Explain and critically evaluate the Managing Diversity

and Equal Opportunities approaches and justify your

choice of approach for HR Managers.
 Table of Contents

1. Front Page ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 01

2. Table of Content ----------------------------------------------------------------- 02

3. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 03

4. Literature Review --------------------------------------------------------------- 03

5. Managing Diversity versus Equal Opportunity Approach ---------------- 05

6. Problems with managing diversity and equal opportunity approaches -- 06

7. Managing Diversity approach for HR managers --------------------------- 07

8. Conclusion ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 07

9. References ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 09

10. Appendices ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

2
Introduction: Research shows that despite various types of initiatives including government
legislation, equality initiatives, affirmative action programs, voluntary codes of practices and
many more towards equality, there is still a lot more to be done in order to promote women
and minority groups in the workplace. The first approach that virtually all governments and
organisations have been using since its formation is the “equal opportunity” legislation that
seeks equality and justice in both the workplace and society. Fundamentally, equal
opportunity is a legislation that prevents discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, age,
disability, religion etc. However, in this day and age, discrimination can take more complex
forms than can be simply identified by the groups covered in the equal opportunities
legislation. As a result of the shortcomings of the legislation, a more sophisticated and
relatively new approach has been developed in the United States. . Unlike equal opportunity,
the core theme of this approach is to recognise and appreciate the differences in the
workforce and utilise those differences to achieve maximum outcome and profit. This new
approach is known as ‘managing diversity’.

The purpose of this essay is to scrutinise and evaluate the most talked about ‘managing
diversity’ and ‘equal opportunity’ approaches in order to indentify the more suitable one
between the two for today’s human resource managers.

Literature Review: According to Bagilhole (1997), equal opportunity in the UK has been
developed through several stages. She suggested that in the 1940s morality was the main
agenda. It was mainly about restoring impaired war veterans in the mainstream workforce.
But during the 1960s and 1970s the establishment of government legislation became the main
concern. As a result of which the whole equal opportunity agenda became politicised in the
1980s. Furthermore, membership of European Union added a whole new element into the
equal opportunity agenda at the same time. Young (2000) argues that the EU equal
opportunity agenda has both positive and negative effects. Ostner and Lewis (1995) stated
that because of the link between the EU directives and the national legislation, a member
country can promote only those policies that meet the local values and culture and avoid
others that do not. Bagilhole (1997) states the 1990s as the “economic, public relations and
professional” era by which equal opportunities was incorporated into the political
establishment.

Fundamentally there are three types of models of equality that exist in the literature. The first
is formal equality, otherwise known as a free and open contest for scarce resources (Flew,

3
1976). It is the principal ingredient in the legislation of equal opportunities in Britain, such as
the Race Relations Act 1976, (amended 2000), the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (amended
1986), the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and subsequently the regulations about
religion, age and sexuality.

Formal equality is directed at a form of discrimination termed “direct discrimination”. It

refers to a situation where an individual or a group of individuals targets another individual or
another group of individuals for unfavourable treatment. This type of discrimination is
tackled by standardised and firm procedures. The theory says discrimination takes place
through the exercise of discretion. So there is no room for discretion to be taken place, and
therefore no discrimination occurs, if everyone is treated equally.

The second one is liberal equality of opportunity, also known as prospect-relating to equal
opportunities. The idea can be undertaken by targeting supplementary resources to the areas,
which are underdeveloped. This is often known as “area-based positive discrimination”
(Edwards and Batley, 1978). There is another common shape of liberal equality of
opportunity that is known as positive action. This can be carried out in a number of ways,
such as, determining the goals and targets, advertising in a certain media in order to reach
certain groups of people, and further training for the people who are already occupying the
posts. Positive action is now one of the core components of the equal opportunities agenda.

On the other hand we have now begun to see a growing interest in “managing diversity” as an
alternative to the conventional equal opportunity approach. It had been predicted that by the
early 1990s, managing diversity would become increasingly dominant in the UK. Equal
opportunity approaches are regarded as becoming obsolete and therefore unable to satisfy the
emerging challenges of the new century. This is largely because the whole equal opportunity
agenda was created for the 1960s and 1970s political and social needs (Iles, 1995; Wilson
and Iles, 1999). Jawson and Mason (1994) argue that the development of managing diversity,
focusing on individuals rather than groups, was in harmony with the newly emerging “new
right” that places emphasis on individualism and recognises that it as an acceptable way to
function. Bartz et al. (1990, p.321) identifies the term managing diversity as-

“Understanding that there are differences among employees and that these differences, if
properly managed, are an asset to work being done more efficiently and effectively.
Examples of diversity factors are race, culture, ethnicity, gender, age, a disability, and work
experience.”

4
There are two parts of this definition that primarily distinguishes managing diversity from
equal opportunity. Firstly, unlike equal opportunity, it shifts the importance of positive
interpretation on differences between staff. Secondly, it includes some additional factors
(known as diversity factors) that are not covered in the equal opportunity legislation. A
managing diversity approach emphasises on individuals rather than groups, and involves the
development of individuals, and not just simply a minority group. As a consequence,
managing diversity assists everyone rather than certain underprivileged groups or areas.

Managing Diversity versus Equal Opportunity Approaches: One of the core differences
between managing diversity and equal opportunity is associated with the force for change.
Whereas external forces, such as government legislations, social fairness, ethical and human
rights etc, tend to drive the equal opportunity, managing diversity tends to be driven by
internal forces within the organisational structure and is immediately connected with the
bottom line.

Another difference between these two approaches are their goals. The goal of equal
opportunity has been mentioned as social justice and rectifying errors that have been made
previously in the past: “to correct an imbalance, an injustice, a mistake” (Thomas, 1990, p.
108). On the other hand the main goal of managing diversity is discussed in much broader
terms; that is to treat employees as individuals, acknowledge that each of them has unique
needs and therefore will need different sorts of assistance in order to succeed, describes
Geber, 1992. The core motivation behind the equal opportunity framework at governmental
level and the equal opportunity strategies and practices at organisational level has been
identified as an attempt to establish equality. For example, the creation of such a community
or organisation, where men and women are dealt with in the same manner and no advantage
or disadvantage is given to them based on their sex. In contrast, the term ‘managing diversity’
is there to point out the significance of difference and put forward a viewpoint where
difference is welcomed and is considered as an advantage rather than a disadvantage to the
organisation.

In essence, the economic and business cases are the main fundamental driving force for the
managing diversity approach for identifying and evaluating differences. This is in
comparison to the ethical case to treat everyone evenly, which is the main driving force for
the equal opportunity approach. The equal opportunity approach is there to have an impact on
behaviour through legislation in order to eliminate discrimination.

5
Finally, managing diversity is regarded as a more integrated approach to put equality into
practice and is described to be the responsibility of all managers, whereas equal opportunity
approaches are driven only by the human resource managers. Torrington et al. (2002) has
produced a table of differences between these two approaches, which has been given in the
appendices (table-1).

Problems with managing diversity and equal opportunity approaches: Although

managing diversity approaches were seen by many as a redefined alternative, and also as a
strategy for even greater progress in terms of equality, to the equal opportunities approach,
this progress has appeared to be very little noticed. Some argue that changing the term from
equal opportunity to diversity management may just be a way of making it more colourful in
today’s perspective and therefore just simply a mechanism to reinvigorate the equal
opportunity agenda.

Recent studies indicate that there are only a small number of organisations that can be
referred to as management of diversity exemplars, and even those who claim to be such
organisations, do not have a more diverse workforce than their counterparts. Moreover,
during the past five years these organisations did not employ more minority groups. There is
another fairly strong argument that if the primary feature of managing diversity is the
concentration on individualism, then this may well narrow our consciousness about
underprivileged social groups (Liff, 1999).

Finally, the managing diversity approach can be considered and labelled as introspective as it
is concerned only with those people who are already in the organisation. According to
Donaldson (1993), he terms it as “managing rather than expanding diversity”. It must be
noted that it cannot be possible to manage a diverse workforce until this diverse workforce is
acquired.

On the other hand an equal opportunity approach has its own problems as well. As mentioned
earlier, one of the main criticisms is that the equal opportunity legislations do not protect all
the minority groups, and therefore there is still room for discrimination to take place.
Moreover there is a general concern over the fact that it does not also receive the support it
should have gained from organisations. This is partially because of the fact that the core
equality objectives are not prepared solely for the businesses and as a result it is not as
compatible with business objectives as its alternative.

6
Equal opportunity lays its central focus on formal processes and it is often impossible to
formalise every single process in an organisation. A recent study indicates that an equal
opportunity approach isolated a substantial part of the workforce that consisted of those
employees, who were not identified as disadvantaged or minority groups. This therefore had
the effect that those workers considered that their opportunities were hindered. On top of that
there are a considerable number of workers, who feel that entry standards have been lowered
by the equal opportunity initiatives. These findings indicate a rather worrying picture of a
divided workforce that can be resulted as a demotivating factor for workers and therefore
lowering growth, productivity and profits in organisations. Liff (1999) indicates that
“traditional equal opportunity strategies encourage a view that women (and other groups)
have a problem and need help” (p.70).

In essence, the equal opportunity approach is believed to be an oversimplified approach to a

complicated problem, and is effective only in dealing with the symptoms rather than the roots
of discrimination that take place.

Managing Diversity approach for HR Managers: After much scrutiny and in-depth critical
evaluation of both approaches, I am of the opinion that employing a managing diversity
approach over an equal opportunity approach is better suited for the human resource
managers. This is largely because of the limitations associated with the equal opportunity
approach. Although the managing diversity approach has its own limitations, those
limitations are not as severe as the limitations of the other approach. A managing diversity
approach allows managers the authority to take steps that are necessary for growing and
furthering the productivity and profit of both the employee and the organisation. This is
because it focuses not only on formal processes, but also on the outcome and results.
Managing diversity recognises individuals as a single entity and deals accordingly with its
unique needs, and therefore often produces a better result. For example, women need
managing and developing in different ways to their male counterparts. They represent a
different culture than men do and managing diversity recognises and welcomes that
difference. In comparison, the organisations that follow the equal opportunity approach,
would not recognise these significant differences and would therefore fail to fulfil their
needs.

7
Conclusion: In this day and age managers and professionals are facing an ever-challenging
task to create work places that recognise the demands and responds to the opportunities of a
diverse workforce. Successful leaders must cross their own cultural boundaries in order to
encourage a vigorous and powerful cross-cultural communication and create cultural synergy
in the workplace. They must recognise and take full advantage of the productivity potential
that is inherent in a diverse population. Organisations and governments alike must appreciate
that we now operate in a global village, with a highly sophisticated market place. In order to
be successful, organisations will have to harness the abilities of all their employees to the
highest order. A structure in which equal opportunities are available for all with a managing
diversity culture would be the ideal combination for a successful organisation.

8
References:

 Bagilhole, B. (1997), Equal Opportunities and Social Policy: Issues of Race, Gender
and Disability, Addison Wesley Longman, London.

 Barz, D.E., Hillman, L.W., Lehrer, S. and Mayhugh, G.M. (1990), “A model for
managing workforce diversity”, Management Education and Development, Vol.21
No.5, pp.321-6.

 Donaldson, L. (1993), “The recession: a barrier to equal opportunities?”, Equal

Opportunities Review, No.50, July/August.

 Edwards, J. and Batley, R. (1978), The Politics of Positive Discrimination, Tavistock

Pubns, London.

 Ellis, C. and Sonnenfield, J.A. (1993), “Diverse approaches to managing diversity”,

Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring, pp. 79-109.

 Flew, A.G.N. (1976), Sociology, Equality and Education: Philosophical Essays in

Defence of a Variety of Differences, Macmillan, London.

 Geber, B., “Managing diversity”, Training, July 1992, pp.23-30.

 Iles, P. (1995), “Learning to work with difference”, Personnel Review, Vol.24 No.6,
pp.44-60.

 Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1994), “Race, employment and equal opportunities:

towards a political economy and an agenda for the 1990s”, Sociological Review,
Vol.42 No.4, pp.597-717.

 Liff, S. (1999), “Diversity and Equal Opportunities: room for a constructive

compromise?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.19, No.1, pp.65-75.

 Ostner, I. and Lewis, J. (1995), “Gender and the evolution of European social
policies”, in Leibfried, S. and Pierson, P. (Eds), European social policy: Between
Fragmentation and Integration, Brooking Institution, Washington, DC, pp.159-193.

 Thomas, R.R.Jr, “From affirmative action to affirming diversity”, Harvard Business

Review, March-April 1990, p.114.

9
 Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S. (2002), Human Resource Management,
Pearson Education Limited, England.

 Wilson, E.M. and Iles, P.A. (1999), “Managing diversity – an employment and
service delivery challenge”, The International Journal of Public Sector Management,
Vol. 12 No.1.

 Young, B. (2000), “Disciplinary neoliberalism in the EU and gender politics”,

Political economy, Vol.5, No.1, pp.77-98.

10
Appendices:

Table.1

Fundamental differences between ‘managing diversity’ and ‘equal opportunity’ approaches

(Torrington et all., 2002, pp.371):

Aspect Managing Diversity Equal Opportunity

Purpose Utilise employee potential to Reduce discrimination

maximum advantage.

Case argued Business case- improve Moral and ethical.

profitability.

Whose All managers. HR/personnel department.

responsibility

Focuses on Individuals. Groups.

Perspective Integrated. Dealing with different needs

of different groups.

Benefits for Opportunities improved for all Opportunities improved for

employees employees. disadvantaged groups,
primarily through setting
targets.

Focus on Managing. Recruitment.

Management
activity

Remedies Changing the culture. Changing systems and

practices.

11