Diversity, Law Enforcement and the Workplace

Assimilation has always been the typical goal of managers in the nineteenth and twentieth century in order to help in the meltdown process of diminishing differences, to assume similarity among people in the workplace. Assisting people to achieve a level of similarity was a common notion. For a number of years though, this thinking was not taken into consideration. Being differentiated through dress, perspective, language, or values was not encouraged or opposed.

There was a huge Americanization in terms of names and labeling just to be able to cope up with the privilege of being in the American workforce. Even the ethnic dresses and usual ways of a person begot forced modifications and even change as well. Night schools for English language were rampant but were not enough for the cultural and whatever differences to be eliminated. Some were still glued to their own cultural heritages, uniqueness and religious identity. Diversity was also dealt with as a legal issue, aside from its moral ingredient.

There were huge movements against discrimination among color and women. In between the 1960s and the 1970s, legislation of affirmative action (AA) and the equal employment opportunity (EEO) was passed because people were more aware of the prejudices in the workplace, more on the civil rights and feminism. This law had made it hard for the managers to treat their subordinates equally. Increased opportunities were there for the diverse workers, but there were many criticisms for the so-called “protected classes.

” The affirmative action was put into the hot-seat because of its unfair nature in the effort to undo the past wrong doings. EEO goals on equal chance of employment without any bias to race, gender, religious belief, nationality and some characteristics that are not in nature job related. Discrimination is totally prohibited, but measures that will prevent this like proactive procedures are not required by the law. Theoretically, the achievement of this kind of situation could be met, but does not exist at the present day.

The primary premise of EEO is that the incentives and other privileges that an employee may receive should be due to the merits in performing very well, therefore pushing the decision makers to be blind of attributes such as sex or origin of applicants and employees. The affirmative action on the other hand originated in federal laws and executive orders. It focuses on the determination of the effects ethnicity and sex to the employment consequences.

This tells the decision-makers to consider special actions like hiring the ethnic minority candidate if applicants show equal qualifications to remedy past discriminations to attain equal opportunity (Stockdale, Crosby 5). After assimilation, there was a 180-degree turn wherein all the assumptions had changed into appreciating the existing cultural differences. In here there is a more positive type of action that entailed increasing the awareness of the differences among the employees, therefore understanding them and having the presence of these differences as strength in the organization.

With this, it was not the people who had to change for the system, but the system to adapt to the present cultural differences to effectively utilize it. Multiculturalism was common to the organizations and monoculturalism was set aside. The idea came from the fact that everyone despite of the cultural background has a weighted contribution in terms of their specific functions to the growth of the organization, therefore should be respected and treated all in the same manner (Esty, Griffin, Hirsch 2-3).

This started when the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights imposed the equal opportunity movement in the U. S. and Western Europe in the said years and continued to blossom in the 80s and 90s providing revisions in the constitutions to protect the diverse individuals (Mor-Barak 17). This presented discrepancies among laws and common practices in several regions of the world in line with the antidiscrimination legislation. In following these rules, the implications on the international business practices were also presented (Mor-Barak 18).