Compare & contrast the concepts of equal opportunities and diversity management - Essay Example

Comparison and contrast of the concepts of ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘diversity management’ Introduction Diversity management refers to a methodical approach that many organizations use to recruit and maintain employees from varied human backgrounds. This notion of diversity originated from the United States. The worry of managing diversity cropped up due to the escalating demographic difficulty in the market. This concept further spread to the UK in the mid 1990s where the British found it crucial in their businesses.

Currently, most UK organizations have embraced the diversity management model over the equality opportunities theory in their organizational planning (Greene 2009, p.159). This essay will compare both the equal opportunity and diversity management approaches and analyze whether the latter model is a unique method of management or a means, which weakens the equal opportunities theory in the UK. Comparison of the concepts of ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘diversity management’ In order to compare the two approaches, two vital areas are considered.

First is the emphasis of action; equal opportunity approach mainly focuses on group discrimination and group creativity and thin optimist knowledge foundation is its building block. On the other hand, diversity management theory emphasises on the growth of all people, worldwide initiatives and extensive knowledge foundation reinforces it tremendously (Pitts 2009, p.328). From the B&Q business case for diversity, we can deduce that B&Q developed worldwide initiatives starting as a small store in 1969 and later expanding worldwide to France, Taiwan and China.

When B&Q experienced a drop in the housing market in 2007-2009, its main plans aimed at doubling the profits and strong emphasis on people. This is in accordance to the diversity management objectives on growth of people. Secondly, there is the level of incorporation. Equal opportunity tends to be operational and concerned with the process and can be influenced externally by low buy-in. Conversely, diversity management is strategic, worried of outcomes and can be internalized by all (Girling 2000, p.419). The expansion of B&Q into Chinese market was done through a strategy of vertical integration.

It is also concerned with the outcome of employing old people on their customers. Contrast of the concepts of ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘diversity management’ Diversity management focuses at encouraging employees to bring their ultimate potential to the organization as a result of their differences contrary to equality whereby discrimination is rampant. B&Q took the time to sort out problems associated with older employees instead of discriminating them. The major emphasis of equal opportunities concept majorly deals with the human resource departments, but diversity management focuses on all the workers notably managers in the organization (Pitts 2009, p.328). From the B&Q case, one can note that the company focuses on the workers in addressing the labour shortages.

Their policy proposed at targeting old people to implement their strategies, as opposed to the equal opportunities which focus on human resource departments. Conclusion The normal equal opportunity approach has its strong foundations in the archaic approaches of labour management. However, management diversity focuses on the business desire, with comprehensive policies including change of tradition. It also includes personal mentoring so as to enhance the work surroundings. The Human resource management emphasizes the responsibility of the each person, the significance of involvement and dedication that the diversity theory seems to be contented.

References List Girling, S. (2000). What is managing diversity and why does it? Peer reviewed articles 3(4), pp. 419-433. Greene, G. (2009). The costs and opportunities of doing, Human Resource Management Journal 19(2), pp. 159–175. Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity Management, Job Satisfaction, and Performance: Evidence from U.S. Federal Agencies, Public Administration Review 69(2), pp. 328-338.