That being said, it may be beneficial to consider the extent to which the two approaches are similar

as evidenced by the criticisms they share.

Equality according Matthews (2015) is “an incoherent, impossible ideal…to fight inequality,
it needs to be abandoned” under this idea, equality of opportunity “explicitly leaves some people
out” conveying the message that the poor who are not gifted with a high IQ or work ethic deserve
nothing, the extent to which this argument could be considered to be valid is debateable, however
Matthews quotes Nagel in stating “When racial and sexual injustice have been reduced, we shall still
be left with the great injustice of the smart and the dumb, who are so differently rewarded for
comparable effort." It does stand to reason that true equality arguably cannot be achieved as there
will always be a group of individuals who will never be equal to others in certain aspects which the
law might not see reason to protect, it is with this assumption that it can be argued as Matthews
puts it that Equality is merely a distraction which takes diverts our attention from attaining actual
equality and in the process “it perpetuates the logic that lets actual inequality fester”

Similarly, Dobbin and Kalev (2016) report that within organisations where diversity is seen as
mandatory and managers are compelled to receive training, managers often respond to them with
anger and resistance with many reporting animosities towards other groups; to this level it could be
argued that individuals with biases despite receiving training do not shed them but rather retain and
activate those biases which are contrary to the aims of diversity, as Dobbin and Kalev state
managers would rebel to assert their autonomy. Moreover, Henry and Evans (2007) contend that
due to diversity, workplace conflicts are never far behind, these conflicts are often caused by clashes
between two or more individuals or groups largely due to ignorance, prejudiced behaviours and
derogatory comments evidenced by minority employees feeling less valued in comparison with
majority group members, this then leads to increases in absenteeism and labour turnover rates.

Comparably, equality and diversity according to Zanoni et al (2010) do not make

comparisons between individuals of the same group or different groups, but rather by making the
“white, heterosexual, western, middle/upper class, abled men” the norm and a point of reference by
which to measure the extent to which individuals can be categorised as being different and thereby
falling under the equality act or diversity policy at a place of employment. Notwithstanding the fact
that the idea of ‘diverse’ which Zanoni states refers to the “heterogeneity in a group”, it is those who
are categorised as the other that receive attention in studies and are said to be marginal when
observing from a dominant identity point of view.

Contrarily, with diversity being of the ‘difference’ perspective, Lorbiecki and Jack (2000)
suggest that it has the effect of dissolving the basis of disadvantage due to attention being placed on
broader inclusive configurations of difference such as gender and race rather than specifically on
women or minority ethnic groups; the argument they put forward is diversity brings a difficulty in
achieving equality at work, if diversity is thought of in terms of the full workforce, the need to
reduce discrimination against marginalised groups is reduced, however if these groups remain
targeted, they run the risk of being categorised as different or abnormal in which case there is really
no change.

Furthermore, the lack of attention given to the practicalities of diversity in practice as Foster
and Newell (2001) identify raises questions as to how individual differences can be managed within
large organisations with hundreds if not thousands of employees located across various sites and
countries whilst ensuring they avoid discrimination and at the same time recognising that each
employee is different and must be treated as such. This begs the question of whether diversity is
merely an aspiration by management which cannot be applied to practice.
 With equal opportunity comes the assumption that equality of outcome will be achieved
should fair procedures be used, the ‘radical approach’ according to Dundon and Rollinson operates
under the idea that equality of treatment under the law does not ensure diverse groups are
represented in the workplace as merit is not equal and certain groups in society will be at a
disadvantage due to their race or status within society and therefore quotas and targets should be
used as a means to ensure a diverse workforce, it should be noted that this serves as a form of
positive discrimination which is currently illegal in the UK, within the workforce, however, this can
result in large sections of the workforce (those not categorised as a disadvantaged group) feeling
alienated by the equality agenda with the mindset that entry standards have been lowered, as well
as accusations of appointments not based on genuine ability which may lead to those who the
practice was to benefit feeling alienated or stigmatised; Dundon and Rollinson point out
encouragement for equality may be badly received and seen as attempts to be politically correct and
“white male bashing”.

Torrington et al (2017) rightly point out that under equality the individual is expected to
adjust to the organisation and at the same time the approach seemingly encourages the “view that
women (and other groups) have a problem and need help” hence the creation of the Equality Act
and enforcement by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Puwar (2004: 57-58) identifies
whiteness is defined as an absence of colour which marks as a normative position, likewise, the male
body is “invisible as a sexed entity. Its absence of gender entitles it to take up the unmarked
normative locale” in this context invisibility is a place of power – this differs greatly from diversity,
which as previously stated maintains the stance that it is the organisation which needs to change
and adapt to fit the individual; given that equality is mandated by the law, unfair discrimination yet
continues to exist in different forms such as pay disparity, under representation of minority ethnics
in certain industries, sectors, and positions, as well as discrimination on grounds of characteristics
which are not protected by the law, it perhaps bears mentioning that equality does not take into
account organisational culture which potentially would make it difficult for disadvantaged groups to
seek employment opportunities within certain organisations where institutional discrimination is
rife.

Dundon and Rollinson suggested the approaches equal opportunities and diversity whilst
used interchangeably are two very different terms both legally and conceptually, it is evident that
their definitions whilst varied are often different, however they often identify equality is based on
the principle of sameness whereby everyone is treated in the same manner and not discriminated
against for any unjust reason, diversity on the other hand takes on the difference principle
identifying that individuals are different regardless of whether they share a similar background or
are of the same sex. Nevertheless, academics contend with the fact that equality is legally
recognised and enforced whereas diversity is not, it is operated on a business case which is merely
concerned with the bottom line for organisations.

The literature alleges different organisations may take a range of approaches to dealing with
equality and diversity, for those concerned with their legal obligation may simply wish to comply
with the law and nothing else, on the other end of the spectrum are organisations who make
equality and diversity a priority and seek to lead other organisations in doing the same. Whilst
equality has traditionally been the responsibility of the personnel manager, diversity highlights the
importance in the role of the line manager.
 Whilst UK legislation covers and sets minimum standards for equality, diversity is not legally
binding and as such an organisation is not required to have it in practice, however as the CIPD (2018)
states diversity goes beyond the legal compliance, seeking to add value to an organisation.
Conceptually and legally, equality and diversity are different, however they are complementary; in
the instance that an organisation wishes to make a commitment to equality, it is perhaps advisable
to ensure there is a recognition and appreciation of diversity. Furthermore, it should be understood
that diversity is also not an alternative to equality but rather an approach which builds upon the
principles of equality (McDougall 1996:71), whilst the literature may suggest there is a difference
between the two in theory, in practice the differences do not necessarily matter as when managed
and applied correctly, organisations may be able to gain a competitive edge in the marketplace with
a workforce that is not only reflective of the diverse nature of society but also harness the abilities
they possess.