Introduction In UK, two equality policies have been put forward; affirmative action and managing diversity.

While affirmative action has been around for nearly five decades now, it hasnt received much positive attention and the attention it has received has been mostly negative. On the contrary, managing diversity has been promoted as revolutionary and beneficial for businesses. To quote De Cieri and Kumar (2003), the bottom line is that to gain a competitive advantage in the next decade, companies must harness the power of the diverse workforce. These practices are needed, not only to meet employee needs, but to reduce turnover costs and ensure that customers receive the best service possible. This difference in treatment between MD and AA raises eyebrows and calls for an assessment of whether diversity management is a new organizational paradigm for equality policy-making; such that a previous approach towards equality has been criticized while MD has been critically acclaimed. This paper, as such, aims to achieve this assessment by looking at the notion of MD and prior EO policies. First, the paper would consider extensively literature on pre-MD approach, and then MD itself would be considered. After both the approaches have been described, their tenants and criticism would be evaluated against each other to assess whether differences exist or not. Based on this assessment, it would then be concluded whether managing diversity is a new organizational paradigm.

Literature Review EO Orthodoxy

The years leading to managing diversity were filled with strikes and calls for equal rights to minority groups (most often being blacks and women) in US and UK. This led to various legislations and acts being passed that emphasized upon equal opportunities for these minorities. Such legislation was known as positive action in the Britain, and is essentially what Webb (1997) calls EO Orthodoxy. The purpose of EO orthodoxy approaches was to legally incline or enforce institutions to take up policies that ensured all minorities were provided with equal opportunities and discrimination was avoided by organizations. According to Webb (1997:160), the legal approach to equal opportunity (or what Webb calls EO orthodoxy), is based on the economic assumption that social inequalities construe the rational economic model and hence can cause market failure. Moreover, Webb (1997:160) also observed that social injustice can exclude recruitment of appropriate individuals because of prejudiced individuals. For these reasons, it was thought that government should intervene to ensure that market failures due to social injustice do not arise. This government intervention resulted in EO orthodoxy approaches such as affirmative and positive action. The positive action approach was widely criticized. Webb (1997:160-1) highlights two essential criticisms of EO orthodoxy. Firstly, it was observed that the legislation was not followed by most private sector organizations. The non-practice of positive action was essentially because employers did not see much benefit and enforcement bodies did not hold much power. The more prominent critique was on the EO orthodoxy model itself. The model was criticized for various reasons; it was based on bureaucracy and formalization and the underlying assumptions were slightly misguided. Formalization meant that procedures had to be set-up to ensure minorities are treated equally;

however, it also meant extra work and even then equality might not be achieved if the procedures themselves were neglected or designed intentionally to support majorities. Moreover, the underlying assumption behind EO orthodoxy was that it assumed that the notion of acceptability and suitability were different and employment should be on the basis of suitability rather than acceptability. However, critiques noted that acceptability and suitability cannot be separated (Webb and Liff, 1988) and efficiency of various unskilled or semi-skilled jobs was based on the notion of acceptability (Jewson and Mason, 1986). Webb (1997) points towards substantial empirical studies that illustrate the triviality of EO Orthodoxys success; despite EO orthodoxy initiatives, women st ill faced low-pay, poor job conditions and occupational segregation. It should be noted that Gilbert et al. (1999) states that much of the criticism that EO orthodoxy faces is because of inaccurate perceptions that arise because of incorrect usage of term quota. It should be realized that EO orthodoxy pronounced for organizations through soft laws or suggestions of governmental institutions (such as EOC) certain goals that had to be achieved for a more EO workplace. However, these goals were often mistermed as quotas in literature and this caused negative perception of EO orthodoxy. However, even Gilbert et al. (1999) go on to criticize affirmative action as resulting in people [who] never experienced discrimination reaping benefits, lower hiring and performance standards, stigmatize[d] beneficiaries, etc. In light of such negative perception, the efficacy of affirmative action has come to be doubted by the legal authorities themselves. It has shifted focus towards the notion of managing diversity; which is said to be contrarily beneficial to businesses.

Managing Diversity The notion of managing diversity is one that has been imported into the UK from the US. Gilbert et al. (1999) defines diversity management as voluntary efforts to deal with diversity related issues. However, it should be noted that there is no fixed definition of MD, and there are as many definition as papers on MD; to this extent Webb (1997) calls MD nebulous. From the outset, there are many differences that an individual may realize in MD. First of all, as could be seen in cases in Gilbert et al. (1999), MD takes into consideration greater amount of variables related to diversity than affirmative action. For instance, EO orthodoxy might take into account wages or work hours to judge equal treatment; however, in essence, there are bound to much more variables that affect an individual feel equally treated in a diverse work environment. Secondly, unlike AA, MD initiatives are led by the organization itself and mostly tend to garnish much more support from the organization. It should be noted that while various AA initiatives were set-up within organizations, compliance was essentially only on paper. Thirdly, MD is assumed in various studies and literature to produce beneficial effects for the business which allow it to gain competitive edge. Gilbert et al. (1999) cite Cox and Blake (1991) to illustrate five ways in which competitive advantage might be achieved; cost-reducing turnover and absent resource acquisition -attracting the best personnel as the labor pool shrinks and changes marketing -bringing insight and cultural sensitivity to the marketing effort creativity-increasing creativity and innovation problem solving-bringing a wider range of perspectives and more thorough critical analysis and system flexibility-reacting to environmental changes faster and at less

cost. The differences between the two equ ality approaches are only intensified if Gilbert et al. (1999)s model is taken into consideration.

Discussion and Analysis From Gilbert et al. (1999), it is quite clear that there are benefits to effective diversity management. However, Gilbert et al. (1999) accepts that much of the prodiversity literature is heavy on rhetoric and light on empirical findings. To this end, the necessity of a quantitative model through which diversity management can be assessed is highlighted. It should be noted that while a quantitative model might not exist, Webb (1997) provides for an essential critique of a firm that can be considered effectively managing diversity. It highlights three criticisms of market-led (for e.g. MD) initiatives of equality. Under MD, differences of minorities (gender or race) is acknowledged and utilized only if it has the potential to transform into a profit motive. For instance, in a society where women do not tend to shop, a retailer is not likely to hire as many female staff. Moreover, in an environment implying MD, an individual that complaints is likely to be considered as unable to cope with the diverse environment, and this is likely to reinforce male norms. Thirdly, acceptability of women to certain positions might be risked based on the very differences that MD acknowledges. This means that inadvertently MD is likely to cause discrimination based on existing differences because it acknowledges them. The problem underlies Webb (1997)s argument is that while taking into account differences might allow for a more effective diverse workplace, it also means that negative differences are also taken into account. Moreover, it also

enforces the dominance of the standard from which difference is assessed which in most cases is the white male. It should also be realized that Webb (1997)s study also shows that even within the case of MD, it is quite likely that certain managers or individuals in the company do not abide by it. Hence, MD can also face the same issue as EO orthodoxy of non-compliance. As such, it should be realized that while MD might have business benefits, it does not actually address the wide criticism for which EO orthodoxy has been negatively perceived. While such similarities in criticism and the inability of MD to address the underlying issue of discrimination might make it seem similar to AA, some factors should be taken into consideration. It should be noted that the company Webb (1997) takes into account has certain issues and does not properly abide by the effective diversity management model designed by Gilbert et al. (1999). Moreover, it should be noted the literature on diversity heavily supports MD as an organizational paradigm. For instance, Wilson and Iles (1999) explicitly state MD as the new paradigm which affects the whole organization and necessitates the whole organization to be involved for its success. Moreover, Wilson and Iles also differentiate it from earlier equality approaches by highlighting the following differences; 1. While AA is based only legal compliance, MD seeks MD to be instilled as a part of organisational objectives. 2. AA is quite restrictive and minimal in what needs to be achieved which further only results in minimal effort from the company itself to abide by the minimal requirements.

3. AA only defines equal treatment as far as gender or race is concerned; when sexuality or other diversity factors come into play, AA lacks whereas MD effectively manages.

Conclusion From the aforementioned analysis, it is quite clear that despite its similarities, managing diversity is essentially different from prior equal opportunity policies. The difference lies in the manner in which equality is treated in both the EO strategies. Prior strategies focused on providing different genders or races with equal treatment through job benefits, employment opportunities, pay scale, etc. However, MD does not, per se, emphasizes the same treatment of diverse groups and individuals at workplace. MD focuses on realizing the differences that exist between diverse groups and individuals and addressing these differences so that discrimination is not felt. It should also be realized that MD also has important business implications. Previously, EO strategies were not assessed to possess any significant business benefits. However, MD literature is filled with praises and usefulness to gaining competitive edge. Hence, it should be realized that, indeed, MD is a new paradigm rather than the rebranding or modification of already existing EO paradigms.

References De Cieri, H. and Kramar, R. (2003). Human Resource Management. McGraw Hill, Sydney. Gilbert, J.A., Stead, B.A., and Ivancevich, J.M. (1999). "Diversity management: A new organizational paradigm." Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1): 61-76. Webb, J. (1997) "The politics of equal opportunity." Gender, Work & Organization, 4(3): 159-169. Wilson, E. and Iles, P. (1999) Managing Diversity An Employment and Service Delivery Challenge. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(1): 27-48.