Employment equity, affirmative action and
managing diversity: assessing the differences
Agocs, Carol; Burr, Catherine . International Journal of Manpower ; Bradford Vol. 17, Iss. 4/5, (1996): 3045.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
Affirmative action in the US and employment equity in Canada are policy frameworks that have developed through
the use of legislation, regulation and decisions by courts and administrative tribunals as mechanisms for
addressing discrimination in employment. Managing diversity, in contrast, is a voluntary initiative by corporate
decision makers at the level of the firm in response to the growth of diversity in the workforce and marketplace.
This paper provides a framework for comparing and assessing the 3 approaches and choosing between them.
FULL TEXT
Carol Agocs: The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Catherine Burr: Human Resources Consultant, London, Ontario, Canada
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors would like to thank Sharon Kahn, Bob Noftal, Paul Scott, Lynne Sullivan, Anil
Verma and Bill Wilkinson for their helpful criticisms and comments, and Jerry Mulcahy (Head, Business Library)
and Wendy Bichard (Centre for Administrative and Information Studies) for their expert assistance.
Beginning in the mid-1980s in the USA and the late 1980s in Canada, a human resource management intervention
known as "managing diversity" or "valuing diversity" has been adopted in a growing number of workplaces. Since it
is a voluntary corporate approach, the composition of diversity management programmes varies widely from one
organization to another. Managing diversity is primarily a response to demographic changes including the
increasing presence of women, racial minorities and immigrants in the workplace and in the client and customer
populations (Abella, 1984; Towers Perrin and The Hudson Institute, 1990). In the USA where it originated,
managing diversity also represents a reaction against affirmative action, an unpopular policy in many quarters.
Some have claimed that managing diversity provides a less controversial alternative to affirmative action, others
see it as complementary to a mandatory policy that is still needed as an antidote to inequality, while still others
view managing diversity as a strategy for dealing with issues that affirmative action left unaddressed. These
issues include the retention and career development of women and minorities hired under affirmative action plans,
and the need to warm the chilly climate for these groups in many workplaces.
Human resource practitioners and others concerned with issues of equity and diversity in the workplace have been
receptive to claims about the potential benefits of managing diversity, and it is being widely adopted in Canada as
well as in the USA. Yet there is confusion about what this approach has to offer and about how it relates to
employment equity - Canada's distinctive response to inequality in employment - and to affirmative action, the US
policy response to employment discrimination. Is managing diversity a new and higher form of employment
equity? Is it a substitute or replacement for employment equity or affirmative action? Or can managing diversity
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 15
find a place as part of a broader policy approach to inequality in employment? The discussion that follows
sketches and compares affirmative action, employment equity, and managing diversity, in order to provide a
framework for comparing and assessing the three approaches and choosing among them.
Diversity and inequality in the workplace
Employment equity, affirmative action, and diversity management represent responses to two enduring realities of
both the US and Canadian populations and labour markets: diversity and inequality. Both nations confront a global
marketplace, and organizations are dealing with diversity in their client or customer populations as well as among
their employees. Responding effectively to a more heterogeneous customer base is an urgent requirement in the
growing service sector, both public and private. Moreover, workforce diversity presents a challenge to
organizations that are devolving a variety of responsibilities to decision-making teams, which increasingly consist
of individuals of varying backgrounds.
In many organizations, the traditionally dominant white male working population is now or may soon be a
numerical minority, although this group still controls the levers of power and decision making in organizations
(Adler, 1993). For the new majority in the workplace and the marketplace - women and racial minorities, together
with persons with disabilities and aboriginal peoples - discrimination and disadvantage are persisting realities that
the passage of time is not changing (Agocs and Boyd, 1993). It is increasingly recognized that inequality and
disadvantage on the basis of race, gender and disability results from discrimination that is systemic - deeply
embedded within the culture and structures of the workplace. In Action Travail des Femmes (1987), the landmark
Supreme Court of Canada case which identified systemic discrimination in the employment practices of Canadian
National Railway, systemic discrimination in the workplace was described as "discrimination that results from the
simple operation of established procedures... none of which is necessarily designed to promote discrimination".
Systemic discrimination may be defined as patterns of behaviour that are part of the social and administrative
structures and culture of the workplace, and that create or perpetuate a position of relative disadvantage for some
groups (and advantage for others), or for individuals, on the basis of their group identity.
The existence of systemic discrimination reflects the reality that the workplace was designed by and primarily for a
working population that was white, Christian, able-bodied, male, and supported by a full time unpaid domestic
worker - the "housewife". Many traditional employment practices remain unchanged even though the labour
market has become much more heterogeneous with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, and disability status. These
traditional practices tend to create privilege for those who were (and remain) in a position to establish and regulate
workplace policies, practices, and culture, and disadvantage for women, racial minorities, people with disabilities
and aboriginal peoples.
Affirmative action
As Table I suggests, affirmative action originated in the USA in the mid-1960s to early 1970s as a response to
deeply entrenched patterns of racial discrimination in institutions of employment and education, and the resulting
exclusion, segregation and disadvantage of blacks. Under federal regulation, employers who received contracts,
grants and other benefits from the US government were required to collect and report data on the composition of
their workforce and to set goals and timetables for hiring in order to improve the representation of disadvantaged
groups that were underrepresented relative to relevant labour markets. These groups included women, blacks,
Hispanics, Asians and American Indians. (Persons with disabilities are now covered under The Americans with
Disabilities Act, 1991.) Compliance with affirmative action hiring requirements was enforced in the 1970s, although
not effectively or vigorously according to some critics (e.g. Benokraitis and Feagin, 1978). Civil rights complaints,
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 15
litigation, and costly settlements of discrimination cases also impressed on employers the need to prevent
discrimination and to implement affirmative action.
Enforcement in the USA was largely discontinued in the 1980s under the Reagan and Bush administrations, which
were hostile to the principle of affirmative action (Taylor and Liss, 1992). A number of studies on the effects of
affirmative action and consent decree requirements during the 1970s have shown that organizations subject to
them employed proportionally more blacks and white women than did comparable non-contractors in selected job
categories (managerial, skilled trades, law enforcement, fire fighting, professions, the military), and that these
groups' incomes increased (Beller, 1984; Butler, 1992; Leonard, 1983, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c; Sokoloff, 1987; Taylor
and Liss, 1992; US Department of Labor, 1984). Affirmative action also contributed to growth in the number of
small businesses owned by black entrepreneurs (Taylor and Liss, 1992).
Affirmative action in employment might be called "hiring by the numbers" because of its focus on increasing the
representation of the designated groups through targeted hiring, and to a lesser extent, training and promotion. It
is a policy intended to deal directly and expeditiously with the de facto or systemic discrimination that remains
embedded in policies and everyday practices in organizations and that reflects the historical legacy of de jure
discrimination and exclusion in the USA (Hamilton, 1992). Affirmative action policy represents a commitment to
end discrimination as a primary value which is not subordinated to other values.
However, affirmative action was not designed to address the issue of integrating and retaining the racial
minorities, women and other groups hired under its requirements. Focusing as it did on numerical representation,
affirmative action compliance did not emphasize changing organizational policies, practices and climate in order
to ensure that, once hired, members of the designated groups would be full and equal participants in the
workplace, enjoying equitable career development opportunities and rewards for their contributions. In fact there is
evidence that this has not happened, and that continuing discrimination and harassment - including white male
backlash - have contributed to job dissatisfaction and turnover among affirmative action groups (e.g. Miller and
Wheeler, 1992; Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990; Thomas and Alderfer, 1989).
A turn towards managing diversity reflects a search by organizational decision makers for an alternative to the
contentious and politically unpopular policy of affirmative action, as well as for a way to address its unfinished
business - issues of retention, integration and career development. As well, some who claim to speak as the
intended beneficiaries of affirmative action, tired of backlash and unwarranted doubts about their qualifications,
have sought alternatives to affirmative action (e.g. Carter, 1991).
Employment equity
Employment equity is the response of Canadian policy makers to the persistence of discrimination and
disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and racial
minorities. Employers covered under the federal Employment Equity Act (1986) and the Federal Contractors
Program (1986), both of which were revised in 1995, are required to collect and report data on the
representativeness of their workforce, and to make a plan which includes targets for hiring and promotion, and
measures to remove discriminatory barriers in employment policies and practices and to accommodate diversity
within the workforce. Employers are subject to compliance audits, and the reports of employers covered under the
Act are available to the public and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has the power to file and
adjudicate complaints of systemic discrimination.
For a brief period in 1994-1995, employers under provincial jurisdiction in the province of Ontario were covered by
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 15
the Employment Equity Act (1993), which was passed by an Ontario government with a New Democratic Party
majority and then repealed under the subsequent Conservative government. The Job Quotas Repeal Act (1995)
was introduced in the aftermath of a political campaign in Ontario which relied heavily on the incitement of fears
and anxieties during a time of high unemployment and extensive corporate downsizing and layoffs. The use of
language such as "job quotas" and "reverse discrimination" in the campaign misrepresented the actual
requirements of the Employment Equity Act, which required employers to:
provide information to employees about employment equity;
conduct a census of the workplace based on voluntary self reporting by employees of their membership in the
designated groups;
conduct a review of the formal and informal policies and practices used to make decisions about all aspects of
human resource management in order to identify any that contain systemic barriers;
prepare a plan for removing discriminatory barriers and for undertaking measures to accommodate special needs
of disadvantaged groups;
set goals and timetables for improving the representation of women, racial minorities, aboriginal persons and
persons with disabilities over time at all levels of the organization's hierarchy; and
monitor and assess the progress of the equity process, with revision of the equity plan every three years in order to
make it as effective as possible.
The Act required several of these steps to be undertaken jointly by employers and unions in unionized
establishments, and in all workplaces, it required that employees be consulted about the development and
implementation of plans. Neither the Ontario nor the federal Act imposed hiring or other kinds of quotas on
employers. Under both Acts, employers were required to set their own goals for improving the representation of
disadvantaged groups over time, with appropriate consideration of the usual factors governing the extent and
timing of staffing, and in relation to the availability of qualified members of the four groups in relevant labour
markets. Although the Ontario Employment Equity Act has been repealed, some of its features were incorporated
into the federal Employment Equity Act when it was revised in 1995.
Canada's employment equity policy has been influenced by the conceptual framework of affirmative action as
implemented in the USA; however, it has from its inception set a course different from affirmative action (Abella,
1984). Employment equity is generally viewed in practitioner and policy circles as an organizational change
strategy designed to prevent and remedy discrimination and disadvantage by identifying and removing barriers in
employment policies and practices and in the culture of the organization, as well as by improving the numerical
representation and distribution of the designated groups. The Canadian response to inequality has sought to avoid
the controversy and stigma attached to affirmative action, but more important, it is a much broader strategy that is
designed not only to improve numerical representation through hiring, but to provide fair employment systems and
a supportive organizational culture for women, racial minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities
(Agocs et al., 1992, ch. 1).
However, employment equity policy has so far shown only limited results in Canada, primarily consisting of
increased hiring of white able-bodied women and, to a lesser extent, of racial minority women, in selected job
classes (Jain, 1993; Leck and Saunders, 1992). Critics of the disappointing results so far achieved under
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 15
employment equity have pointed to the 1986 federal law's weaknesses. It did not require employers to
demonstrate employment equity initiatives, but only to submit annual reports showing the numerical
representation of the employment equity groups, and it did not give government an effective monitoring and
compliance role (Lum, 1995; Poole and Rebick, 1993). The 1986 federal Act has also been criticized for its
emphasis on numerical representation; its lack of attention to the need to identify and change discriminatory
organizational policies, practices and culture; and its ineffective top-down assumptions about the implementation
of employment equity (Agocs et al., 1992). The revised federal Act begins to address some of these criticisms in
that it requires employers to demonstrate action to comply with their own equity plans, and it gives a compliance
and enforcement role to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The 1995 Act also requires that unions and
employees be part of the implementation process. It remains to be seen whether these changes improve progress
towards equity. In taking a broad approach involving change in organizational culture and employment policies
and practices, as well as numerical representation, employment equity policy potentially offers a framework for
working towards equality within specific workplaces even in times of economic recession when it is not possible to
achieve large improvements in representation through hiring.
Managing diversity
As one of many interventions in the organizational development (OD) family, managing diversity is primarily
concerned with improving interpersonal and inter-group communication and relationships in the workplace. The
focus is on interactions between managers and the employees they supervise, among peers, and between
employees and customers or clients. Improved "human relations" are expected to result from promoting an
increased understanding and acceptance, and at best, appreciation, of those who are "different" from the
traditional white male able-bodied employee or manager. Expected benefits of diversity programmes include
decreased conflict and stress, enhanced productivity of heterogeneous teams or work groups, and improvements
in morale, job satisfaction and retention. Managing diversity seeks these objectives primarily through a
programme that promotes awareness of difference, empathy for those who are "different", and attitude change often involving efforts to assist employees to identify and confront their stereotypes about persons whose
characteristics differ from their own. As is true of other human relations approaches, managing diversity is
concerned with changing the attitudes of individuals and perhaps to some degree with attempting to persuade
individual employees to change their behaviour, but it does not generally seek to ensure behavioural change by
altering organizational structures or processes (e.g. Reece and Brandt, 1993, ch. 15).
As is so often the case with organizational change programmes, there appears to be a large discrepancy between
the intervention as proposed in the theoretical literature and in professional human resource management
journals, and what actually happens in the workplace under the name of managing diversity. Mighty (1991, p. 67)
proposes that "valuing diversity" should be a broad organizational change effort that "involves changing
individuals' attitudes and behaviours, while at the same time changing the organization's philosophy and culture,
and consequently, its structure, policies and procedures", resulting in greater equity for minorities and women, as
well as benefits to organizations. Some research evidence suggests that specialized training can result in the
learning of new skills specifically designed to capitalize on the potential synergies of heterogeneous groups (e.g.
Maznevski, 1994). Morrison (1992) proposes that managing diversity can complement affirmative action
strategies and new employment policies and practices to address the failure of organizations to promote women
and racial and ethnic minorities into higher levels of management. Based on a survey of managers in 16 "model"
US organizations, Morrison notes the importance of introducing not just one approach to equity, but an array of
measures intended to make the organizational climate more supportive, and to ensure that employment policies
and practices would provide developmental opportunities, career planning, reduction of work-family conflict, and
mentoring for disadvantaged groups. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the companies in
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 5 of 15
Morrison's study actually implemented the model she recommends, or that the representation of women and
minorities in senior management had substantially improved as a result of specific measures she discusses.
The typical diversity programme, unfortunately, is not a constellation of measures designed to address a specific
issue, or a broad organizational change effort of the kind advocated by Mighty (1991). Reports on practitioners'
activities suggest that diversity programmes are frequently limited to awareness or skillbuilding training (Cox,
1991, p. 40; Mighty, 1991, p. 68; Rossett and Bickham, 1994). Diversity training is usually delivered to volunteer
participants by external consultants, or sometimes by internal trainers in larger organizations, using off-the-shelf
packages and often working in "diverse" teams. Training sessions are designed to arouse interest but not
fundamentally to challenge, question or change organizational routines or power structures. Publishers of training
materials are now marketing many diversity-related videos and games such as Diversity Bingo, which is said to be
"quick" and "delightful", and Diversophy: Understanding the Human Race, which offers "gentle guidance" and in a
"nonthreatening way" "encourages players to become aware of the traits and customs of different groups and to
recognize common misconceptions" (Pfeiffer and Company, n.d., pp. 24-5). The latter game can be played by up to
72 people at one time, and promises to "liven up any meeting, conference, or special event at an average cost of
less than $2.00 per participant!" (Pfeiffer and Company, n.d., p. 25).
Diversity programmes are usually voluntary initiatives for employers who have total discretion as to how they will
be implemented. Although the decision to implement the training is often made or approved at the top of the
organization, the participation of top management appears to be rare. Diversity training is usually targeted to
middle managers, first line supervisors, and specialized functions such as customer service, in which improved
communication and "human relations" skills are expected to result in bottom line benefits. Blue collar, clerical and
technical workers are much less likely to be involved in the training.
The content of diversity training usually includes information on changing demographics, and often about bias,
prejudice and stereotypes, but not discrimination. Typically, training sessions provide experiential and self
assessment exercises and role playing, and some sessions include briefings on diverse cultures, sometimes by
panels of "representatives" of various groups. Some programmes conclude with personal action planning or
contracting (Copeland, 1988a; Rossett and Bickham, 1994).
Focusing on individual attitudes and experiences, the training is designed to sensitize employees to diversity in
bland and non-confrontational ways, frequently by inviting all participants - including white males - to think of
themselves as "diverse" in some respect. R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr, one of the most influential proponents of
"managing diversity" in the USA, explained: "I certainly don't mean to suggest that white males somehow stand
outside diversity. White males are as odd and as normal as anyone else" (Thomas, 1990, p. 109). Often the
message is that every individual is unique, not a member of a group situated within a structure of power and
opportunity, privilege and disadvantage. In a book suggestively titled Beyond Race and Gender, Thomas (1991, p.
167) defines managing diversity as:"
a holistic approach to creating a corporate environment that allows all kinds of people to reach their full potential
in pursuit of corporate objectives. It is not a prepackaged set of solutions. It is not a programme for addressing
discrimination."
A critical perspective on diversity management
Edward Jones, Jr (1992, p. 155) has criticized the corporate retreat from affirmative action into diversity
programmes in the USA, noting:"
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 6 of 15
Many black executives have complained about how their companies' training programmes are ignoring the
realities of race despite the fact that the data indicate that it continues to be the most difficult and resistant barrier
to success. These executives report that some white executives prefer to limit their focus to issues of sex or on
homogenized diversity programmes that downplay or ignore the reality of race. If this continues, diversity could
become the basis to eliminate corporate racial progress."
To the extent that it lacks a clear focus on discrimination in employment and the disadvantage it creates,
managing diversity blurs the issue of inequality and does not engage questions of how organizational policies,
procedures and practices create discriminatory barriers that perpetuate inequality on the basis of gender, race,
ethnicity and disability. This implication is clear in the language of diversity training: words such as "racism",
"sexism", "anti-racism", "feminism", and "discrimination" are rarely heard, and instead, trainers speak of "diversity",
"multi-culturalism", "ethnicity" (e.g. Morrison, 1992, p. 4). "Diversity" is sometimes used as a synonym for
"inequality", or even for "equality". If the language and conceptual frameworks of affirmative action are pushed
aside in the era of managing diversity, so too are references to disadvantaged groups as "victims", "designated
groups" or "target groups". While this may be a positive development, the result has been a silencing of discourse
about discrimination and about the responsibility of organizational decision makers to provide remedies. The
focus on managing diversity at the expense of affirmative action and employment equity raises the question of
whether we are losing sight of the goals of the movements for gender and racial equality that have been central
forces in American and Canadian societies for a generation.
The singling out of "diversity" as an issue, and the implication that it must be "managed", may communicate the
message that diversity - not inequality - is the problem that organizations need to address. The norm is understood
to be the traditional white able-bodied male employee or manager, and "diversity" refers to "the others", whose
presence and differences require special understanding and response, including the learning of a new and everchanging vocabulary. The "others", in the meantime, require assistance to learn how to fit in. The beneficiaries of
many diversity programmes are clearly intended to be white able-bodied males, who are helped through the
training to feel more comfortable with those who are "different", and who are expected to leave the training with
some skills and language to assist them in dealing with "the others". The organization itself is not expected to
change, nor are trainees typically accountable to change their behaviour after the training.
In practice, the burden of educating traditional members of the workforce about "difference" once the training is
over is likely to fall on the shoulders of women, racial minorities, aboriginal peoples, and persons with disabilities,
who are already subject to heightened scrutiny, performance pressures, and expectations that they will "represent"
their group in interactions with the traditional workforce. Some diversity training is based on the assumption that
women and minorities need to learn "special skills", such as conflict resolution, assertiveness, and "managing
racism", in order to survive in an organization that will remain fundamentally racist and sexist (Morrison and Von
Glinow, 1990, p. 204).
Perhaps because of its silence about or inability to change realities of discrimination and disadvantage in the
workplace, managing diversity has been presented in the USA as a palatable alternative to, and substitute for,
affirmative action (e.g. Morrison, 1992, p. 4; Thomas, 1991). This claim is misleading because it confuses the
purposes of the two strategies. Affirmative action is intended as a response to and remedy for past and continuing
discrimination against specific disadvantaged groups. In contrast, the goals of managing diversity are vague, but
have to do with changing attitudes and interpersonal behaviours in the direction of greater acceptance by
traditional employees of the diversity that has resulted from demographic change, and from the entry of nontraditional employees into the workplace. Thus managing diversity and affirmative action are not substitutes for
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 7 of 15
each other, nor do they lie on a continuum, since they address different issues. Morrison (1992, p. 8) emphasizes
that affirmative action measures are still needed, despite:"
the perceived need to build distance between a diversity effort and previous affirmative action activities to avoid
the stigma attached to the latter. Yet affirmative action is not obsolete because prejudice is not obsolete... It would
be short-sighted to abandon affirmative action practices in the hope that integration will now occur naturally."
Diversity programmes of good quality have a place as part of an organizational response to demographic change
in the workplace, the labour market, and the client and customer populations. Training that makes employees and
managers more aware of the need to examine their own assumptions about others, challenges their stereotypes,
and enhances their ability to empathize and to communicate with others from different backgrounds would meet a
need in many organizations. However, it is important that there be clarity about what managing diversity is
intended to accomplish and about its limitations. This clarity is not easy to attain, since diversity management
practices vary widely, their goals often appear nebulous, and results of these programmes are rarely measured and
evaluated (Cox, 1991, p. 40; Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990; Rossett and Bickham, 1994). It is not evident what
such programmes actually accomplish but it is quite clear what they cannot accomplish. Generally speaking,
diversity programmes are directed towards limited kinds of changes in individuals, not towards changing
organizational culture or structure. In most instances they do not seriously address issues of inequality in the
organization arising from the distribution of power and opportunity; white male privilege remains intact.
Diversity programmes generally do not assist employers or employees to understand better the nature of
discrimination and disadvantage, nor do they assist decision makers to identify and remove barriers facing
women, racial minorities, aboriginal peoples, or persons with disabilities. Indeed, some diversity programmes do
not address issues of disability and accommodation, even though diversity training has the potential to help ablebodied employees and managers to change their attitudes towards employees or customers with disabilities. It
might also teach skills useful in working out accommodations of special needs with these employees or
customers.
Diversity programmes also tend to neglect other issues surrounding inequality in organizations. These issues
include lack of access to employment by workers with disabilities and those of aboriginal ancestry; lack of career
opportunities, job loss, and deskilling among women in pink collar ghettos; pay inequality; issues of gender and
racial harassment; and inequality affecting employees in unionized jobs. Many diversity programmes appear to
target the "easier" issues over which management has unilateral control (although none of these issues are easy to
deal with).
Diversity programmes which assume that the traditional white male power structure will continue to be the norm
may not succeed in bringing about the attitudinal and behavioural changes they propose to achieve. In an
organization in which racism and sexism are entrenched, or in the hands of inexperienced trainers, diversity
programmes can have the opposite of their intended effects: they may legitimate stereotypes and create
misunderstanding and even conflict among men and women, or persons of varying racial and cultural identities
(Kossek and Zonia, 1993). It is hard to see how games and training activities that trivialize issues of racial and
gender difference and inequality can result in positive change. In order to clarify their potential uses and pitfalls
and identify effective practices, there is a need for research evaluations of the impacts of diversity programmes
and for assessment of various ways of implementing them.
If the goal is to change organizations in order to reduce turnover and assist in career advancement for women,
minorities, persons of aboriginal ancestry and people with disabilities, there are more effective ways to do this
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 8 of 15
than through diversity training. Structural changes that ensure fairness in employment policies and practices are
needed in order to attain these goals. A well-designed and implemented management development programme
culminating in appointments of capable women, racial minorities, persons of aboriginal ancestry, and people with
disabilities to positions of organizational power will exemplify the organization's commitment to their full
participation in the workplace. Attitudes are most likely to change following behavioural change brought about by
a realignment in organizational structures and power relations (Alderfer et al., 1980; Bielby, 1987; see also the
rationale for employment equity programmes in Action Travail des Femmes v. CNRail, 1987, 33256-33258).
Nonetheless, Thomas (1990) and others have claimed - in our view inappropriately - that managing diversity is a
"higher" level of organizational response than affirmative action. Thomas (1991, p. 28) has suggested that because
it emphasizes corporate objectives, "managing diversity"' is a more advanced concept than "valuing diversity",
which in turn is a step above affirmative action. This argument by Thomas and other US consultants and
practitioners has found its way into the work of their Canadian counterparts, who suggest that managing diversity
is a higher stage of organizational development than employment equity change. For example, Sullivan (1994a)
proposes a continuum of five stages: laissez-faire, human rights compliance, employment equity compliance,
employment equity leadership, and workforce diversity. Sullivan views managing diversity as "a broader and more
inclusive concept and strategy than employment equity", and sees "employment equity as a major subset of
managing diversity" (Sullivan, 1994b). Other Canadian practitioners have suggested that managing diversity is the
same thing as employment equity (e.g. Davidson-Palmer, 1992), or that employment equity is subsumed within
diversity management (e.g. Canadian Institute, 1992). To the extent that these misunderstandings find their way
into the approaches of Canadian trainers and human resource management consultants, there is confusion about
what employment equity actually is and about its objectives, as well as disillusionment with the results of diversity
programmes.
Managing diversity is appealing to some employers and human resource managers in Canada for many of the
same reasons it is popular in the USA. In Canada there has been a significant backlash against federal and
provincial policies on employment equity. This has been expressed in editorials and articles in influential media, as
well as in the repeal of Ontario's employment equity legislation, in political campaigns in other provinces, and in
the politics of the Reform party at the federal level. Some opinion polls have suggested that a more negative public
perception of demographic change and cultural diversity, and of policies on immigration and multi-culturalism, is
gaining strength as the economy has weakened (e.g. Campbell, 1994, p. 1A). There may also be growing resistance
against employment equity among some Canadians who oppose all group-based or collective claims, including
those raised by Quebec and aboriginal peoples as well as demands for workplace equality by feminist and antiracism activists and advocates for people with disabilities. In Canada, as in the USA, neoconservative opinion
leaders have gained the political strength to undermine or arrest many of the policy advances of recent years in
the fields of human rights and equity in the workplace.
However, in Canada as in the USA, many progressive employers, unions and politicians have continued to support
legislated affirmative action and employment equity. Like statutory requirements for occupational health and
safety, legislated workplace equity creates a level playing field for employers. With mandatory affirmative action or
employment equity, progressive employers who are interested in maintaining equity programmes need not fear
that they will be at a competitive disadvantage compared with non-equity employers.
However, legislated approaches to workplace equality are clearly more controversial, and incur far more resistance,
than managing diversity. Diversity management appears to have appeal as an alternative to employment equity
and affirmative action. Employers and human resource practitioners may be hearing this message with greater
frequency as increasing numbers of management consultants enter the field, offering attractive off-the-shelf
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 9 of 15
training packages that are relatively inexpensive to deliver and minimally disruptive of organizational routines.
Consulting in the area of managing or valuing diversity has mushroomed over the past few years, raising the issue
of whether newcomers to this complex field are well equipped to ensure that the expected results occur, and that
their clients understand the similarities and distinctions among managing diversity, employment equity,
affirmative action, and human rights compliance.
What can diversity management contribute to human resource management?
Potential international consumers of training made in the USA might well be sceptical as to its relevance to the
European or Canadian contexts, with their vastly different histories of race relations and immigration, as well as
their different legal frameworks surrounding employment and human rights. Popularity of diversity management in
the USA is not a good reason to adopt this approach in other countries if it is a poor fit - even if it is touted by the
US head office.
To the extent that managing diversity is built on assimilationist assumptions compatible with a vision of society as
a melting pot, it is an inappropriate approach in a pluralistic society. It is our view that this is particularly true in
Canada, where the metaphor of the mosaic has guided much of public policy for a generation, and the claims of
collectivities have both legitimacy and urgency within our institutional and legal framework. To the extent that
managing diversity is the US answer to affirmative action, its relevance for Canada is questionable, since
employment equity policy is very different from affirmative action. For example, the retention, integration and
career development of women and minorities who gained access to employment are part of the unfinished
business of affirmative action, whereas the employment equity policy framework provides ways to address these
issues. Indeed some US theorists such as Morrison (1992), in advocating diversity programmes, appear to be
arguing for a broad approach to organizational change that includes many of the same components as Canada's
employment equity policy contains, although the similarity is not acknowledged.
In deciding whether or not to invest in diversity programmes, human resource managers and employers, as well as
participants in these programmes, need to be clear about their own goals, realistic about what diversity
programmes can accomplish, and honest in recognizing whom they would benefit. In our view, the most pressing
issue in the context of growing diversity in the workplace is to ensure the removal of discriminatory barriers that
interfere with the productivity, full participation, equitable rewards, and job satisfaction of women, racial minorities,
persons with disabilities, and persons of aboriginal ancestry - all of whom are subjected to persistent
discriminatory barriers built into the culture and structure of organizations. Until these barriers are removed and
replaced with policies and practices that are fair to all, exhortations to abandon prejudiced attitudes and treat
everyone with respect will have a hollow ring. Furthermore, if the issues of numerical representation and access to
employment and promotion are not addressed, and disadvantaged groups remain token and powerless minorities
in the workplace, there will be very little diversity in the organization to "manage". A programme whose primary
agenda is to increase the comfort level of traditional employees in encounters with people different from
themselves is not one that gives priority to equality for disadvantaged groups. Managing diversity is not a
substitute for employment equity in Canada, just as it is not a substitute for affirmative action in the USA.
Nevertheless, diversity management has a place in human resource management as a response to specific issues
of concern. Properly designed and implemented, managing diversity can address some aspects of organizational
culture as part of a broad employment equity strategy designed to bring about change in organizational culture,
employment policies and practices, and numerical representation of women, racial minorities, persons with
disabilities and aboriginal people. It can convey information, enhance awareness, teach inter-personal and
communication skills, contribute to understanding, and build acceptance of the need for legislated equality
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 10 of 15
programmes. Diversity management can also assist employees and managers more effectively to serve a
heterogeneous customer and client base, and may prove to be good investments for those who work in service
functions. These benefits are most likely to be realized if the diversity programme is relevant to the culture and the
legal and policy framework in which it is implemented. Furthermore, effective diversity management would ensure
that key stakeholders are involved in the planning and implementation of the diversity programme, and that senior
management is committed to the programme and willing to address issues that arise from its implementation.
As is true of any business decision, critical assessment. of organizational objectives and the strategies for
attaining them must guide human resource managers and other decision makers who consider an investment in
diversity programmes. Within the broader framework of change represented by employment equity and affirmative
action, diversity management can be a complementary initiative towards both equality and greater productivity in
organizations.
References and further reading
1. Abella, R.S. (1984, Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report, Ministry of Supply and Services,
Ottawa.
2. Action Travail des Femmes v. CN Rail, (1987), 40 DLR (4th) 193 (SCC).
3. Adler, N. (1993, "An international perspective on the barriers to the advancement of women managers", Applied
Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 289-300.
4. Agocs, C. and Boyd, M. (1993, "The Canadian ethnic mosaic recast for the 1990s", in Curtis, J., Grabb, E. and
Guppy, N. (Eds), Social Inequality in Canada: Patterns, Problems, Policies, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Scarborough,
Ontario, pp. 330-52.
5. Agocs, C., Burr, C. and Somerset, F. (1992, Employment Equity: Cooperative Strategies for Organizational
Change, Prentice-Hall, Scarborough, Ontario.
6. Alderfer, C., Tucker, L. and Tucker, R. (1980, "Diagnosing race relations in management", Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 16, pp. 135-65.
7. Beller, A. (1984, "Trends in occupational segregation by sex and race, 1960-1981", in Reskin, B. (Ed.), Sex
Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1126.
8. Benokraitis, N. and Feagin, J. (1978, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity: Action, Inaction, Reaction,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
9. Bielby, W. (1987, "Modern prejudice and institutional barriers to equal employment opportunity for minorities",
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 79-84.
10. Butler, J. (1992, "Affirmative action in the military", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, Vol. 523, September, pp. 196-206.
11. Campbell, M. (1994, "Too many immigrants, many say", The Globe and Mail, 10 March, p. 1A.
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 11 of 15
12. Canadian Institute (1992, "Superconference: managing workforce diversity", conference prospectus, Toronto, 910 March.
13. Carter, S. (1991, Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby, Basic, New York, NY.
14. Copeland, L. (1988a, "Valuing diversity, part 2: pioneers and champions of change", Personnel, July, pp. 44-9.
15. Copeland, L. (1988b, "Valuing diversity, part 1: making the most of cultural differences at the workplace",
Personnel, June, pp. 52-60.
16. Cox, T. Jr (1991, "The multicultural organization", The Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 34-47.
17. Davidson-Palmer, J. (1992, "Managing diversity in the '90s: the evolving world of employment equity", Managing
Diversity, Vol. 1 No. 1, April-May, pp. 1-3.
18. Hamilton, C. (1992, "Affirmative action and the clash of experiential realities", Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, Vol. 523, September, pp. 10-18.
19. Jain, H. (1993, "Employment equity and visible minorities: have the federal policies worked?", Canadian Labour
Law Journal, Vol. 1 No. 14, 1993, pp. 389-407.
20. Jain, H. and Hackett, R. (1989, "Measuring effectiveness of employment equity programs in Canada: public
policy and a survey", Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 189-204.
21. Jones, E. Jr (1992, "Debate: can equal opportunity be made more equal?", Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, pp. 155-6.
22. Kossek, E. and Zonia, S. (1993, "Assessing diversity climate: a field study of reactions to employer efforts to
promote diversity", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 61-81.
23. Leck, J. and Saunders, D. (1992, "Hiring women: the effects of Canada's employment equity act", Canadian
Public Policy, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 203-20.
24. Leonard, J. (1983, The Impact of Affirmative Action, US Department of Labor, Washington, DC.
25. Leonard, J. (1984a, "Anti-discrimination or reverse discrimination: the impact of changing demographics, title
VII, and affirmative action on productivity", Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 145-74.
26. Leonard, J. (1984b, "Employment and occupational advance under affirmative action", Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 377-85.
27. Leonard, J. (1984c, "The impact of affirmative action on employment", Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 439-63.
28. Lum, J. (1995, "The federal employment equity act: goals vs. implementation", Canadian Public Administration,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-76.
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 12 of 15
29. Maznevski, M. (1994, "Understanding our differences: performance in decision-making groups with diverse
members", Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 531-52.
30. Mighty, E.J. (1991, "Valuing workforce diversity: a model of organizational change", Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 64-71.
31. Miller, J. and Wheeler, K. (1992, "Unravelling the mysteries of gender differences in intentions to leave the
organization", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 465-78.
32. Morrison, A. (1992, The New Leaders: Guidelines on Leadership Diversity in America, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
33. Morrison, A. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1990, "Women and minorities in management", American Psychologist, Vol.
45 No. 2, pp. 200-8.
34. Pfeiffer and Company (n.d), "Employee development" (catalogue).
35. Poole, P.J. and Rebick, J. (1993, "Not another hundred years: the failure of the Federal Employment Equity Act",
Canadian Labour Law Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 341-67.
36. Reece, B. and Brandt, R. (1993, Effective Human Relations in Organizations, 5th ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
MA, ch. 15.
37. Rossett, A. and Bickham, T. (1994, "Diversity training: hope, faith and cynicism", Training, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 40-6.
38. Sokoloff, N. (1987, "The increase of black and white women in the professions", in Bose, C. and Spitze, G. (Eds),
Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy, State University of New York, Albany, NY, pp. 53-72.
39. Sullivan, L. (1994a, "Building commitment to employment equity", presentation to the Employment Equity
Practitioners Conference, Vancouver, February, pp. 23-4.
40. Sullivan, L. (1994b, personal communication, 19 May.
41. Taylor, W. and Liss, S. (1992, "Affirmative action in the 1990s: staying the course", Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 523, September, pp. 30-7.
42. Thomas, D. and Alderfer, C. (1989, "The influence of race on career dynamics: theory and research on minority
career experiences", in Arthur, M., Hall, D. and Lawrence, B. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 133-58.
43. Thomas, R.R. Jr (1990, "From affirmative action to affirming diversity", Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 107-17.
44. Thomas, R.R. Jr (1991, Beyond Race and Gender, AMACOM, New York, NY.
45. Towers Perrin and The Hudson Institute (1990, Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century,
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 13 of 15
Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN.
46. US Department of Labor (1984, Employment Patterns of Minorities and Women in Federal Contractor and
Noncontractor Establishments, 1974-1980, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Washington, DC.
Illustration
Caption: Table I; Element 1
DETAILS
Subject:
Multiculturalism &pluralism; Affirmative action; Differences; Legislation; Regulation;
Court decisions; Hiring; Careers; Employment; Workforce; Workplace diversity;
Employers; Employment discrimination; Career development planning; Labor market;
Disabled people; Disability; Minority &ethnic groups; Decision making; Native North
Americans; Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US; Inequality; Race
Business indexing term:
Subject: Hiring Careers Employment Workforce Workplace diversity Employers
Employment discrimination Career development planning Labor market; Industry:
92211 : Courts 92115 : American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments 61143
: Professional and Management Development Training
Location:
Canada; United States--US
Classification:
9190: United States; 9172: Canada; 6100: Human resource planning; 4300: Law;
92211: Courts; 92115: American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments;
61143: Professional and Management Development Training
Publication title:
International Journal of Manpower; Bradford
Volume:
17
Issue:
4/5
Pages:
30-45
Number of pages:
0
Publication year:
1996
Publication date:
1996
Publisher:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Place of publication:
Bradford
Country of publication:
United Kingdom, Bradford
Publication subject:
Business And Economics--Labor And Industrial Relations
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 14 of 15
ISSN:
01437720
e-ISSN:
17586577
Source type:
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
Feature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729610127668
ProQuest document ID:
231903747
Document URL:
http://search.proquest.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/scholarlyjournals/employment-equity-affirmative-action-managing/docview/231903747/se2?accountid=11311
Copyright:
Copyright MCB UP Limited (MCB) 1996
Full text availability:
Selective Coverage
Last updated:
2021-09-09
Database:
ProQuest One Business,ProQuest Central
LINKS
Linking Service
Database copyright  2022 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 15 of 15