systems to measure "more" or "better". Instead the focus was largely on ensuring EEO activities occurred.

Difficulties that arose

Until the Public Service Census of 1988, measurement of outcomes in terms of representation and distribution of EEO groups within the Public Service was hampered by a lack of statistical information. While many individuals and groups of individuals in EEO groups experienced great personal benefit in terms of confidence, self-esteem, skill levels and career prospects, generalised benefits were harder to detect.

It became clear to many EEO practitioners that for real structural change to occur within organisations, attention needed to be paid to the nature of the processes and environment within which EEO groups operated - even when they had heightened skills and confidence.

Phase Two: A focus on individual workplace systems and practice

In the late 1980s the focus of EEO expanded and shifted towards the organisational systems and practices by which people were managed. In so doing, it became clear that EEO was no longer following a separate agenda but was becoming more responsive to what was going on in departments.

What was involved?

In these years the New Zealand Public Service experienced some profound changes. In addition to the dramatic decrease in the number of public servants and a change in the nature of the work, the State Sector Act 1988 signalled a complete change in the way Public Service organisations were organised and managed. One of the consequences of this was the development and introduction of new human resource management systems such as job evaluation and performance management processes.

The potential for bias in the design and implementation of these human resource systems, and the impact of this bias on EEO group members, became better understood. Systems were examined, and the impact of the processes on EEO group members was monitored. Many organisations ran training both for those implementing the systems (e.g. job evaluation committees) and for those participating in them.

In attempting to apply EEO principles, EEO practitioners approached these systems in the same way the organisations did - as piecemeal and discrete human resource instruments, rather than as part of an overall strategy for the management of staff.

What was it trying to achieve?

The changes in human resource management systems highlighted the fact that significant progress for EEO groups depended not only on a continuation of various kinds of affirmative action for the people within them, but also on the ability of these systems and processes to respond fairly and inclusively to a diversity of people. In many ways, the "site" for EEO action had enlarged.

The application of these apparently neutral systems to all staff was seen as the new EEO challenge. Not only did the design of systems need (and continue to need) careful analysis for unintended bias (in wording, in assumptions, etc.) but the processes through which the systems were implemented also needed to be fair and appropriate for all staff.

In some organisations, this phase was characterised by a move beyond general EEO awareness to a recognition of the potential contribution of EEO group members to the organisation. The examination of the human resource systems was seen as central to the ability of EEO groups to be considered fairly, to participate fully, and to contribute to the organisation.

Typical strategies

There was during this stage a particular emphasis on human resource strategies to ensure the design, values and implementation of individual systems were compatible with the desired EEO outcome of an effective workplace in which all individuals could participate and compete equitably, develop their full potential and be rewarded fairly.

The State Services Commission and several Public Service departments produced a plethora of booklets and pamphlets containing advice on how to recognise and eliminate discrimination in human resource systems such as job evaluation, recruitment and the use of selection tests. The information aimed to:

• upskill EEO practitioners in understanding discrimination within the systems;
• design processes that included EEO group perspectives;
• provide information for the "consumers" of the systems;
• provide checklists of good practice for managers in the use of the systems.

Increasingly staff from EEO groups were consulted about the impact of these systems and encouraged to attend courses or seminars to equip them to participate equally in the processes.

Typical affirmative action strategies included:

• an increased focus on the development of EEO group networks;
• the establishment of scholarships and study awards.

Typical organisational culture strategies included:

• the establishment of school holiday programmes;
• the introduction of gender-neutral and non-discriminatory language policies; and
• disability awareness programmes.

This phase was also characterised by the establishment of systems to collect and analyse data on the recruitment, selection and retention of staff from EEO groups.

Achievements

The focus on workplace systems and processes raised awareness of the complexity of discrimination in employment. The analysis of discrimination in systems revealed a great deal about the "norms" and values that pervade organisational design and functioning. Examples of this are the bias that is built into many job evaluation systems which either ignores or understates the skills or responsibilities involved in work traditionally performed by women, and selection practices which do not tap into or capture the particular skills of Maori.

The attempt to illuminate and remedy discrimination often brought EEO into direct conflict with the systems' designers and proprietors wishing to protect and defend the status quo.

However, much was achieved. Guidelines for good practice were established, and some acknowledgement was made that fair systems tend also to be thorough in their design and operation, and efficient in their application. Many of the principles of EEO and good practice have become incorporated into (at least the stated) objectives of many of the systems, and an important outcome was the development of systems that were potentially better for all staff.

Difficulties that arose

The treatment of different human resource management systems as discrete and separate systems caused several problems. Not least of these was the tremendous amount of energy required (often of the EEO practitioner within the department) to get up to speed with different systems as they became fashionable or used.

The key difficulty was that there had been no overall strategic focus to either the human resource or EEO work. There was little understanding of the relationship between the systems in terms of organisational outcomes or the consequences of running so many different, sometimes contradictory agendas. In this environment, the overall outcomes for EEO groups were difficult to maintain and achieve. EEO had become a series of small "victories" around specific systems.

As management and organisations began to reposition their human resource function and to adapt their human resource practice to look at its strategic relevance to the work of the department, EEO was beginning to see the opportunity for a more integrated approach to practice.

Phase Three: A focus on strategic human resource management

During this phase, the focus was on ways EEO could contribute to building, developing and managing people to deliver government outcomes most effectively; i.e. seeking both organisational outcomes and EEO outcomes. There was a move away from piecemeal implementation of EEO strategies to a broader, strategic view of EEO within departments. It meant that EEO planning was derived from a response to the human resource needs of the business.

EEO practitioners worked hard to shake off EEO's history as an "add-on" to departmental business, and to reposition EEO as an integral aspect of strategic human resource management.

What was involved?

Since the early 1990s there has been an increased emphasis on business planning within government departments. This has been partly a response to the accountability demands of the State Sector Act, but also a recognisable trend in businesses everywhere. The requirement to take a more strategic approach to the management of the business meant a change in approach to the management of staff. The current and future human resource capability of an organisation was identified as crucial to the success of the organisation.

While in many departments the practice lagged behind the rhetoric, strategic human resource management did change the role of human resource professionals from personnel functions to helping realise the strategic goals of the organisation. This offered the possibility of new strategies for EEO. In particular, it provided the opportunity to take an integrated and strategic approach to EEO, and to develop more systematically the organisational case for its implementation.

Integrating EEO principles into all management systems and processes became increasingly important. Having previously experienced the frustration and difficulty of trying to tack EEO on to each individual human resource system, EEO and human resource practitioners now worked to make EEO part of the fundamental principles that informed what systems were needed by the organisation, and how they would be developed and implemented.

What was it trying to achieve?

The development of a strategic approach to the human resource function offered an opportunity for EEO to be integrated into a system that was directly linked to the outputs and outcomes of the business. This altered the balance between the concentration on EEO inputs (e.g. career development training for women or the provision of adapted computer technology for someone with a disability) and the contribution of EEO to organisational outcomes (e.g. a parental leave policy which encourages the retention of staff who go on parental leave, or recruitment practice which actively strives for a workforce that more closely represents the community it serves).

In addition to seeking benefits for EEO groups, EEO strategies deliberately began to seek benefits for the organisation through assisting with the development of the skills, knowledge and human resource capability required to deliver its products and services.

Typical strategies

The increased emphasis on the contribution of EEO to the strategic human resource processes altered several aspects of EEO implementation, and implied a new set of strategies.

First, it shifted the locus of responsibility for EEO firmly to the managers rather than the EEO specialist. These specialist roles became increasingly "mainstreamed" into human resource functions, or metamorphosed into consultants or advisers to the managers. This necessarily involved the upskilling of both the managers and human resources staff. Secondly, it broadened the potential scope of influence from piecemeal human resource processes or products to EEO principles informing the whole human resource strategy. Thirdly, it emphasised the move away from a focus exclusively on the value of EEO for EEO groups to include the value to the organisation as a whole.

Many of the previous EEO strategies continued. For example, affirmative action programmes remained, anti-harassment procedures were refined or updated, and job evaluation systems continued to be audited for bias. Organisations learnt that it was more effective to put in place a complimentary raft of strategies to address particular strategic issues than it was to use a scattergun approach on a wide range of problems. There developed a more comprehensive view of the interrelationship of human resource systems, organisational culture and affirmative action. However, the requirement that EEO be fully integrated also demanded a new set of strategies. Many of these involved developing linkages to other organisational drivers or approaches, such as quality initiatives, workplace reform or culture change.

EEO specialists and other managers were concerned that integration should be a system of deliberate and sustained processes rather than a wish and a prayer. Many wrote and spoke of the fear that integration would mean an annihilation of EEO, and that it would become so "seamless" as to cease to exist. To counter this, strategies to build EEO into the rationale, planning, design, implementation and monitoring of human resource processes and policies were developed. In particular, the concept of the "equity filter" was developed. This describes both an informed way of thinking and the deliberate application of some EEO standards (like a checklist) at all stages of human resource development.

Taking an integrated approach to EEO involved some rethinking of the nature of EEO planning and monitoring. Many organisations chose to integrate EEO into their key planning documents, and developed processes such as EEO audits or reviews to monitor impact and progress.

What was achieved?

Across Public Service departments, there was a general acceptance of the need to integrate EEO into the strategic human resource management of the organisation and some recognition that EEO can contribute to the development of appropriate solutions to the business issue of building an efficient and capable workforce.

Recognition of the potential organisational benefits of implementing EEO did not imply that the social justice perspective was lost, but it generally no longer existed as a single rationale for EEO.

Currently, in many departments the development of instruments to assure the integration of EEO is at a fairly basic stage of development and implementation. As yet, there are few examples of good practice. Where the integration process worked well, EEO has become part of the way the place operates. Where it did not work, EEO tended to disappear.

Difficulties that arose

There were three key areas of difficulty. First, as anticipated by some EEO specialists and managers, some departments adopted the rhetoric of integration but have not actively built the processes to ensure it. Some assumed that after more than ten years of practice EEO would be an automatic part of the culture and behaviour of the organisation. People concerned with ensuring equitable employment outcomes found they could not afford to leave EEO implementation to an act of faith.

Second, in some organisations the information management systems and the quality of the data held were unable to cope adequately with the demands of measuring the impact of the integration of EEO.

Third, the reconciling the motivations for EEO and strategic human resource management was not always straightforward. The efficient and effective management of the organisation sat comfortably as a motive for both. However, it became evident that there was some tension over the social justice objectives of EEO. Social justice was not seen as an inherent part of strategic human resource management objectives.

Phase Four: A focus on business

This phase of EEO development is typified by a greater alignment of EEO with business processes and business outcomes, and by an acknowledgement of the mutual benefit for EEO groups and the department of applying EEO solutions and strategies. Many departments are currently entering or exploring this phase of EEO development.

What is involved?

Unlike the earlier stages of EEO evolution, this phase includes a specific recognition of the needs of the business, and in particular how it delivers its policy, services or products. Organisations are different, and because their strategic goals are different the EEO programme needs to reflect and support those differences.

Integration with human resources is still important, but it is now acknowledged that other business decisions and strategies also have EEO implications, and that EEO can contribute directly to business solutions. It may play a part in a strategy to help the organisation achieve its vision or strategic goals for the future (e.g. opening up new markets, or being able to deliver more comprehensive and appropriate policy advice) or it may be embedded in the solution to a problem, such as a high turnover of staff or the need to shift or refocus the skills of the workforce.

The alignment of EEO with business, the integration of EEO principles and the customisation of the EEO response to the organisational culture are now seen as the cornerstones of good practice.

What is it trying to achieve?

This phase of EEO more explicitly aims for win-win outcomes for EEO groups and for business. It seeks positive results for staff, in particular for EEO groups, and positive outcomes for the organisation. By making EEO more relevant to the department, it is hoped that greater commitment and emphasis will be given to addressing EEO issues. Organisations are encouraged to move from seeing EEO as something they "should" do, to seeing it as a strategy that will help them successfully deliver their products and services. Over the last decade, many departments have learnt from practical experience that EEO policies and practices can bring business benefits, and that EEO initiatives are more likely to thrive if they positively advance business goals and performance.

Creating an understanding of EEO's intrinsic relationship to the outcomes of the organisation also promotes the view that the implementation of EEO is relevant to all employees. In many ways it makes EEO "live" for people beyond many of the "feel-good" concepts they may previously have been attached to. It has shifted the focus of the action to the heart of the organisation - the business it is there to deliver.

EEO strategies now try to extend and develop business thinking to include successful and sustainable workforce planning and management.

Typical strategies

Many of the EEO strategies developed and implemented in the previous phases continue to be utilised - those that cover affirmative action, organisational culture and human resource practice. However, the rationale for why these strategies are being promoted, and to what end, has shifted.

Their outcomes (e.g. the development of working environments which encourage the retention of senior women, the use of selection tests which have cross-cultural validity, or the redesign of jobs to facilitate the employment of someone with a disability) are understood to affect more than the EEO group concerned, and are linked to specific business issues.

In many cases the strategy has stayed the same but the context in which it is carried out has changed. For example, early affirmative action initiatives for Maori were, in common with those for other EEO groups, designed to increase Maori representation and participation in the Public Service. Current thinking on EEO for Maori increasingly recognises it as a contribution to lifting the capability of the Public Service to address Treaty issues.

Some specific strategies now have a new impetus and focus. For example, during the 1980s a number of organisations organised hui for their Maori staff. However, the staff's initial enthusiasm was often followed by cynicism and bitterness when nothing was done with their ideas and nothing changed. During this fourth phase of EEO, some of these same organisations are again holding hui for their Maori staff. This time, though, the impetus has typically come from the senior management team. As management teams have struggled to identify ways they can better deliver to Maori (whether in the form of services or policy advice), they have realised that their Maori employees may be able to help to identify the solutions. The best way to talk to these staff is through hui. This time, management teams want to know what their staff have to say. The audience and the communication channels have been established before the hui begins.

This approach means that those involved in the strategic planning for the organisation need to understand the EEO implications of the environment they will be operating in and the demands of the business itself. A much closer involvement of the senior management team is required in setting the EEO agenda.

If many of the early EEO strategies remain relevant (refined and adapted over time, of course), today they are preceded or activated by a new set of questions. These may typically be:

• what are the EEO implications of this business decision?
• what EEO strategies do we need to put in place, in the short and long term, to ensure the success of this business decision?

What has been achieved?

In many departments EEO has gained some "respectability" in that it is now seen (at least in the rhetoric, if not always the practice) to be attached to the "main game" of the business. This has provided a lever for management to become more knowledgeable and accountable for EEO.

A shift in the rationale for EEO initiatives has increased the recognition that diverse people can bring fresh ideas, skills and perceptions which make the way the work is done more efficient, and the products and services better. These skills and perspectives are increasingly being recognised.

This phase is characterised by a final dismantling of the approach to EEO which was jiLst for EEO groups. EEO initiatives are being undertaken because they are good for business and staff, not just to be nice to EEO group members. This has helped to eliminate the slightly patronising edge that has sometimes characterised EEO in the past.

Difficulties that have arisen

There are risks in this approach to EEO.

In some organisations the focus on EEO as part of the solution to business problems or issues has resulted in a compartmentalised rather than a strategic and comprehensive approach to EEO. Some organisations are being selective about which EEO issues they will look at. The application of EEO principles in one area has not necessarily resulted in their being applied to others.

A related risk is that in emphasising the business benefits, it is possible to lose sight of the need also to provide benefits for EEO group staff. One side of the win-win equation overshadows the other. This has resulted in an emphasis on piecemeal business benefits rather than an overall equity focus.

Measuring the effectiveness of this approach has also proved difficult, as it requires a more sophisticated system of collecting, storing and analysing data than has been used previously. This will be one of the challenges facing the next phase of EEO.

It has also been difficult turning rhetoric into reality. Although there is general acceptance that EEO strategies should help deliver business outcomes, many organisations struggle to identify and implement strategies that would assist in the delivery of their key products and services.

The emerging agenda

Will there be a fifth phase of EEO? Even as Phase Four is still being explored, questions are being raised about the path of EEO in the future. These are being prompted by what is happening in business generally, by a growing understanding of the risks of the current approach and by an increasing sense of the potential for EEO to have an impact. This section identifies some of these questions and hypothesises some possible answers. It describes what is an emerging agenda for EEO.

The context for the next phase of EEO

EEO needs to continue to respond to a changing society and to the changing Public Service. Research carried out as part of the project "Future Directions of EEO in the New Zealand Public Service" (1996) indicated that the following trends are likely to influence the context for EEO:

• changing demographic patterns will have significant influence, particularly the greater ethnic mix, uneven age profiles over time, and changing fertility and family patterns;
• the poverty gap will widen;
• Maori will have a greater influence in business and politics;
• the way we work will change significantly owing to a greater demand for work/non-work balance, the pervasiveness of information technology and changing work patterns;
• localisation will increase while globalisation continues;
• the economic and political environment will continue to evolve over time, with increased economic growth and internationalism, and with changes as MMP beds in.

These are likely to affect the shape and size of our organisations, the types of employment relationships that organisations use, and the pool of potential employees or service suppliers from which organisations will draw. Government, departments, communities and individuals all have a stake in achieving the effective implementation of EEO in this context.

Is EEO missing something that other diversity approaches offer?

Internationally and in New Zealand, organisations use different labels for the programmes they use to attract and retain more diverse workforces. Some of the most common of these are equal employment opportunities, valuing diversity, managing diversity and workforce diversity. There is increasing debate as to whether the diversity approaches offer something that EEO cannot.

Proponents of diversity emphasise the importance of-

• recognising and accommodating individual differences between people, whether these are related to gender, ethnicity, disability, socio-economic background, geographical location or any other factor;
• recognising these differences as potential assets for the organisation;
• adjusting or reinventing the culture of organisations to make them more welcoming and inclusive of a diverse workforce. The culture should allow for each staff member to contribute to their full potential and hence contribute to the improved productivity of the business.

In other countries where EEO has traditionally been defined more narrowly, debate is occurring about how EEO can be enhanced by diversity. The Institute of Personnel and Development in Britain (1997) is proposing the management of diversity as a development of and complement to established approaches to equal opportunities.

In New Zealand, however, most of the principles of managing diversity are already encompassed within the practice of EEO as it has evolved. EEO has focused on specific groups as a practical and pragmatic means of addressing the disadvantages commonly experienced by individuals within those groups. There has, however, always been an emphasis on broadening the way organisations respond to their employees, not on replacing a narrow practice with another that is equally narrow. The expectation, and the experience, is that in becoming more responsive to the needs of a particular group, such as Pacific Islands staff, the organisation is likely to become more responsive to the needs of all staff who are different from the "norm" in the organisation. Practices such as permanent part-time work, which were introduced to accommodate particularly the needs of women with young children, are increasingly being taken up by men with young children, and by employees who need to balance work with any family responsibilities, study opportunities or other personal interests, or who are wanting to ease into retirement.

Although the rationale for early EEO programmes focused heavily on social justice outcomes, the rationale now firmly encompasses the potential benefits to the organisation both in the way the organisation is managed and in the way its products and services are delivered.

EEO in the New Zealand Public Service has always recognised the impact of organisational culture on people's experience of employment. It has been part of the analytical framework for EEO that also includes human resource policies and practices, and affirmative action.

Diversity is an important dimension of a comprehensive approach to EEO.

Should we continue to use the term EEO?

Given the extent to which EEO practice has developed over time, is it appropriate to go on using the term equal employment opportunities? Other management practices have undergone changes in name. Personnel and industrial relations of the early 1980s, have evolved to human resource management, strategic human resource management or employee relations. Should we be doing the same for EEO in the Public Service?

Some organisations have deliberately chosen to move away from the term EEO, and are using instead terms such as employment equity, managing diversity or valuing diversity. For a few this has reflected a philosophical shift towards focusing on individuals rather than EEO groups. Often, however, organisations are wanting simply to signal a fresh or "modern" approach to equity issues - that is, to distinguish the way that they, or others, have approached EEO in the past from the way they want to address equity issues now. They want to move from a Phase One or Two approach, to a Phase Three or Four approach.

The development of EEO has been a natural evolution rather than an imposed new philosophy. EEO has proved to be a flexible practice that has adapted to different business environments. This does not suggest the need for a change of name. The challenge here is to make the breadth of EEO more explicit than it has been in the past.

A lot has been invested in making EEO a familiar term in dialogue about managing organisations. Resources and organisations have been developed to promote the concept and support the practice. This should not be given away lightly. The term is enshrined in numerous pieces of legislation. This cannot be changed easily.

There are risks in discarding the term EEO. These include:

• clouding the debate;
• the "gains" of EEO being lost as people move to any "new" approach;
• organisations taking an even more piecemeal approach to equity issues by responding only to immediate problems rather than taking a cohesive, coordinated approach;
• relegating EEO to the status of a short-term strategy, just another management fad;
• losing a focus on seeking positive outcomes for people by focusing only on the outcomes for organisations; and
• effort and energy being diluted as organisations develop a new rhetoric and strategy that doesn't offend anyone.

In the end, however, it is the principles of EEO that are important, not the label. Although it is useful to retain the term equal employment opportunities to represent the generic concept, if some organisations feel that they can sell the principles more effectively using a different term, then it may be appropriate for them to do so. It is a marketing issue.

What is critical is that EEO and diversity or EEO and employment equity are not set up in opposition to each other, or as dichotomies. If this occurs, they risk being reduced to narrow concepts, both of which are incomplete.

Is the concept of EEO groups still useful?

With the expansion of the range of EEO groups being identified by organisations, the increase in the number of grounds for discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993, and the increasing interest in diversity issues generally, it is appropriate to re-examine the usefulness of having designated EEO groups. To do this it may be useful first to explore the concept of group membership and individual identity.

Some identity groups such as gender and ethnicity are constant or fixed. Some, such as disability, are fixed for some people but may be transitory for others. Other groups such as age or family responsibilities are categories we may move in or out of. People may belong to a number of identity groups at any one time. People may vary in how strongly they personally identify with particular groups at different times.

Members of groups share some similar values, beliefs, behaviour, background and/or experiences. Blank and Slipp (1994) describe these as group tendencies. Group tendencies are dynamic and change over time, and are not the same for all members of the group. For some, group membership may be the most salient part of their identity. For others it is not. Even though it is useful to recognise group identity, care needs to be taken in recognising the individuals within those groups.

Blank and Slipp point out that there is an inherent tension in seeing workers as both individuals and as members of a group. Managers are expected to evaluate and respond to their workers' individual skills, strengths and contribution, not to categorise or stereotype them on the basis of group membership. At the same time, managers are expected to be aware that an individual worker's behaviour and perspective may be affected, influenced or enhanced by his or her membership in a particular group, i.e. his or her group identity.

Narrow approaches to EEO have focused primarily on group membership. Narrow views of diversity have focused only on individual identity. Both concepts - individual identity and group identity - are needed.

It is useful for organisations to understand that they must consider the needs of all individuals. Many employees experience exclusion, undermining, frustration, lack of recognition and barriers to full participation at some stage of their working lives. However, in general, women are more likely to experience this than men. Maori, Asian and Pacific Islands people are more likely to experience this than Pakeha or New Zealand Europeans. Identity characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation can have a cumulative effect in positioning individuals as different from the prevailing "norm" in any group.

If organisations are to understand and respond to these patterns of experience, it is necessary to retain the concept of EEO groups. However, we need a more sophisticated approach to EEO groups that recognises that:

• people may identify with a number of EEO groups;
• the experiences and characteristics commonly attributed to these groups do not make all people in these groups the same;
• disadvantaged groups may vary in different organisations, e.g. some organisations may need to have a particular focus on older workers; for others this may not be relevant; and
• objectives may vary for different groups, e.g. for some the issue may be representation, distribution and participation in the life of the organisation, for others only one of these objectives may be appropriate.

Organisations need regularly to reassess the patterns of experience within their organisation. This will enable EEO programmes to respond to real needs, and avoid the trap of following a standard formula.

How do we achieve win-win outcomes?

As was stated earlier, EEO should ideally be about win-win outcomes. At times during the fourth phase of EEO, there has been concern that the need to seek positive outcomes for business was overshadowing the need to seek positive outcomes for people. Any future development of EEO must seek a firmer balance between the two.

In the last couple of years, management and business literature has begun to address a more holistic view of what makes businesses successful. It includes an understanding that the needs of people, society and business are convergent. The benefits of being a good corporate citizen, and of having a transparent and clear code of business ethics, and a recognition that healthy businesses flourish in a healthy society are ideas that are gaining increasing popularity. Business objectives become intertwined with social justice objectives.

EEO fits easily into this kind of environment. EEO is a practical strategy that encompasses both the business and social justice objectives. It provides businesses with a way of demonstrating their integrity in a way that community sponsorship does not.

To take this beyond rhetoric, organisations will need to:

• explore more fully the relationship between business and social justice objectives;
• assess the benefits of this relationship, and the costs of its absence;
• clearly specify both their business and social justice objectives;
• develop a more sophisticated and rigorous way of measuring both; and
• ensure that their accountability and performance management systems encompass both business and social justice objectives.

They also need to ensure that people from EEO groups have a real voice in the organisation. The earliest phases of EEO implementation were characterised by a "pushing from below" of EEO groups. The latter phases have emphasised (perhaps over-emphasised) EEO as a management initiative. One of the challenges of this next phase is to integrate the strategic leadership of management with the voice of experience and practicality that can come from EEO group staff.

Technology may assist in this process. Although the traditional consultation processes such as hui and fono cannot be completely replaced, "intra-nets" with network web pages may provide a responsive alternative for canvassing issues and providing management with feedback.

This balancing of business and social justice objectives is essential if they are to ensure that people from EEO groups are actively valued, and not just used.

How will they know if EEO is making a difference?

Monitoring processes have become increasingly sophisticated during the evolution of EEO. However, they have still largely focused on monitoring the achievement of EEO initiatives. Part of the challenge of the next phase of EEO will be to evaluate the impact of the EEO programme, both on members of the EEO groups and on the organisation's processes and outcomes.

Measuring the impact on EEO groups will involve many of the traditional measures of

• representation - who is employed by the organisation, either as permanent employees or through other employment arrangements;
• distribution - the levels at which people in EEO groups are in the organisation. As organisations move to flatter structures, remuneration rather than management labels will become even more important for measuring distribution patterns.
• flow - patterns of people entering and leaving the organisation;
• opportunity - access to training and development opportunities, remuneration increases and promotions.

Such measurement will also require an assessment of the impact of the organisational culture on EEO groups, principally around the dimensions of-

• participation, e.g. access to information, influence on decision-making;
• satisfaction, e.g. feeling of safety, contribution being recognised and valued;
• balance, e.g. ability to balance work and family responsibilities, or to balance the demands of the immediate work area with those of the wider organisation.

Evaluating the impact on the organisation will involve assessing the impact and integration of EEO into the policy process and service delivery. This needs to be assessed at each of the following stages:

• development;
• implementation;
• maintenance; and
• review.

It will also involve assessing the impact of EEO on organisational outcomes. These will vary according to the nature and circumstances of the organisation, but may include:

• financial, e.g. staffing - retention, recruitment, loyalty, morale, service provision and policy development - quality, effectiveness, adaptability, productivity, markets - diversification, market share;
• ethical congruence and consistency - matching the means with the ends;
• enhanced reputation and image, e.g. ease and credibility of consultation processes, reputation as a good corporate citizen.

Not all of these measures are new. Public Service departments have been collecting quantitative information on EEO groups for some time. Many have also been collecting information on business outcomes through staff attitude surveys, client surveys and client data bases. Such assessments should not require a lot of new processes to be established. Instead organisations will need to analyse the information they currently have from an EEO perspective or to include the relevant questions that will make this analysis possible.

What will be new is putting this information together to give a full picture of the impact of the EEO programme. This will not be simple. It will always be difficult to isolate the impact of the EEO initiatives from other things occurring within the organisation or within society as a whole. It is an area that will require careful development.

To assess whether this impact is satisfactory or not clear objectives or targets will be needed. These targets need to specify what the organisation is aiming to achieve. As such, they are similar to the targets organisations set in many other areas of their business, such as market share, response times and percentage of budget on overheads. They are not quotas which specify a number of positions to be filled by particular groups, and which are often perceived to be applied regardless of the calibre of the pool of candidates.

For targets to be useful, they must be:

• realistic - targets can be set only after a careful analysis of the current profile of the organisation, the projected turnover rates and the recruitment pool. Setting up unrealistic or unjustifiable targets sends an implicit message that it is okay for the organisation to fail in achieving them;
• supported by a clear strategy for achievement;
• tied into the organisation's accountability processes, so that people are clear about their responsibility for assisting the organisation achieve the target.

When organisations use targets, it becomes even more important to have completely transparent criteria for merit for all appointments. This is the only way to dispel suspicion of token appointments.

One of the challenges of the next phase of EEO is to develop meaningful targets for EEO to spur and measure progress.

25

What could the next phase of EEO mean for the way work is conceptualised, organised and managed?

Ways of working

People from EEO groups bring more to organisations than just a greater understanding and knowledge of the groups or communities to which they belong. As Thomas and Ely (1996) point out, "They bring different, important and competitively relevant knowledge and perspectives about how to actually do work - how to design processes, reach goals, frame tasks, create effective teams, communicate ideas and lead."

Too often, however, they are brought into organisations and taught "our" way. This is done through the processes insisted on, the behaviours or ways of communicating that are reinforced, the role models presented, and the work that is rewarded. Judgements are referenced against a "norm" that is still largely defined by the skills and ways of doing things characteristic of the dominant group in the organisation - in many cases Pakeha men. Not only does this deprive the organisation of the knowledge and perspectives of staff who may be different from this norm, but it also forces these staff to work in a way that may not be instinctive or familiar. Implicitly, we often ask them to leave an important part of their identity, and subsequent competencies, at the door. Some staff from EEO groups describe it as being forced to work in a way that is not personally authentic. We make it harder for these staff to perform to their full potential.

Organisations do not need naively to accept that all ways of working are equally valid. Instead, the challenge is to see that staff from EEO groups bring with them ways of working and thinking that are different from that accepted as the norm, and to keep open to the possibility that in some situations another way of working might be as, or more, effective than the current one.

Organisations will need to even more clearly articulate the outcomes that are needed, but be prepared to give employees more freedom to develop the processes they can best use to achieve those outcomes.

Flexibility

Flexibility with regard to job design, hours of work, place of work and working structures such as teams will become increasingly important in managing organisations. Flexibility can, however, be a double-edged sword, and particular care is needed to balance the needs of organisations and staff. Many organisations have already begun to introduce more flexibility in the way they work. The challenge of the next phase is to provide some consistency in establishing who has access to flexible arrangements, rather than leaving it to the whim or skill of the individual manager. This consistency can no longer be applied through rule books.

Instead organisations need to:

• establish clear statements of principle about the application of flexible arrangements;
• identify examples of good practice;
• equip managers to apply these principles in a manner that suits the needs of staff and their immediate work area;
• hold managers accountable for applying these principles.

Increasingly, organisations are needing to think about more than permanent staff. The potential benefits of a diverse group of staff will be diluted if much of the work is being done by a homogenous group of temporary contractors or consultants. This has implications for:

• the selection of temporary staff and consultants;
• the requirements of contractors and consultants;
• contract tendering processes; and
• the monitoring of contracts.

Organisations will need to be wary of blanket solutions. Forcing a new and different way of working on everybody is more likely to change the identity of those feeling excluded than to be inclusive of a greater number of staff. Organisations need to seek breadth in the way they do things, providing choices so that employees can work to their full potential.

It is difficult to stop our own culture, values and experiences from blinkering us to other possibilities. Part of the challenge of the next phase of EEO is to ensure our processes constantly ask "what are we not seeing?", "what are we not knowing?", "what are we missing out on?" so that there is real dialogue between those who have been the norm in the workplace in the past and those who are now joining them.

How do we move from incorporating EEO in the short-term business solutions to also including EEO in the longer-term planning of the organisation?

The section on Phase Four described the risk of a fragmentation or compartmentalising of EEO to very specific business issues or problems. This happens partly because of the obvious dominance of crisis or immediate issues, but also because many organisations have been or felt unable to take a longer-term view of their business environment or goals.

EEO can offer the organisation more in terms of effective strategies and solutions when a longer view is taken of the direction and the issues.

If we are going to ensure that EEO supports the longer term planning and running of the business, organisations will need to ensure that all those involved in setting and charting that direction have a deep understanding of EEO. They need to be able to answer the questions:

• what are we trying to achieve?
• what kind of organisation do we need to do that?
• what are the EEO implications of that?
• how can EEO assist us?

If the diverse skills and perspectives of EEO group members are incorporated in this debate, then the answers may be different from in the past. This thinking needs to occur right from the beginning of the planning process, not as an add-on.

To be able to answer these questions organisations will also need much better information on their current workforce and on trends in the labour market that will give them their future employees.

Conclusion

The development of EEO in the New Zealand Public Service has been, and will continue to be, a journey. It is a journey characterised by success, frustration and learning. We can anticipate only some of the context for the next stage of this journey, and merely speculate on the strategies that will be most relevant in this context.

Many of the fundamental principles of the New Zealand Public Service approach to EEO have proved their worth, and will continue to be relevant in the next phase of this development. These include the concept of EEO groups, the comprehensive approach that addresses all aspects of organisational life (including human resource practices, affirmative action and organisational culture), and a confidence that EEO can be both proactive and reactive in terms of changes in organisational life and functioning.

EEO must continue to respond to, and facilitate the development of, what departments do and how they do it.

The challenges of the next phase of EEO are considerable. There are no simple answers. This next phase must be characterised by balance, requiring us to:

• integrate EEO without making it disappear;
• ensure that managers take ownership of EEO issues without denying the legitimate voice of those from EEO groups; and
• achieve organisational outcomes and positive outcomes for EEO group staff.

Bibliography

Anderson, James A., "Thinking About Diversity", Training and Development Journal, April 1993, pp 59-60.

Armstrong, Nicola, "Through a Glass Ceiling Darkly: Equality Versus Difference in the EEO Debate", Sayers J. and Tremaine, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 188-99.

Blank, Renee and Slipp, Sandra, Voices of Diversity, American Management Association, 1994,

Bork, Robert H., "Equality", ABA Journal Vol. 82, November 1996, pp 80-1.

Briar, Celia, "Tracing the Patterns: The Development of EEO Policies in New Zealand and Overseas", Sayers J. and Tremaine, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 25-44.

Broadnax, Walter D., "From Civil Rights to Valuing Differences", Journal for Public Managers Vol. 2, No. 4, Winter 1991-92, pp 9-13.

Burton, Clare, "Employment Equity: Obstacles and Possibilities", unpublished paper presented at a Top Drawer Consultants function, Wellington, June 1996.

Burton, Clare, "The Role of Employment Equity Units in the Public Sector and in Universities", Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 55, No. 3, September 1996, pp 118-25.

Capowski, Genevieve, "Managing Diversity", Management Review, June 1996, pp 13-19.

Crossan, Diana, "Equal Employment Opportunity in the Public Sector" (interview by Janet Sayers), Sayers J. and Tremaine, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 249-56.

Dovidio, John, "The Subtlety of Racism", Training and Development Journal, April 1993, pp 517.

Durie, M. H., "Biculturalism: Participation and Creative Opportunity", paper presented to the EEO in Aotearoa Conference, Massey University, February 1995.

Eisenmann, Russell, "Dubious Value of Affirmative Action, with Emphasis on Making up for Past Discrimination", Psychological Reports Vol. 78, No. 3, 1996, pp 1353-4.

Ellis, Gill, "Towards a More Equitable Society" (interview by Janet Sayers), Sayers J. and Tremaine, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 287-99.

French, E, and Harding, S., "Management Models for Implementing EEO in the Workplace: Strategies and Structures, No Simple Solutions", paper presented at the Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management, Wollongong, Australia, December 1996.

Galagan, Patricia A., "Navigating the Differences", Training and Development Journal, April 1993, pp 29-33.

Hall, Phillipa, Monograph No 8: Affirmative Action and Managing Diversity, Imprimatur Press, Sydney, 1995.

Jewson, Nick; Mason, David; Drewett, Alison; and Rossiter, Will, "Formal Equal Opportunities Policies and Employment Best Practice", a research paper prepared for the Employment Department, UK, 1995.

Jones, Deborah, "Talking About Equal Employment Opportunity", Sayers, J. and Tremain, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 172-87.

Lashley, Marilyn, "Equal Employment Opportunity: A Remedy for Racial Inequality or Engine of Diversity in the Workplace?", paper presented to the EEO in Aotearoa Conference, Massey University, February 1995.

Liff, S. and Wajcman, J., "Sameness and Difference Revisited: Which Way Forward for Equal Opportunity Initiatives?", Journal ofManagement Studies Vol. 33, Jan 1996, pp 79-94.

Loden, Marilyn, Implementing Diversity, Irwin, 1996, p 16.

MacDermott, Kathy, "Repositioning Equal Employment Opportunity", Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 55, No. 3, pp 126-8.

McCormack, Derek K., "Implementing EEO in Aotearoa: A Manager's Perspective", paper presented to the EEO in Aotearoa Conference, Massey University, February 1995.

Marshall, Judi, Women Managers Moving On: Exploring Career and Life Choices, Routledge, London, 1995.

Mello, Jeffrey A., "The Strategic Management of Workplace Diversity Initiatives: Public Sector Implications", International Journal of Public Administration Vol. 19, No. 3, 1996, pp 425-47.

Morrison, Ann, "Leading Diversity", Training and Development Journal, April 1993, pp 38-43.

Niland, Carmel, "Building and Equity Culture - The Agenda for the 1990s", paper to the Equal Employment Opportunity in the Australian Public Service National Conference, Canberra, 25-27 May 1994.

Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment, Managing for Diversity: A Resource, Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment, NSW, Australia, 1996.

Overall, Stephen, "Ouseley in Assault on Diversity", People Management, May 1996, pp 7-8.

Paki Slater, May, "Implementing EEO in Aotearoa: A Co-ordinators Perspective", paper presented to the EEO in Aotearoa Conference, Massey University, February 1995.

Roosevelt Thomas, R., "From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity", Harvard Business Review, March/April 1990, pp107-17.

Roosevelt Thomas, R., Redefining Diversity, AMACOM, New York, 1996.

Ross, Rachael and Schneider, Robin, From Equality to Diversity: A Business Case for Equal Opportunities, Pitman, London, 1992.

Sayers, Janet, "Making the Connections: An Analysis of Equal Employment Opportunity Theory", Sayers J. and Tremaine, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 113-27.

Spoonley, Paul, "Ambivalence and Autonomy: the Tension Between Biculturalism and EEO", Sayers J. and Tremaine, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 87-97.

State Services Commission, EEO: 1984 to 1994 and Beyond, Wellington, 1995.

Thomas, David A. and Ely, Robin, "Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity", Harvard Business Review, September-October 1996, pp 79-90.

Top Drawer Consultants, Celebrating EEO Good Practice - Case Studies from the New Zealand Public Service, State Services Commission, Wellington, 1996.

Torrie, Rae and Jones, Deborah, Crafting Connection: Defining Differences, Oxford University Press, Wellington, forthcoming 1998.

Walsh, Pat and Dickson, John, "Defending a Beachhead: Managerialism and EEO in the Public Sector, 1988-1992", Sayers J. and Tremaine, M. (eds), in The Vision and the Reality, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1994, pp 45-54.

Woldring, Klass, "Diversity Management: Utility, Equity or Both?", paper presented at the Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management, Wollongong, Australia, December 1996.