Managing diversity and equality in the workplace

This paper investigates the relationship of performance appraisals, sociocultural issues, affirmative action (AA), and organizational capabilities in managing diversity and equality in the workplace. Firstly, performance appraisals were found to be a major source of discrimination especially due to raters influence on the actual process. Sociocultural issues had major role as some managers went out of their way in helping their subordinates, especially in paternalistic countries, whereas some left it to workers themselves. AA was laid out to ensure that organizations meet statutory requirements but it often came down to managerial commitments. Finally, this paper found that organizations have to develop capabilities so as to encourage diversity and equality in the workplace. Subjects: Development Studies; Environment; Social Work; Urban Studies; Economics, Finance, Business & Industry; Social Sciences


Introduction
The aim of this paper is to review the literature surrounding the role of performance appraisals, sociocultural issues, affirmative action (AA), and organizational capabilities in managing diversity and equality in the workplace. Globalization of markets has brought about sweeping changes in the external environment of organizations which have altered the world of work (Cavusgil & Cavusgil, 2012;Lee, Olson, & Trimi, 2012). Organizations have to be prudent about managing its workforce as the work environment is undergoing a massive metamorphosis (Ghosh, 2016). There is empirical evidence that highlights the challenges that managers face in managing diversity and equality in the workplace with a number of studies conducted in various fields such as the health sector (Ali, Burns, & Grant, 2013;Hunt, 2007), sports (Spracklen, Hylton, & Long, 2006), local councils (Senyucel & Phillpott, 2011), hotels (Gröschl, 2011), public sector (Harrisr & Foster, 2010), and in private sector PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Diversity and equality have become an integral part of management studies drawing attention from academicians and practitioners alike. This paper contributes to the existing field of human resource management literature by outlining some of the ways diversity and equality can be managed in the workplace. The paper also ties in well with strategic management literature. The capabilities approach broached by this paper is a unique concept whereby it is argued that organizations can only reap benefits of diverse workforce if their managers and the organization itself are capable to handle the requirements of the diverse workforce. The implications for practitioners is also presented. (Colgan, 2011;Hvidman & Andersen, 2013;Lee Cooke & Saini, 2012). This paper contributes to the literature by assessing the impact of performance appraisal, sociocultural issue, legal compliance (AAs), and organizational capabilities at the workplace across organizations in general.

Background to the literature
Globalization of markets has forced changes in demographic characteristics of workforce worldwide and has been a matter of study for academicians, employers, and policy-makers around the world. Diverse workforce consists of individuals belonging to unique cultures who will have different characteristics, aspirations, and expectations (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). Employees from different backgrounds have different needs and feel the urge to be respected in their workplace. Management needs to understand the need of these diverse groups of people so as to avoid employee tensions and conflicts (Hill, Stephens, & Smith, 2003). Maintaining workplace harmony is important for organizations so as to increase productivity. Managers in organizations around the world are focused on workplace equality by trying to avoid "us" verses "them" type of allusions and comments (Yang & Guy, 2006). As a result, the term "diversity policy" and "equality policy" has become a typical label in British organizations and in organizations around the world.
Diversity management and equal opportunities are two different terms. The term equal opportunities is associated with tolerant, rights based, and is entrenched in conformity of legal rules whereby it is geared towards increasing the proportion of minority and women in senior goals in organization (Greene & Kirton, 2002). Diversity management is however, a bit different and is rather focused on organizational initiative whereby organizations focus on valuing difference in addition to non-discrimination and concerns on respecting every individual in the workplace regardless of their race and gender among other variables (Cornelius, Gooch, & Todd, 2000). Organizations are bound to comply with legislative requirements and have recruitment targets and therefore bring out various workplace programs outlawing discrimination such as the Racial Discrimination Act in the UK and Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the UK (Adams, Coutts, & Harte, 1995;Geddes, 2004).
Effective diversity management requires a culture which is inclusive of a work environment that nurtures teamwork, participation, and cohesiveness (Carnevale & Stone, 1994;Roberson & Park, 2007). The problem with management of diversity and the requirement of law to address the issues is eminent as organizations that have well-written documents for hiring and firing were found to have higher percentages of women in management (Reskin & McBrier, 2000). In their study of 516 work organizations in the United States, Reskin and McBrier (2000) found that formalizing personnel practices reduced men's share of management jobs because of formal check procedures when it came to acknowledgment in job assignments and evaluation.
HR diversity management practices should ideally start off by measuring diversity and diversity management practices in organizations as the diversity capabilities could be undermined by lack of attention to well-documented policies and proper record keeping (Kossek, Lewis, & Hammer, 2010). Scholars suggest that organizations should measure the identity profile of defined work groups, the prevalent organizational culture, the perceptions of various employee groups so as to identify cultural barriers that may act as an agent in hindering equality at the workplace (Cox & Ferguson, 1994;Kossek et al., 2010).
The literature on managing diversity and equality is extensive ranging from broad explorations to in-depth case studies across various firms and industries. Managing diversity and equality in the workplace is critical because there remains a widespread public commitment to equality and diversity which have been judged by different attitude surveys (Colgan, Creegan, McKearney, & Wright, 2007;Liff, 1999;Liff & Cameron, 1997). Managing diversity and equality is equally important as it impacts all the members working in an organization and if it can be properly managed an organization could have the potential to improve productivity, opportunity, and competitiveness (Moore, 1999). For example, Gilbert and Ivancevich (2000) describe how a multicultural organization's focused and planned approach to managing diversity and equality helped increase the firm's competitiveness compared to the pluralist organization where diversity was regarded as a public relations tool and not a core element that created competitive advantage. Kossek, Lautsch, and Eaton (2005) found that workplace diversity varies according to age, gender, social status, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, religion, personality, ethnicity, and culture. However, these also vary from one country to the other. Shen, Chanda, D'Netto and Monga (2009) argue that multiculturalism has always been vital element of diversity in Western countries including EU nations, whereas racial equality appears to be the predominant issue in USA and South Africa. This paper looks to create a framework for measuring diversity as Shen et al. (2009) suggest that there is no comprehensive model for managing diversity and equality in the workplace. This paper draws on four aspects through which diversity and equality can be managed which are performance appraisal (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990), sociocultural issues (Sandercock, 2000;Syed & Pio, 2010;Thorne & Saunders, 2002), organizational capabilities (Bassett-Jones, 2005;Sen, 1980), and affirmative approach (Ahmed, 2007;Shen et al., 2009). A framework for managing diversity and equality in the workplace is presented in Figure 1.

Performance appraisal approach to managing diversity and equality
Performance appraisal is conducted to enhance managerial and organizational performance along with employee motivation (Townley, 1993). Equality is achieved when organizations conduct a culture and management systems audit. Cox and Blake (1991) in their study found that the primary objectives of such audit should be to uncover origins of potential biases to certain cultural groups and also to identify components of the corporate culture which may put certain members at a disadvantage. Cox and Blake (1991) also found that organization culture and appraisal systems have put Asians and women in the United States at a disadvantaged position. Kochan et al. (2003) in their study found that gender diversity increased constructive group processes, while racial diversity inhibited them. Taking both Cox and Blake (1991) and Kochan et al. (2003) findings there seems to be a need for an racial and diversity audit although it might not reduce the discrimination among racial groups but it definitely contributes to reducing gender-based discrimination. During performance appraisals, reasons for disparities between diverse racial groups could be due to a set of factors related to performance evaluation and appraisals such as stereotyping, low expectations, and double standards (McCarty Kilian, Hukai, & Elizabeth McCarty, 2005). Bell and Nkomo (2001) in their survey found that 41% of African-American female managers expressed concerns with double standards claiming that they had to perform better than male managers just because of the biasness in performance appraisal. Poon (2004) found that organizations faced higher turnover rate when their employees perceived that their performance ratings were manipulated because of raters' personal bias and their intent to punish subordinates. It can be argued that systematic discrimination at workplace through which racial biasness normally occurs, plays a vital role in the management of equality and diversity at the workplace.
Performance ratings can have other implications too. For example, Grund and Przemeck (2012) in their study found that biased appraisal can influence future efforts. Mobley (1982) discovered that employee sex, supervisor race, and supervisor sex accounted for 4.8% of the variance in performance appraisals in a study conducted using data from a large supply distribution center located in the eastern part of the United States. This shows that blacks and females were less favored than whites and males and raters are prone to rate their own ethnic group or race higher than other groups (Mobley, 1982). This is very much in line with various scholars who agree that there is a glass ceiling which prevents promotion of certain racial groups, ethnic groups, and gender (Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia, & Vanneman, 2001;Powell & Butterfield, 1994). Morrison and von Glinow (1990) found that women and minorities face a "glass ceiling" which limits their advancements in organizations in the USA. Gregersen, Hite, and Black (1996) in their exploratory study of expatriate performance appraisal practices in US multinational firms found that use of multiple criteria and multiple raters related positively to perceive accuracy of performance appraisal. Drazin and Auster (1987) in their study of large financial services organization found that performance appraisal biasness existed between men and women but the relationship was stronger for men than women at higher levels. Varma, Pichler, and Srinivas (2005) in their study of 113 supervisors from India found that supervisors inflate ratings of low performers which show that local culture norms may be operating as a moderator during the entire performance appraisal process. Varma et al. (2005) findings coincide with the findings of Peretz and Fried (2012) that support the hypothesized effect of national cultural practices on performance appraisal practices. Prowse and Prowse (2009) found that employees in British firms found that managers manipulated appraisal scores to lower ratings so as to save paying rewards to employees showing a relationship between line managers and appraisers. Marsden (2007) argued that performance appraisals are a basis for bonuses of 65% of public sector and 69% of private sector employees excluding people in to management. Whilst many organizations predominantly use performance appraisal as a measure of employee performance, there are very few organizations that periodically examine managers' job performance evaluations (Greenhaus et al., 1990). The research conducted by Greenhaus et al. (1990) suggested that blacks felt less accepted in their organizations and received lower ratings from their supervisor which had direct implications on their promotion which caused low levels of satisfaction. Another variable contributing to performance appraisal was age stereotyping. A research conducted by Schwab and Heneman (1978) revealed that job knowledge, responsibility, salary increase, and age of the participant was found to be statistically significant meaning that age of the participant was a determinant in performance appraisal process. The process of conducting appraisals also differs from one place to the other. In a study conducted by Snape, Thompson, Yan, and Redman (1998) across British and Hong Kong firms, it was found that Hong Kong respondents favor senior manager in conducting their appraisal compared to their British counterparts. This study justifies the findings by other scholars aforementioned to depict the role of cultural characteristics of society in conducting performance appraisals.

Sociocultural approach to managing equality and diversity
Cultural diversity has become a key feature of multinationals and other organizations around the world. Human resource management is a set of distinctive functions, processes, and activities which are aimed at directed and maintaining organizations human resources and is affected by social and cultural issues (Cooper- Thomas & Anderson, 2006;Lado & Wilson, 1994). Managing human resource in an organization requires a detailed analysis and understanding of both the internal and external environments. Aycan, Kanungo, and Sinha (1999) developed a framework also known popularly as the model of cultural fit and included components such as paternalism and power distance to study sociocultural dimensions. Various researches have been conducted to identify the prominent dimensions along with cultures differ (Hofstede, 1983;Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996). Hofstede (2001) has developed a framework for cross-cultural communication which includes power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation. Other scholars have emphasized that language, gender, and religion are equally important in managing diversity across different cultures (Hunt, 2007;Squires, 2008). In this review, we shall look at paternalistic leadership, power distance, religion, and gender to evaluate the effects of these on equality and diversity.
Paternalistic leadership has been defined by several others in their own way over time. Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, and Farh (2004) define paternalistic leadership as a style which integrates discipline and authority with some room for generousness. In a study of African countries, Nyambegera (2002) argues that because of presence of diverse ethnic groups and social values such as paternalism the search for "integrative HRM practices" is a challenge. It is evident that paternalism exists in African countries and a person who might not accept these values might not fit in well. Paternalistic leadership is prevalent in other business cultures such as Middle East, Latin America, and Pacific Asia (Graen, Wakabayashi, Graen, & Graen, 1990;Martínez, 2003;Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Although paternalistic leadership is favored in the countries mentioned above, it is rather seen as a hidden and dangerous form of discrimination often referred to as dictatorship in Western countries (Jackson, 2013). In paternalistic cultures, managers often consider that it is their obligation to protect their subordinates and in exchange expect loyalty (James, Chen, & Cropanzano, 1996).
The extent to which inequality is expected and accepted in some countries depends on the power distance (Winterich & Zhang, 2014). It might be difficult for a person from a low power distance country to work in a high power distance country because of the restrictions set to employees with hierarchical structures. Bochner and Hesketh (1994) in their study of employees from 28 countries employed in a large Australian bank found that people from high power distance countries reported a greater incidence of discrimination and were in favor of cultural diversity at the workplace. Farh, Hackett, and Liang (2007) in their study of 163 supervisor-subordinate relationships found that power distance was a strong and a consistent moderator of perceived organizational support-work outcomes relationships. Further, they have also provided implications of these, especially linking them to equality and diversity practices in the workplace. Donthu and Yoo (1998) found that customers in high power distance countries have lower service quality expectations than lower power distance customers and also in their quality of work life. This can have a great impact on diversity and equality at the workplace, especially if people from two different societies are put together and expected to achieve high level of customer satisfaction.
Organizations face challenges in managing diversity at individual and group levels especially when employees come from diverse religions. The 11 September attack on twin towers in USA increased religious persecutions amount Muslim community whereby according to a report by the council of American-Islamic relations, there was a 15% increase in claims of mistreatment and bias in the workplace (Morgan, 2004). King and Williamson (2005) in their review of job satisfaction theory and religiosity found that interaction between an organization's position and an employee's desire relating to acceptance of workplace religious satisfaction had significant influence on job satisfaction. Elgin, Goksel, Gurdal, and Orman (2013) argue that countries with higher levels of religiosity are characterized by greater income inequality as religion requires individuals to make financial sacrifices and donations received are not taken as measures of income which increases income inequality. There are other instances where a systematic discrimination takes place even by the policies of countries and not just organization. A recent example is the ban of the burqa, a headscarf which was banned in French public schools in 2004 and later in the entire country depicting a systematic discrimination against Muslims (Parvez, 2011). Leane (2011) argues that France might have gone too far in banning Muslim women from wearing burka which is a religious requirement and such policies could affect the willingness of Muslim people to live in France. Allport and Ross (1967) found that on average churchgoers were more prejudiced than non churchgoers and people with extrinsic religious orientation were more prejudiced than people with intrinsic religious orientation. Moaddel (2006) in his study of Saudi Arabia found that mosque attendance and daily prayer are one of the many determinants of a person's performance in an organization. In the same context, if a Christian or a person from a different religion was to join, they would eventually feel uncomfortable working because of religious prejudice.
Gender inequality is a widely debated topic across the world especially in diversity and equality studies. There have been various laws that have come about to address this issue and the United Nations has placed gender equality and women empowerment as one of the millennium development goals (Kabeer, 2005). Yet there continues to be biasness in recruitment of women in various countries of the world. McCloskey, Williams, and Larsen (2005) in a household based sample of women aged 20-44 in the urban district of Moshia, Tanzania found that women faced discrimination at the hands of men and most of them especially experienced intimate partner violence. Most of these women were also not allowed to go to work because of the restrictions set forth by their husbands. Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe (2005) also found similar case in Nigeria where women were beaten by their husbands and were not allowed to work outside their homes. In Nigeria, men are the breadwinners and women are expected to look after children and the general household. The case is somewhat different in the context of India where the gap between women and men has actually narrowed due to political liberalization and various laws (Nussbaum, 2002). Managing equality and diversity at the workplace from a gender-based view therefore differs from the perceived difference of genders from one society to the other. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are only allowed to work in an isolated place from men because of the religious issues prevalent (Doumato, 1992).

AAs in managing diversity and equality
Managing equality in the workplace requires some serious consideration on the level of equality between men and women. Women's labor force participation has led to significant economic developments in the past 50 years (Bennett, 2014). The UK and other European countries have brought about laws to address the issue of gender discrimination in recruitment, redundancy decisions, and have established rights to flexible working, maternity leave, and part-time work (Annesley & Gains, 2013;Hyman & Summers, 2007). These laws are also known as AA edicts, which have been brought forward by governments of various countries to address the issues of diversity and equality at workplace. Although most of the organizations have different ways to address issues relating to diversity, their efforts to moderate managerial bias through diversity training and evaluations have not been effective (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). During the early 1970s, there was an active federal enforcement of equal employment opportunity (EEO) and AA law. The policy of AA conforms to the American ideal of fairness and is a necessary policy in organizations that want to manage diverse workforce and enhance their efficiency (Crosby, Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003). According to Williams (2015, p.73) "AA is a set of techniques for rectifying discrimination which consist mainly of forcing personnel systems to become more objective and to eliminate preferences built in not viciously but because the way the society was organized".
The problem with organization-based equality agendas is that they can increase disparities within the diverse category of "women," for example privileging white women compared to black or ethnic minority women (Jewson & Mason, 1986, 1994. There is evidence to suggest that organizations obtain cost benefits from exploiting women and their skills (Dex & McCulloch, 1995). AA and equal opportunities have risen out of organizations' continued exploitation to women and ethnic minorities. However, the implementation of equal opportunity incentives may be blocked by managers working in decentralized business units under tight budget control who might undertake narrow cost-benefit analysis and in order to meet short-term performance indicators might rather block them instead of promoting them (Guillaume, 2015;Shepherd, 2014). Women and minority workers could face discrimination just because of their manager's attitude towards equal opportunity incentives and hence that is why AA have come about, a move by the governments of various countries to cut back on discrimination. Byrne (1993) suggests a "goals and timetables" model for ensuring AA at the workplace. The author argues that goals are numerical targets for hiring or promotion of qualified members of a particular minority group and the deadlines are for achieving those goals. This is one way of monitoring progress towards a more proportionate workforce representation of minorities, while there is an assumption that proper balance between goals and timetables will be achieved only when discrimination is eliminated. The problem with diversity management is that it often ends up becoming a voluntary activity and in the process gets ignored. Smith, Wokutch, Harrington, and Dennis (2004) conducted a survey among 343 college students and the students responded to a more favorable assessment of AA rather than diversity management programs. However, supreme courts in various countries have actually supported the idea of AA recognizing that racial and ethnic diversity as a compelling state interest which would then give place to underrepresented groups in organizations (Estlund, 2005). It has therefore, been easier for governments to roll out AA laws because of active demands for underrepresented groups and also from nations who are willing to gain from increased labor participation.
AA and equal opportunities are statutory requirements and organizations will have to adhere to it whether they like it or not. The question that remains is whether AA can actually break down negative stereotypes and whether or not it could lead to permanent gains for minorities (Coate & Loury, 1993). The problem with AA is that majority groups could be provoked by preferential treatment and feel that they are becoming victims to what could otherwise have become a fairer process (Kinder & Sanders, 1990). AA and equal opportunities law have been criticized by various scholars whereby they argue that quotas require organizations to hire workers which are usually unqualified just to ensure compliance with legislation (Johnson & Welch, 1975;Lundberg, 1991;Thomas, 1987). Robinson, Allen, and Abraham (1992) argue that AA has created a spoils system in which even people that might have never experienced discrimination are benefitting at the expense of white males. Wynter (1994) argues that due to AA there has been lower hiring and performance standards applied to minorities. AAs should be backed by affirmative recognition which concentrates on shifting the attitudes of those in the strategic level rather than hiring people just to ensure legal compliance (Thomas, 1990).

Capabilities approach to managing diversity and equality
The capabilities approach to managing diversity and equality allows addressing the problem of gender equality in relation to paid work and caring whilst also providing a universal equality model which is rooted in the recognition of human diversity (Lewis & Giullari, 2005). Sen (1980) has contributed to the understanding of a universal, cross-culturally sensitive approach to understanding inequality and the reasons behind it. Nussbaum (1999) built a framework, continuing on the work of Senand, defining capabilities in terms of what freedoms they afford individuals, rather than in terms of what they are. The author purposes three fundamental types of capabilities which are basic capabilities, internal capabilities, and combined capabilities. This theme will build upon the framework built by Nussbaum (1999) and relate it to managing diversity and equality in the workplace.
Basic capabilities have been defined as innate abilities that individual posses which forms the basis of developing more advanced capabilities (Nussbaum, 1999). Basic capabilities are a subset of all capabilities and refer to the freedom to do certain basic things that are necessary for survival and to avoid or escape poverty (Robeyns, 2005). The notion of basic capabilities does depend from one country to the other and organizations looking to manage equality and diversity will have to be aware of that. Organizations need to know the basic capabilities of their workforce which refer to their innate abilities or pre-dispositions that individuals have and should foster an environment where they give their employees the chance to develop those capabilities (Morrison, Lumby, & Sood, 2006). One way of improving employees' basic capabilities is through improved communication as it allows an organization and managers to identify how they can get the best out of their staffs (Sadri & Tran, 2002). Robinson and Dechant (1997) argue that one way of achieving diversity at workplace is through the involvement of employees in focus groups, surveys, interviews, and various culture audits or needs achievements. This is in line with other scholars such as Morgan and Milliken (1992) who suggest companies should have some sort of mechanism whereby they understand employee's basic needs and concerns. Wong and Ko (2009) in a study of hotel employees in various hotels of Hong Kong found that by understanding the perspectives of employees through surveys, hotels were able to derive ways to improve staff productivity. Although basic needs are the most important needs that have to be sufficed by an organization to ensure minority and women participation, there are other capabilities which employees seek. Basic needs can be identified through various ways as described above and the ability to identify these innate qualities and needs is how a firm acquires basic capability.
Internal capabilities are internal or personal states of readiness to act or freedom which could be secured by literacy, numeracy, education, or training (Gagnon & Cornelius, 2000). Internal capabilities can also be linked to a firm whereby innovativeness can be created by developing their internal capabilities (Einsenhardt & Martin, 2000). A firm which has to manage diversity and equality effectively must have internal capabilities such as minimizing internal resistance or criticism that can result from employing a diverse individual (Dass & Parker, 1999). Effective management of a diverse workforce and developing the capability to do so can give firms a significant competitive advantage. Abbasi and Hollman (2000) argue that organizations that can effectively manage diversity through developing internal capabilities reap greater reward in terms of reduced staff turnover which can really cut down costs. Richard (2000) has linked the ability of a firm to manage diverse workforce to enhanced creativity and innovation at the workplace. A part of developing internal capabilities in an organization is redefining organizational culture to meet the requirements of minorities. Beauregard (2008) drew findings from a research event in which an academic participant identified a number of barriers to women's carrier progression. The barriers identified that masculine organizational cultures emphasized on long hours and internal networking which tend to exclude female employees, especially those with family responsibilities from the inner circles of power and influence. The author also found out that networking or the "old boys club" was also a significant factor that reduced women's progression in the career ladder. Leading a diverse work force not only requires a change in organizational culture but also requires a dedicated managerial team who support women and minorities, thus providing a favorable environment for them (Simons & Vazquez, 1993). Another way of internally accommodating diverse workforce is through the use of training programs which will then ensure that minorities and women are trained adequately in par with other workers (Kirby & Harter, 2003). The only problem is that only certain organizations choose to retort to workforce and customer demographics by initiating diversity management practices and becoming diversity leaders (Dansky, Weech-Maldonado, De Souza, & Dreachslin, 2003). Globalization has increased the urgency whereby firms that fail to develop the capability of diversity management will not succeed oversea. Tallman and Li (1996) argue that existence of internal foreign operations is a common reference point for multinationals and diversity management is at the heart of such programs. Iles and Kaur Hayers (1997) also add on to the argument by Tallman and Li (1996) by adding that multinationals have to develop competitiveness, flexibility, and worldwide learning capability simultaneously by being able to manage multicultural, multinational, and multilingual people who might be working on the same project. Internal capabilities can be improved by a firm at any point in time but multinationals as identified by examples above must address it with urgency to remain competitive. The alternative approach which takes aspects of both basic capability and internal capability is combined capability.
Combined capabilities are the internal capabilities that work in conjunction with external structural conditions or the socio-political environment of work, community, and state (Morrison, 2006). Organizations that allow individuals to develop their basic capabilities through improvization of their internal capabilities of promoting diversity will not only achieve profitable results but will also be seen as ethical business based on virtue (Bertland, 2009). A good way of combining internal and external capabilities can be done through the use of flexible work arrangements (Glover & Kirton, 2006). Ruth Eikhof, Warhurst, and Haunschild (2007) in their study found that flexible work arrangements enhanced and encouraged the employability of a more diverse pool of labor, especially in terms of minority and gender participation but also related to religion, age, and disability. However, many companies still find the translation of flexible work policies into practice because of business pressures including tight deadlines to meet their clients' needs and demands. Campbell and Wanrooy (2013) in their study studied data from the 2011 WERS survey and found that 41% of employees that were working in various organizations found that it was necessary to work long hours in order to progress. This finding is very significant as it means that females almost have no chances of being employed if the perceived information of the employees actually holds true. The focus of flexible working arrangements has shifted from operational and numerical flexibility where the needs of the employers are supreme towards a multi-dimensional benefit for both the employers and the employees (Musson & Tietze, 2009). Flexible work practices are considered to promote social inclusion and equity; and therefore, organizations develop HR policies that support and value diversity so that they can also benefit from a diverse workforce (Barbosa & Cabral-Cardoso, 2010). A flexible approach for minority women is necessary in organizations as women have to deal with additional cultural, community or religious demands (Kamenou, 2008). Flexible approach not only helps minority women but also people that have some sort of disability. Clarke, van der Meer, Bingham, Michielsens, and Miller (2009) found that there was a significant relationship between flexible nature of work and the employability of disabled workers. Disable people have to difficulties and might need a more flexible environment to work compared to normal people. Crompton and Lyonette (2011) in their study of women's career success in accountancy and medical professions in England found that flexible working patterns or part time working impact negatively on promotion. Organizations might have policies in place to allow flexible working patterns but other researchers have found that managers may prevent or discourage their subordinates from working in this manner which hampers the plan to promote a work environment that encourages diversity (Cunningham & Hyman, 1995;Lewis & Humbert, 2010). Employees might also refrain from asking for flexible working hours, especially when they find that their line managers do not favor such practices. Line managers often are subject to targets and have to ensure that organizational performance improves whilst at the same time being able to accommodate flexible hours which ultimately might create tensions between employees and line managers (Drew & Murtagh, 2005). Organizations that are able to embed cultural, societal, individual, and organizational values along with support from their management can really develop the capabilities which enhance working conditions that will ultimately be able to attract diverse group of people including women and minorities.

Conclusion
This paper explored four themes which could lead to effective management of diversity and equality in the workplace. The first theme was performance appraisal and it was found that organizations faced problems with managers conducting appraisals as they were subject to discriminate one way or the other. Other organizations were found to use multiple raters and multiple criterions to conduct performance appraisals. Performance appraisals were influenced by a range factors related to appraisals such as stereotyping, low expectations, and double standards (McCarty Kilian et al., 2005). It was also found that only few organizations periodically examine managers' performance with job appraisals (Greenhaus et al., 1990). Finally, literatures revealed that the process of conducting appraisals different from one place to the other and the perceptions of employees upon which appraisals were to be conducted also differed significantly. The paper provided a future point for future researchers by devising a hypothesis that organizations that use multiple raters and puts metrics upon appraisals will achieve lower turnover of ethnic minorities and women. It is recommended that this research be conducted in various countries as the results from literature review so that cultural components play a vital role. The sociocultural approach to managing equality and diversity was reviewed. It was found that components such as paternalism, power distance, religion, and gender were significant cultural components in the study of equality and diversity. The role of AA to manage diversity and equality was reviewed. It was found that governments of various countries favored laws governing equality and diversity because of the competitive advantage it could receive from intense labor participation. Finally, the capabilities approach to managing diversity and equality in the workplace was reviewed. Communication was found as a basic measure to improve employee's basic capabilities (Sadri & Tran, 2002). It was found that companies could access the basic capabilities of their employees through some sort of mechanism which could include focus group discussions, surveys, interviews, and other cultural audits (Robinson & Dechant, 1997;Wong & Ko, 2009). Internal capabilities referred to changing internal processes in the organizations or sometimes even reframing organizational structure to ensure a diverse workplace which could in effect give them competitive advantage. Organizations can provide training programs to ensure that minorities and women are trained in par with other workers (Kirby & Harter, 2003). Internal capabilities referred to those competencies that organizations could develop in terms of flexibility and learning, especially to compete in this fast changing world induced by the forces of globalization (Tallman & Li, 1996). Drawing upon from basic and internal capabilities, this paper reviewed combined capabilities which reviewed flexible work arrangements which could exist depending upon the external structural conditions or the socio-political environment of work (Glover & Kirton, 2006;Morrison, 2006;Ruth Eikhof et al., 2007). It was found that a flexible approach for minority women was necessary as women had to deal with additional cultural, community, or religious demands (Kamenou, 2008).