In this part of the chapter I draw on Kandola and Fullerton’s (Kandola & Fullerton, 1998) classic organisational definition of diversity as consisting of ‘visible and non-visible differences, which will include sex, age, background, race, disability, personality and workstyle’ in creating productive workplaces where people are valued, and their full talents are acknowledged. There are many good works out there on diversity, especially recent ones that move beyond theory to inspiring action (Atcheson, 2021; Bhargava & Brown, 2021; Fanshawe, 2021; Pemberton, 2021). These would appear in a structured literature review on the subject. However, I have taken a different path that lays out ideas, literature and knowledge relative to personal experience.

Ferdman (Ferdman, 2013, p. 21) makes the point that while any single definition is useful when it comes to policy and to drive change, we are all individuals within our own social context that shapes our frame of reference. Here I engage with dynamic frames of reference of past experience as well as of present and future sensemaking. This chapter does not come to a neat conclusion or framework to be applied from one situation to another; it encourages us to reflect on how we notice what is around us, our attitudes and actions.

Debates on diversity can often be very shouty, where people are on ‘full dial transmit’. Given the injustices in the world, and particularly in the workplace, I can see why. Here I do something different. For each spoken word to have meaning and impact, it needs to be heard. And even then, hearing is only part of the story, there needs to be understanding, reflection (a reconciliation between those words and the experience of the person) and action. And it is that reconciliation that I address here.

Along with our genes we are all a product of our environment, upbringing, education and life chances, and that is reflected in how long we live and our health. In 2010 the highly regarded ‘Marmot Review’ into health inequalities in England (Marmot, 2010) began:

People with higher socioeconomic position in society have a greater array of life chances and more opportunities to lead a flourishing life. They also have better health. The two are linked: the more favoured people are, socially and economically, the better their health.

Ten years on, Sir Michael Marmot and his team revisited the report (Marmot et al., 2020)—things had not improved. For example, on the specifics, those in minority groups, black, Asian and mixed-race groups, had a significantly lower disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) than white British men and women (ibid., p. 23). Although there is wide variation, in 2018 a third of people living in a household headed by someone of Bangladeshi ethnic origin were in the most deprived quintile compared to 15% for the white population (ibid., p. 80).

In a fast-changing society, with a growing awareness that current structures favour certain established populations, things need to change if we are to make strides to make a fairer, happier, healthier and more just society.

In 2019, Universities UK and National Union of Students (Universities UK and National Union of Students, 2019) produced a report based upon the input of ninety-nine universities and students’ unions. The problem was starkly illustrated by the politician and diplomat Baroness Valerie Amos, Director of the School of Oriental African Studies (SOAS), London in her foreword to the report in saying:

When the extent of the [black, Asian, minority ethnic] BAME attainment gap in universities was brought to my attention, I was shocked, because universities should be places where opportunity and aspiration come together. Of course I knew that, given its extent in society, discrimination would exist in our universities. What I was not prepared for was the patchy approach to action to bring about change. Some universities have been slow in recognising the scale of the challenge and in committing to making the changes required. Others have made significant progress in narrowing the gap. (p. 1)

The report starkly illustrated the problem and comes up with five recommendations that can be summarised as: Providing strong leadership; Having conversations about race and changing the culture; Developing racially diverse and inclusive environments; Getting the evidence and analysing the data; and Understanding what works. Here I am going to focus on aspects of the second, namely:

Having conversations about race and changing the culture: Universities and students need to create more opportunities to talk directly about race, racism and the attainment gap and to identify what students think is causing it. A change in culture is needed alongside a clear institutional message that issues of race are embedded within wider strategic goals.

This applies as much in a small regional business school such as the University of Chichester as it does in larger universities with a global reputation. It is for this reason that personal story and narrative is also important when it comes to considering diversity. This extends to those who are harmed by the way things are, as well as to those with power to make a difference. The contribution of this chapter lies in both my reflexive journey and the insights that I come to. In fact, the former is more important than the latter, and it is from that perspective that I invite you to pay attention to your own reflexive path.