The roots of the overseeing diversity ideology, like a number of intellectual principles, lie in the HR movement in the Uk. While a lot of European writers are familiar with the restrictions of the equal opportunities debate, it was not until the job by Ross and Schneider (1992), published in From Equality to Diversity, that the importance began to shift away from the legally based move towards providing a level playing field for deprived groups. Though almost 20 years of legislation in the UK had comparatively low impact on recovering the lot of women and other minority groups, there appeared to be little impetus for changes to ensure fairer management of the workforce until the mid-1990s.
Cooper and White (1995) recommended that one cause that equal opportunities had not really made an impact was since those who had the authority to modify the inequalities - white, able-bodied males - had never really experienced discrimination in employment. So there was little interest in and/or empathy with the issues of the minority groups. Research by the Equal Opportunities Commission (1999) found that a quarter of senior political decision-makers could not name a relevant piece of legislation on equal opportunities. Ross and Schneider (1992) stated that this could also be because the notion of equality was expressed in the terms and opinions of the white, able-bodied male. Minorities lost their uniqueness in their attempts to fit into the mould.
Followers of the managing diversity ideology professed equal opportunities as not fair enough in its efforts to eliminate discrimination, because a number of sectors of the people were not sufficiently represented. There was a reaction that those who were represented were treated in the same way because they were viewed as a harmonized group. This, as we know, is not the case, and is illustrated in the supervision of disabled workers. Each disability have need of individual consideration and therefore each disabled individual has to be treated in a way proportionate with their individual requirements. So the essence of diversity management, which endorse and encourages the valuing of individuality and individual needs and talents, is a legitimate approach to take to managing a talented workers. It's not governed entirely by legislation and evasion of penalties and fines, but by good business reasons.
Past experience has highlighted the insufficiency of equal opportunities in delivering a diverse labour force, and HR qualified need to take a positive role in promoting diversity in administration. Other researchers, like Collett (1999), initiate that culturally diverse groups were more inventive than homogeneous groups and contributed more efficiently to meeting organisational goals. With the frequent opening-up of employment markets in Europe and through the expansion of multinationalism, the significance of cultural diversity has taken on a more significant role in employee administration.
The importance of embracing the principles of managing diversity has grown in importance to HR managers. It is one tool that can help in making an effective contribution to organisational strategy. The case for diversity management has also been strengthened by the changes in legislation emanating from the European Union as these edicts have been adopted by member states.
My research on discrimination in metropolitan police also describes this situation and will analyse how HRM could play a different role in minimizing this issue including overall policies and some recommendations.( Source :http://www.cipd.co.uk)