1.1 – The three attitudes of firms towards religious diversity

5Whilst requests of a religious nature long remained confidential, giving rise to local arrangements here and there, mainly for blue-collar workers, today such requests have become a lasting, invasive phenomenon that influences the life of an organisation within society as a whole. How do firms deal with this issue? Three main attitudes may be identified: refusal, acceptance and compromise.

6A first type of firm refuses to consider religious diversity within the organisation and its management, relying on two arguments: the obligation for neutrality and the risk of proselytism. Some refer to the absolute necessity for neutrality to justify their radical attitude of refusal, either because they employ civil servants – we should note that other firms in this situation have adopted other attitudes –, or because they consider that the firm is a “secular” universe, mistaking secular space with a-religious space. Other firms highlight the risk of proselytism and/or an accumulation of claims involving, for example, prayer, public holidays or the organisation of working hours. Managers (HR, diversity) tend to avoid potential problems by keeping religion at a distance, and this sometimes includes discriminatory practices. This attitude of refusal can also take the form of denial (“There is no religious issue here, so there is no need to respond to it”) or, as Bouzar and Bouzar (2009) put it, “diabolization” particularly with regard to Islam, which is deemed to be a source of inequality between men and women (Banon, 2006). This attitude is too radical to adjust to the reality of everyday life, leaving junior managers helpless, and forcing them to get by with more pragmatic responses for lack of resources and analysis (Bennani and Barth, 2012).

7Some firms agree without hesitation to their employees’ requests concerning religious manifestations. Whilst they advance many reasons to justify this attitude, two motives predominate: the fear of being considered discriminatory and the desire for economic efficiency. For fear of their reputation suffering or of legal proceedings, but also through a lack of knowledge of the law and/or of the religion involved in such claims, some firms recruit an individual that they might otherwise not have selected, accept practices harmful to team spirit, allow actions that infringe safety or hygiene, or close their eyes to activities having similarities to proselytism, despite the dysfunctions that these actions may cause. Other firms justify their tendency to religious permissiveness by their desire to retain their employees or to recruit new staff based on their reputation for openness. Their aim is for “everyone to be efficient” (Bennani and Barth, 2012). These firms also highlight their detailed understanding of customer needs, access to new markets and the virtues of including religious or spiritual values within the sphere of the private organisation (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone, 2004).

8Some firms position themselves between “total acceptance” and “total refusal” in order to respond better to religious demands, basing their attitude on precise criteria with the aim of reconciling different concerns without sacrificing the overall interest. These firms, which generally are forward thinking in different areas concerning diversity, include religion as a new dimension to manage in the context of organisational constraints and a specific corporate culture. Here, managers are expected to solve each problem individually, using a “step-by-step” logic (Bennani and Barth, 2012). They respond to seemingly similar requests either positively or negatively, depending on their social, commercial or organisational consequences. Various reasons are mentioned, two main logics emerge to justify this posture, more subtle and complex than the preceding ones: the need to reflect the society in which the company is rooted (based on the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility), and the need for social dialogue. Firms that defend the idea of CSR look to reflect the diversity of their catchment area and, more generally, of the society in which they operate. The management of religious diversity can even be a promotional tool, socially and economically profitable (Bennani and Barth, 2012). Following this same CSR logic, firms that are oriented towards an attitude of compromise consider that they have a role to play in emancipating certain people who give too much importance to the religious aspect, for example by recruiting a woman who wears a veil and who is submissive with regard to men (Bouzar and Bouzar, 2009). These firms admit the de facto existence of tensions between freedom and equality, which can only be managed in a spirit of compromise. Their challenge is to define a collective framework for the exercise of individual rights. The logic here is similar to that of “reasonable accommodation” proposed in Canada: A country’s public culture is neither neutral nor universal; it is developed by the dominant groups, so a firm has to be egalitarian and accept minority practices. One might also speak of satisfying stakeholders, one of whom is “an invisible stakeholder”: spirituality, or God (Courau, 2013) the same way as for example satisfying the future generations. The second motivation at work in this compromise attitude is the attempt to offer staff a fulfilling work setting to promote social dialogue. Here, French labour law (Article L1222-1 of the Code of Employment) is taken literally: “the contract must be executed by the employer in good faith.” In other words, he must attempt to satisfy his employees’ demands equitably. As Courau (2013) puts it, this means reconciling individual autonomy with the company’s mission, avoiding both exclusion and absorption. Such firms use a top down procedure to recognise the religious dimension; to rethink and revitalise it in terms of possible individual action; to find in religion and ethics “a resource for thinking and teaching;” and to reflect on its decisions and actions (Thévenet, 2011).

1.2 – Attitudes elucidated by three levels of arguments

9The attitudes identified above represent three different levels of analysis: individual, organisational and societal.

10Religion is considered as a series of associated beliefs and practices, chosen (or not) by each individual, that can be apprehended through two dimensions. The first of these is identity: each person’s relationship to the sacred is unique, and each person has to decide whether to reveal this facet of his/her personality. At work, for example, employees may choose to introduce part of their personal identity into the firm. In this way, they decide whether to separate, merge or balance their professional identity and their personal identity (Kreiner et al., 2006; Sainsaulieu, 1992). Individuals can thus retain a spiritual or transcendent attitude to religion, which Wirtz, Paulus and Charlier (2012) call the vertical dimension. They can also decide to reveal their religious beliefs and manifest their religiousness (King et al., 2009) by displaying, for example, visible symbols in their style of dress or dietary habits. Religion is also a question of belonging: whilst some people decide to keep their religious beliefs for themselves, which Allport (1966) calls the intrinsic version of religion, others see it as a way of belonging to a group, the extrinsic version of religion. The latter group will join a group of individuals sharing the same religious convictions. The individual’s aspirations may remain outside the company, or encroach upon, or even merge with, their status as employee. In the latter case, they will often make demands, particularly related to the temporal dimension of religious practice (Wirtz et al., 2012), and impact the organization of teams.

11At work, religion echoes other human resources management issues, and can fall within the scope of other previously established policies. Private/professional life policies, are typically of three types: separation, integration and respect (Kirchmeyer, 1995; Kanter, 1977; Orthener and Pittman, 1986). While the first ignores the private life of the staff for economic or ideological reasons or for fear of a negative reaction by employees, the second response, integration, reduces the boundary between professional and personal life, on the model of the paternalistic employer. The final response, respect, maintains the boundary between private and working life, but, in their human resources management, makes allowance for personal constraints employees may have (for example, the organisation of leave or the installation of areas for prayer). Diversity management policies, typically of two types (Kirton, 2003, in Bender and Pigeyre, 2010): reactive and proactive. In the former, diversity is considered as a cost, managed using individual, short-term responses. In the latter, diversity is seen as a long-term strategic asset, in line with the “business case” approach (Cox and Blake, 1991). The religious issue can be managed using existing managerial policies, but can come into conflict with them, particularly in terms of discourse. In extreme cases, as highlighted by Gomez (2012), religious claims can indicate that certain individuals perceive the policies implemented to recognise and value their singularity as being meaningless.

12Religion is often presented as being a social concept, passed down through the history of the country in question. France, for example, is marked by its “Christian cultural infrastructure” (Willaime, 2007), which has influenced individual and organisational practices. History also moulds two other dimensions. Representations of the sacred and the profane: there are two opposing visions of every part of society. In the first, the sacred is everywhere, as suggested by Banon (2006), who considers that we can and must bring together political and religious frameworks, the linear time of economic life and the circular time of faith, earthly time and spiritual time. The other vision promotes the exclusion of the sacred and religion from certain parts of society, including organisations, both public and private (Chanlat, 1990). The relationship between religion and the law, which in France has been intimately linked since 1905 with the interpretation of the principle of secularity that establishes the separation of church and State. Whilst staff in state-owned companies and public authorities are forbidden to display their religion at work, the same does not apply in private companies. Staff in these firms are not subject to the principle of neutrality and have a recognised right to believe or not believe and to practise their religion at work, in accordance with the freedom of religious belief proclaimed in the 1958 Constitution. At the same time, the principle of non-discrimination (Code of Employment, Article L.1132-1) is used to delineate what is permissible for firms and their employees. The three principles at stake with regard to religious practice within society and more specifically at work are thus secularity, freedom and non-discrimination.

13To summarise, three main types of argument are used to explain the attitudes of companies. The attitude of denial/refusal excludes the question of religion from the organisation. Religion is considered by many firms as a private matter. Other arguments, at society level, are based on the idea of a clear separation between the sacred and the profane, or on the notion that secularity within firms confers a duty of unconditional neutrality. The attitude of acceptance is based on a representation of the individual as an employee who has to be managed. Firms adopting this attitude value a wide range of identities as a source of performance. They stress that religion, and more broadly spirituality and sacredness, do not stop at their door. Finally, they refer to the social issue of non-discrimination, particularly at work, and use the law to justify their attitude, which is intended to protect them against this type of accusation. The attitude of compromise is based on two types of arguments. Some firms justify their search for compromise by a desire to recognise the combination of professional and personal identity within each individual. They are willing for people to reveal their religious beliefs as an integral part of this dual identity, and aim to manage each case on its own merits. They consider their method as part of their policy to balance professional and private life. The challenge is to use it to increase performance. This attitude is also rooted in a vision of secularity in which all religions must be able to coexist. The sacred can therefore exist within the firm in its different forms, but this implies that concessions will have to be made for them to cohabit with existing policies and to protect the community as a whole.

2.1 – Research Methods

15This research is part of a project initiated in 2009 dealing with the issue of religious management in large non-state firms in France. We focused on large firms as they are more visible and their practices are more formalised. To analyse their discourse in this area, we used qualitative research methods based on three types of empirical data:

16- An exploratory qualitative survey, conducted between 2009 and 2011, of diversity or HR managers in 10 large French firms in the sectors of energy, transport, retail, food and training, using semi-structured interviews (17). The aim of the survey was to improve understanding of the nature of requests encountered by managers and the responses they made at institutional or local level.

17- Participatory observation (Peretz, 1998) of the AFMD Religion Commission (French Association of Diversity Managers), which organised monthly meetings of key players in this area, over a period of six months. These included diversity project leaders, Training or HR managers of several firms (including La Poste, IBM, Adecco, Veolia, SFR, Areva, Vinci, GDF Suez, Orange, Bouygues Construction and Air France); Higher Education Establishments; Institutional players, Experts in the field.

18- Company religious guides we knew of: Casino, RATP, La Poste, France Telecom/Orange and EDF. In addition, external guides, produced by specific associations dedicated to diversity/CSR questions ORSE, IMS and AFMD – produced after the Commission. Of course, we also investigated the discourses produced by the State Defender of Rights, the Medef (Employers’ Association) the Secularity Observatory and the Economic, Social and Environmental Council on this topic.

19After collecting this data, we analysed it in two stages. First, each of the researchers skim-read the documents to identify the nature and contents of the discourse, the tone employed and any salient features. Second, we analysed the data in the guides thematically on the basis of the criteria we had already established, isolating the topics in each text in order to compare them with the other texts dealing with similar topics (Ghiglione and Matalon, 1991). Finally, we triangulated this data (Miles and Huberman, 2003) using secondary data (minutes of meetings of the AFMD diversity commission and press articles) and primary data (from previous stages of our research between 2009 and 2013) to validate the positioning of the firms in line with one of the three attitudes.

2.2 – Results and discussion

20Our systematic analysis of the guides identifies discourses linked to the criteria previously detailed, to demonstrate the attitude of each firm and to reveal new dimensions of the phenomenon. It enables us to go further than detailing the contents of the guides as described by our interviewees.

2.3 – Guides and actors in the face of religious diversity

48In this section, we attempt to demonstrate that the discourse in these corporate guides deals not just with the management of religion, but also the interaction between the employee and the organisation and, more generally, how best to live together within companies. The refusal/denial attitude deals more or less exclusively with the relationship between the firm and its employees in which the former acts on the latter as a whole, rather than as individuals and marginalises their representatives. As Thevenet (2011) puts it, in his analysis of the relationship between religion and management, there is no “intersection between managerial and societal domains” (p. 34), no relation between private and public spheres, no dialogue between stakeholders and no “interconnection with the rest of the world, other people, space and time” (p. 35), that might question the meaning of the individual’s acts or those of the community. The attitude of acceptance focuses again on the relationship between the firm and its managers, a small number of actors. The connections between different spheres are also weak, even if in this case religion is accepted. The decisions are taken at the level of the organisation, which uses a whole range of arguments to accept everything. Using Thevenet’s (2011) terms once again, we can say that in the attitude of acceptance, the managerial and societal domains clearly intersect, but the dialogue between stakeholders remains poor, as does that with the rest of the world, other people, space and time, so that the issue of living together, the meaning of the action and the community is not tackled either. Finally, the compromise attitude takes account of all the organisation’s stakeholders in an attempt to reconcile individual, organisational and societal needs. EDF, for example, considers the religious guide as “a tool for dialogue with the staff, their representatives and the firm’s suppliers.” It is “a method of evaluation, enabling HR or other managers, either alone or, if they wish, together with the staff or their representatives, to assess the situation.” Here, the management of religious claims recognises third parties, encourages dialogue between stakeholders, links the managerial and societal domains, interconnects with the rest of the world and, finally, understands the community as more than a collection of individuals.

49“The role of the HR or other manager does not consist in adjudicating about the religious motives of an employee’s behaviour or demands, because he cannot judge someone else’s conscience. However, he has to assess the repercussions of this behaviour or demand on work, by considering the interests of the firm and the rights and safety of people at work.” As this extract from the EDF guide stresses, the religious dimension should concern the HR department directly. The responsibility of the HR department is to manage all the contradictions connected with human relations within an organisation (Brabet, 1993), so here the task is to manage a “new” contradiction. This consists in recognising and receiving religious demands from employees, whilst setting limits on manifestations of this facet of cultural identity. This responsibility is, moreover, in theoretical and normative terms, the remit of the human resources manager considered as an agent of change, a staff developer or a credible activist (Ulrich, 2010; Brockbank et al., 2012). In this view, the HR department should be at the forefront of religious diversity management within companies. However, their position is made more difficult by the creation of a new position in the large firms that produce religious guides: the diversity manager. The responsibility of all these managers, despite their varying professional backgrounds, is to represent social diversity and initiate change in HRM and more broadly throughout the company (Broussillon et al., 2007). They are a source of proposals and initiatives for the HR department, which is often considered helpless to tackle these issues. “The HR department is lost with regard to these subjects, compared to the others. They’re a bit like an army on the march. In the four other areas, they advance as one, because they have to. But with religion or sexual orientation, they’re lost” (CSR Manager, banking). The guides often marginalise the HR department to some extent. They are produced by diversity departments (sometimes in indirect collaboration with HR experts), and rarely mention the HR department, except as a resource to be used in the face of employees’ questions. “If necessary, contact your Human Resources manager. If certain points remain unanswered, [contact] the Social and Political Diversity Observatory Unit” (extract from the RATP guide). This situation is a result of the declared intention of senior management to “infuse” all management practices with their diversity policy, rather than constrain it to HR tools and processes. However, this also raises questions for the HR department. The fact of being limited to implementing a process developed elsewhere seems to limit the power of HR managers, considered less and less as interfaces” (Barès and Cornolti, 2006) with regard to conflict. Thus, religious diversity management might be a new illustration of how difficult it is for the HR department to deal with strategic issues. The role of HR managers as “scapegoats” (Sanséau et al., 2013) may be strengthened if they are simply considered as an option for implementing rules for the management of religious diversity that are decided elsewhere.

50To summarise, the religious issue can be seen first as revealing the dominant logic that consists in professionalising HR management (Monneuse and Gilbert, 2011). The role as an operational option is consistent with a “business logic” based on decentralisation to operational units or an “enterprise logic,” in which responsibilities are shared among all types of employees within the company. However, this issue may also symbolise another wasted opportunity for HR managers to seize on a “new” topic to establish their expertise and value creation with regard to the rest of the firm.