Introduction Whenever a new concept, notion or technique comes into being, there are people who might accept

it and those that might oppose it. The arguments of both the opponents and proponents often lie in the sameness or difference of the new concept from the old one. The same issue is addressed in this paper with the new concept of managing diversity and prior equal opportunity (EO) policies. To make sense of the issue, the paper takes into consideration literature specific to the issue. At the heart of this paper is an analysis of Webb (1997) and Gilbert et al. (1999), and whether propositions in these articles pronounce diversity management (DM) as new for equality policy-making or not.

EO Orthodoxy and DM As a result of civil movements by minorities, several Western nations enacted legislation that appointed equal rights to minorities or at least protected them from discrimination. Amongst the legislation that came up, an important aspect was ensuring equal employment opportunities (EEO) or equal opportunities (EO) at the workplace. Amongst the various tenets of the approach (called affirmative action in general, or EO orthodoxy in Webbs article), the most prominent were that businesses were bound by legal obligations to achieve minority goals, to pay equally, and to avoid discriminating based on gender or race. In organizations, affirmative action did not culminate into an organization-wide change but rather simply legal compliance by the HR department. Although most businesses complied with

affirmative action to some extent, only some proactively created programs to align themselves with affirmative action policies (Webb 1997). In cases where affirmative action programs were sought, formal procedures had to be followed as dictated by regulatory equal opportunity institutions such as EOC (Webb 1997). Nevertheless, affirmative action never was able to gain popular consensus in commercial and policy-making circles because of immensely negative perception and criticism. Criticism was leveled not only at the narrow scope of the affirmative action but also at the effect it had. The essential issue was that while affirmative action legislation existed, it wasnt properly excised and relevant bodies did not hold enough authority (Webb 1997). This lack of enforcement resulted in businesses not particularly keen on following the rules outlined with the legislation and hence little was achieved in terms of equality. The formalization that was intrinsic to EO orthodoxy only instigated this lack of practice of legislation. Besides the lack of practice, even when EO orthodoxy was applied, there remained the issue of suitability and acceptability of individuals (Webb 1997). Affirmative action mandated that individuals be hired on the basis of suitability; however, many professions tend to hire based on acceptability. Even in other professions, the notions of suitability and acceptability were not easily separated. This often resulted in biased hiring even after EO orthodoxy approaches had been put in place. Moreover, EO orthodoxy also caused companies to often lower their hiring and performance standards so that lessskilled or able minorities could be hired to reflect compliance (Gilbert et al. 1999). For these reasons, EO orthodoxy never really gained traction in commercial circles.

Shockingly, the criticism of affirmative action mostly came from the minorities themselves specifically women (Gilbert et al. 1999). As EO orthodoxy failed, a new equality approach came from the US; diversity management (DM). Where EO orthodoxy had been a cost to businesses, DM outlined an approach that would not only achieve parity but also provide businesses with a competitive edge. The essentials of DM are best put forward by Kandola and Fullerton (1994:8); the basic concept of managing diversity accepts that the workforce consists of a diverse population of people. The diversity consists of visible and non-visible differences which will include factors such as sex, age, background, race, disability, personality and workstyle. It is founded on the premise that harnessing these differences will create a productive environment in which everybody feels valued, where their talents are being fully utilized and in which organizational goals are met. According to Gilbert et al. (1999), DM also potentia lly could allow for higher organizational profit decreases in frustration and turnover increased problem solving capabilities positive spillover effect It should be noted that while there were issues with DM potentially the absence of a model for implementation, or the different variations that existed of it there was also case evidence that pointed towards DMs benefit (Gilbert et al. 1999). Moreover, Gilbert et al. (1999) also proposed a model to effective DM implementation which could have potentially ensured the achievement of DMs benefits. With such immense benefits and start contrast in reception of EO orthodoxy, it might seem as if DM is a revolutionary new organizational paradigm; however, this needs to be assessed against Webb (1997)s findings and also other diversity literature.

Webbs Criticism of DM Looking at Gilbert et al. (1999)s model, an individual might be inclined to think that there are significant differences between diversity management and equal opportunity orthodoxy. However, it is important that the impact of diversity management on the minorities is assessed before it is concluded that DM is a new organizational paradigm. This can be found in Webb (1997)s case analysis of CommCo. CommCo is described as a typical multicultural company with effectual DM in place. Regardless of DM practice, Webb (1997) finds that CommCo is still affected by issues that are rampant in EO models. Five essential issues are raised by Webb (1997) who goes on to state that the existence of these issues inadvertently maintain the status quo of male superiority in organizations. The primary issue that Webb (1997) points out is that while DM does put a positive outlook on most personnel differences the filter of this outlook is the profit motive. As such, if a difference does not satisfy the private organizations tendency towards profit, it is likely to not be considered. In such cases, DM may potentially inhibit businesses from gaining the competitive edge for which DM is popular. It should be noted that this is the popularizing factor of DM, i.e. the fact that it has essential benefits to the business. If this is lost, then DM is no different than EO models. It should be realized, also, that even taking out Webbs criticism, it should be realized that both EO and DM are essential approaches to allow for a more diverse workforce and less workplace discrimination.

Subsequently,

it

should

also

realized

that

under

DM,

competitive

individualism comes into play. The notion of competitive individualism ensures that women are not able to emphasize their differences themselves except the differences that the DM program explicitly realizes. This is not only the case with women, but all minorities and individuals become subject to competitive individualism, and hence it can be said that harmony is achieved, more or less, by lack of stated complaints rather than lack of actual complaints. Moreover, if minorities are restricted from announcing their complaints by their own acceptance, it would not mean a more equal workplace is achieved; but only a workplace wherein discrimination is not talked about is achieved. Thirdly, Webb (1997) observes that acceptability tends to be an essential criterion in team-based organizations that are popular in flexible organizations. It should be noted that it is the concept of this flexible organizations that has propagated the concept of diversity management in the first place, and hence, acceptability tends to be an immense basis of recruitment and hiring in DM firms. Fourthly, it should be noted that DM does not address for the long-term policies wherein women can continue their domestic life, while pursuing their career. This means that women cannot attain higher or senior positions as businesses tend to demand unlimited commitment and women cannot provide this without sacrificing their domestic life. Lastly, it should be noted that in a merit-based HR strategy which DM supposes line managers are bound to have a significant say in employee recruitment and appraisal. Webb (1997) notes that line manager often can tend towards a particular preference which can hinder a diverse workplace from being

realized. Moreover, even if women are to exist under such a line manager, they would need to conform themselves to his requirements so that they receive appropriate appraisals. For these reasons, it should be noted that the difference between DM and EO models is slightly narrowed down as despite inherent differences, both of them fail to address the actual issues at hand.

Other Literature While the aforementioned context of comparison (i.e. of only two research articles) might have made the issue seemed as rather trivial, there is literature that specifically discusses whether or not diversity management was actually a new organizational paradigm (Kelly and Dobbin 1998). According to Kelly and Dobbin (1998:971-2), diversity management initiatives were actually brought about by individuals within US institutions that formerly supported and devised affirmative action policies. Kelly and Dobbin (1998) observe that the insignificance of affirmative action had been already realized by the government. Following this, individuals that were part of affirmative action composed different diversity measures in order to ensure their livelihood and proposed these in a new packaging to large US companies. However, as Kelly and Dobbin (1998) do not provide empirical or even anecdotal evidence of some of their propositions, their argument largely falls

through. Instead, Lorbiecki and Jack (2000)s study of all scientific critique and inquire into diversity management may allow us to realize where exactly DM stands. Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) did find some similarities with Webb (1997), however in

comparison to the findings that differentiated DM from EO orthodoxy, notions outlining DM as a repackaged organizational paradigm was scarce. Hence, it should be noted that findings from other literature largely points towards DM being a new organizational paradigm, albeit with slight arguments.

Conclusion From the aforementioned analysis of Webb (1997), Gilbert et al. (1999), and other relevant literature, several conclusions maybe reached. First of all, it should be noted that most literature iobserves DM to be different than prior EO policies; however, some literature also illustrates that some of the DM initiatives had existed well before the notion was conceived. However, Webbs case analysis dismisses notions of DMs difference from prior EO policies through the overall impact of both the policies. In essence, Webb observes that there isnt much difference in what happens after the application of an EO policy or a DM initiative. However, herein, the concluding remarks of Gilbert et al. should be taken into consideration. It should be realized that literature of diversity is filled with rhetoric rather than actual empirical evidence. Moreover, it should also be noted that case-based studies are severely restricted in its observation and cannot be deemed representative of the several other businesses that employ DM initiatives. It should also be realized that if cases are to be considered, Gilbert et al (1999) provides with many more times the cases that support DM being a new organizational paradigm that is capable of providing businesses with a competitive edge. Taking into consideration all of this, it might be

said that DM is indeed a new organizational paradigm; however, its practical application is severely lacking and it needs to be much more developed so that parity can holistically be achieved.

References Gilbert, J.A., Stead, B.A., and Ivancevich, J.M. (1999). Diversity management: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), pp. 61-76. Kandola, R., and Fullerton, J. (1994). Managing the Mosaic Diversity in Action. IPD, London. Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management Employer Response to Antidiscrimination Law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(7), pp. 960-984. Lorbiecki, A., & Jack, G. (2002). Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of Management, 11(1), pp. 17-31. Webb, J. (1997). The politics of equal opportunity. Gender, Work & Organization, 4(3), pp. 159-169.