Diversity and Discrimination in the Workplace: The Role in Activities of an Organization

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Effects of Diversity at Workplace
Glass Wall, Gender and Ethnic Discrimination
Racial Discrimination
Gender discrimination
Glass Ceiling Effect
Occupations and Industries Dominated by One Gender
Organisations Dominated by Whites
References

Introduction

Minority groups play an important role in organizational structures. Being a minority in these organisations, you face discrimination either as individuals or collectively as a group. Gender and ethnic diversities play an important role in performance of an organization.

Some organizations need diverse work force to accomplish their objectives. Other do not need diverse workforce; they only employ minorities so that they can comply with various labor laws. Women, African Americans, Latinos and Asians have been the main victims of workplace discrimination in the United States. As a result of discrimination, minority groups have identified themselves differently from dominant ones.

Women and ethnic minorities are finding it hard to get jobs in competitive position (Cockburn, 1991). Even when they get opportunities in such institutions, they are paid poorly and their work despised.

It has been found that when workers from minority groups are treated with utmost respect, individual and group performance record tremendous improvement. Generally, minorities play an important role in group behavior at workplaces. When there is fair communication the minorities perceive the working environment to be conducive.

Over the last few decades, laws have been passed which criminalize discrimination based on gender or race. Companies and organisations are required to give candidates of equal qualifications equal chances of employment. Companies have initiated training programs aimed at sensitizing their employees to appreciate a wide range of physical, cultural and interpersonal differences.

These trainings have not been as effective as expected (Bezrukova & Jehn, 2001). In 1990s, Hewlett Packard CEO Sort to convince other chief executives that managing diversity effectively produces better business results (Kochan et al. 2003).

On the other hand, Jehn and others (1999) found that diversity may simultaneously produce more conflicts and employee turnover as well as more creativity and innovation. Furthermore, if not managed well, diversity can have adverse effects on group processes such as communication, conflict and cohesion.

Racial and gender discrimination has been addressed unfairly in several institutions. When an employee of a higher rank or position is discriminated based on race or gender, less or no disciplinary action is taken against the senior employee.

However, if the aggressor is a junior employee, while a senior employee is the victim, disciplinary action is taken very first. In itself, this kind of action amount to class discrimination perpetrated by HR or other officials in authority (Rowe, 1990).

Effects of Diversity at Workplace

Workplace dominated by one gender, ethnicity or race portray varying organizational behavior. Depending on the nature of organizational culture, behavior and leadership existing, the effects can be either negative or positive. If managers and their employees use diversity as strength, the organization is likely to realized improved performance.

However, if they use their diversities as way to discriminate and show might, performance may be affected negatively. Although some researchers have found that diversity related conflicts can be beneficial to organizations, this does not always happen. Jehn (1995) believe that conflict associated with diversity helps to avoid group thinking hence improved performance.

However, he still argues that other forms of miscommunication and lower cohesion can result in poor performance. Because of this kind of situation, the negative and positive effects cancel out so that no notable effects are realized. (Kochan et al. 2003). Therefore, diversity and performance will be influenced by organizational context of the organisation.

For instance, effects of diversity on organizational performance can be more favorable if team members and their leaders build their relationships through innovation and creativity. Diversity can also improve performance if employees are trained on how to mitigate issues of communication and problem solving if they are working in diverse environments.

If practices by HR team turn diversity to a workforce with diverse advantage, then positive performance will be realized. On the other hand, if the HR does not know how to deal with diversity issues, it can result in negative outcomes.

From research results of studies conducted by Kochan and others (2003), there is no direct effect of racial or gender diversity on performance. Gender diversity portrays positive effects when they are involved in group activities but ethnic diversities generate negative effects. In organisations that conduct training in career development and diversity management, negative relationships between ethnicities is reduced significantly.

In organisations which use ethnic diversities as a resource for innovation, there is overall positive performance. Organisations with less gender diversities compared to typical male dominated ones portray more problems.

In organisation with most of its employees doing sales, racial diversity does not result in positive performance. Customers do not consider the race of a sales person before they buy goods or services. However, gender has positive effects in sales. Teams which have representation of both men and women post better results than those with minority in either sex (Kochan et al. 2003).

Glass Wall, Gender and Ethnic Discrimination

Gender, race and ethnic based discrimination is now the principle scaffolding segregation in the United States. This is build by micro-inequalities seen through small events which are hard to prove and perpetrators do not easily realize that they have segregated others (Rowe, 1990). Micro-inequalities happen when people perceive others to be different either by race, ethnicity or sex.

When these actions occur more frequently, they pose destructive effect on relationship of individuals. It has been difficult for African Americans, Latinos and women to climb career ladder of organizational leadership. Caucasians face the same circumstances in Asian run organizations. Glass wall have been barriers to women’s and minorities’ occupational success.

According to Rowe (1990), women have failed to rise because of practicality of the conditions. Women need family support and are tasked with child care. This in itself is the initial level of discrimination. Senior managers want people who are similar to them to succeed them when they retire. Therefore, women and minorities get poor or no appraisal during their active work.

Issues of discrimination have been addressed in recent times by senior managers when reported to them. However, there are small barriers which contribute more to the discrimination. For instance, it will not be seen as a big issue when an African American is not invited for strategy meeting.

Others include leaving women at home while going for field trips, blaming occupational problems and expecting failure from a person who is different (Rowe, 1990). Micro-inequalities are small discriminatory activities which make a person from non-dominant group feel not indigenous to the environment. So long as the activities are not related to work performance and creativity, they amount to discrimination.

According to Smith and Elliott (2002), authority has been used as a mechanism for maintaining race and gender inequalities. It has been observed that whites are more likely to exercise authority than minorities and men are likely to do so than women. White men have been found to be more privileged than African Americans, Latinos or women in wielding authority.

Racial Discrimination

According to ILO conference report (2003), slavery was outlawed by 1800 in many countries but colonial governments’ still enslaved people in1920. African Americans were the main victims of slavery. After slavery was ended, racial discrimination took charge. This can be attributed to perception by the whites towards black people during slavery period. Some white people could not imagine doing same job with their former slaves.

But as time passed, slavery ended and racial discrimination reduced. Currently, there is widespread racial discrimination in labor market within the United States and other countries.

Most business establishments are owned by white males. As a result, these organisations are headed by white males too. People from different races are treated as second class employees whose views and opinions are not worth managements’ consideration.

Despite their qualification and hard work, most African Americans and Latinos do not advance the career ladder. Furthermore, most employees from these ethnic groups are not paid like their white counterparts. For employees from minorities who are in management of white dominated organisations, their ideas are rarely considered in strategic meeting.

This shows that most people in labor market pretend to have stopped discrimination but their activities suggest otherwise. Highly qualified African Americans are kept in technical departments and not elevated to management positions in some organisations. The organization’s managements know their importance in success but still they do not want to put them in decision making positions (ILO, 2003).

Racial discrimination in labor markets can occur in different situations. It occurs during recruitment and while working. Sometimes discrimination is not directed towards certain ethnic groups. In such situations, discrimination occurs through laws and standards with the aim of locking certain people out of some activities or privileges at workplace (Pierce, 1970).

Gender discrimination

Women have been facing workplace discrimination for long time. Traditionally, women have been perceived as home makers. As a result, majority of organizations all over the world have been dominated by men for a very long time. Women have been discriminated during recruitment, training, promotions, appraisals and job allocations (Cockburn, 1991). Men consider women to be the weaker sex.

As a result, they end up being allocated jobs which are perceived to require basic skills. Clerical jobs have been preserved for women in several organizations. Women are not easily recruited to competitive positions when there is a male competitor who is equally qualified. The situation is worse when the women are from small ethnic groups (Browne, 1999).

Glass Ceiling Effect

Workers enter organizations at different levels based on their qualifications. Men and women are allocated various duties and positions when entering organisations. In several organisations, race and gender has accounted for substantial portion of pay gap and promotion disparities (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993).

Studies show that despite some people from minority races or women in male dominated companies being promoted to better position, discrimination against them does not stop. Colleagues from dominant groups (white men) look down upon them. A number of these people eventually resign due to discrimination.

Despite being equally qualified, members of the minority groups do not easily attain the highs levels of their careers. Most men easily achieve occupational objectives if they have enough experience and qualification. For women and minority ethnic groups, they take long time to climb career ladder because of glass ceiling effect (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993).

To push the women out of competition, men resist job integration. According to Maume (1999), they do so by using administrative rules which tend to favor them. These rules put skills and experience as vital issues to be used in appraisal hence limiting the number of women competing for better paying jobs. Men remain free to compete among themselves after segregating women into female-typed jobs.

The jobs competed for by men not only pay well, but also have better career opportunities. Women who enter male dominated occupations become victims of harassment and isolation which limit their performance (Maume, 1999).

Jobs given to women are not regarded highly even in male dominated organisations. The jobs positions that women hold are thought to require fewer skills which are easily learned at home. This results in poor pay. Women are further denied opportunities in organizations dominated by men when their jobs are not given enough training. This limits their chances of getting promotion.

In some organizations, women with technical qualifications are given clerical jobs so that they can work with other women instead of engaging challenging positions with men.

Buy working as clerks rather than in their specialty, women’s careers stagnate due to lack of relevant experience and few training opportunities. When such women are promoted to managerial positions, they perform poorly because of lack of relevant experience and training.

Williams (1995) found that segregation differs by gender with men employed in female dominated occupations. After interviewing nurses, teachers, social workers and librarians, Williams (1995) found that women considered such men as deviants. They were viewed as venturing in occupations believed to require skills possessed by women. Clients did not want men to attend to them.

For instance parents did not want their children to be taught by men, patients sponged by men or dispense advice to welfare mothers in social settings. After such complains were presented to supervisors, men were moved to managerial positions.

Men climb the glass escalator in that simple way. Some men have admitted venturing to such occupation because of presence of glass escalators. This has given men working in women dominated occupations undue advantage.

Occupations and Industries Dominated by One Gender

As seen in Williams’ studies (1995), women dominate nursing, teaching, social work and libraries in the United States. Dominance on women in these occupations has not been an advantage to them. Although men are discriminated by women counterparts in these occupations, they still find a way of coming out of such situations.

Men face micro-inequalities caused by office talk, customer preference and management actions. Clients prefer female workers in these occupations leaving men to fight for their stay. Men have been lucky when their managers are men or women who are considerate. By clients preferring female workers in these occupations, work performance is affected negatively especially when the number of employees is small.

The remaining women are overworked while their male counterparts are underworked. Finally men are promoted to managerial positions hence they do not interact with clients directly (Rowe, 1990).

In organisations dominated by men, women’s jobs not considered to be important. They have specific jobs which rarely change. These jobs are perceived to belong to women because they require less skill. Clerical jobs have been reserved for women in several organizations which are dominated by men. Women are discriminated in different forms in such institutions.

They are not given enough opportunities for training, promotions and decision making (Smith, 2002). Executive officers in such organisations view women as invisible people and are treated like furniture. This is seen when there is an opening in one of the departments in an organisation.

A senior manager opt to recruit a man instead of promoting an equally qualified woman who is already an employee working as his executive assistant. Furthermore, the woman who should have been promoted is required to train the new employee. As a result, the female executive assistant is demoralized.

This cause extended damage because they prevent better behavior from occurring. If such an executive assistant is overloaded by unreasonable work, she is prevented from performing more creative activities which might hold her from getting a promotion (Smith, 2002).

Sometimes it is hard for people of different genders to communicate easily. This makes it hard to make sound judgments when one makes a mistake. When members of dominant gender discuss something, minority gender feel that the issue is being brought up because of their presence.

Men fail to make critical evaluations of women’s performance or leadership abilities. They even fail to give constructive criticism and when they give, it is not taken positively by women because of the unending negative criticism from the past (Rowe, 1990).

Organisations Dominated by Whites

In organisations dominated by white people, African Americans, Latinos and Asians face racial discrimination. Micro-inequalities have replaced direct discrimination in the modern world (Rowe, 1990). A number of managers and supervisors are known to use African Americans as scapegoats for mistakes made by them or others.

A manager may quarrel one of his black assistants complaining of an error which has been made by another employee. Some are even punished unfairly when a mistake occur. In some cases, managers have ensured that each team has a person from different ethnic group to make it is easy to pinpoint them when something racial is needed.

This is because managers know that African American, Latinos or Asian employee are good in some tasks more than their white counterparts; they call upon them and treat them nicely when their assistance is required. As soon as the white managers have the tasks completed, they revert back to their unethical discriminatory deeds.

Use of Latinos’ and African American’s traits positively can only occur when they are hired specifically to market products to people of same race. In government institutions, these minorities are assigned duties in departments dealing with social welfare and corrections which are directly related to their communities. By doing so, the organizations eliminate competition from these ethnic groups (Collins, 1993).

This shows that blacks and Latinos are hired and left to languish in racialized jobs. White executives in private firms have perfected the art of utilizing blacks for the benefit of their companies without considering their careers. The ones who penetrate to the management are not allowed to participate in matters relating to strategy, product development or market analysis.

The main reason for the promotion is sometimes to improve the image of the company but not to improve the workforce (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). When such managers realize intentions of their companies’, they may constantly range through emotions from legitimate anger.

Some discriminatory actions are unintended but they finally injure the victims. For instance, when there is a company annual party, people may converge in groups leaving a person of other ethnic group alone. As a result, the fellow is injured psychologically but deep down he or she knows that it was not intentional.

In some cases, an aggressor realizes that discrimination has occurred and apologizes. On the other hand, aggressor may not know if they have injured the other person of different ethnic group. The aggressor may respond to protest bewilderment (Rowe, 1990).

Some people from minority groups are used to unending insults from their colleagues and bosses such that it becomes hard for them to realize when they are complimented.

Their colleagues and bosses are fond of criticizing what they do or blaming other people’s mistakes on them. To them any utterances from the majority race amounts to an insult and sometimes the minority protest even when they are complimented before they realise it meant no harm (Pierce, 1970).

References

Bezrukova, K., & Jehn, K.A. (2001). The effects of diversity training programs. Philadelphia, PA: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Browne, I. (1999). Latinas and African American women in the U.S. labor market. In I. Brown (Ed.), Latinas and African American women at work (pp. 1-31). New York: Russell Sage.

Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women: Men’s resistance to sex equality in organizations. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Collins, S. (1993). Blacks on the bubble: The vulnerability of Black executives in White corporations. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 29-47.

ILO. (2003). Time for Equality at Work: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

Jehn, K.A., Neale, M., & Northcraft, G. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.

Maume, D.J. (1999). Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators. Work and Occupations, 26(4), 483-509.

Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive Mechanisms. In F. Barbour (Ed.), The Black 70’s. Boston: Sargent.

Rowe, M.P. (1990). Barriers to Equality: The Power of Subtle Discrimination to Maintain Unequal Opportunity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights, 3(2), 153-163.

Smith, R. A. (2002). Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and Research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 509-542.

Smith, R., & Elliott, J. ( 2002). Does Ethnic Concentration Influence Employees’ Access to Authority? An Examination of Contemporary Urban Labor Markets. Social Forces, 81, 255– 79.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267.

Click Here To Order Now!