The Equal Opportunities Approach and Discrimination

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
Discrimination
EO Policies
The Effectiveness of the EO Approach
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The subject of workplace diversity is slightly set apart from other prejudice-related subjects by a wide range of worrying myths and political controversies. Those who come into direct contact with the issue of occupational diversity may be surprised to discover the degree to which labour force heterogeneity benefits organizations. Forward-looking human resources (HR) managers are well aware of the fact that a diverse workforce benefits a company’s productivity because it fosters complementary relationships between employees, makes the working environment more enjoyable, and attracts additional customers who appreciate the benefits of a high degree of staff homogeneity (Ning, Xiao & Lee 2017). There is ample empirical evidence pointing to this positive diversity-performance link (Ning, Xiao & Lee 2017).

Despite the fact that workplace diversity has become commonplace in developed countries throughout the world, there is still much to be done to ensure that marginalized populations are not targets of discrimination. The past several decades have been marked by sustained legislative efforts to ameliorate pernicious effects of workplace discrimination (Hansen & Seierstad 2016). The exercise of discretion has been put at the centre of legal measures aimed at the eradication of discriminatory hiring practices in organizations. This approach has become known as Equal Opportunity (EO). Unfortunately, the EO approach is not completely effective in counteracting occupational disadvantages associated with membership of certain social groups.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the extent to which the EO approach helps to eradicate workplace discrimination in all its complex forms. It will be argued that legal efforts driven by the EO agenda still fall short of delivering satisfying diversity outcomes. Therefore, it is necessary to consider alternative approaches to promoting occupational egalitarianism such as managing diversity.

Discrimination

Before discussing the EO approach to occupational diversity management, it is necessary to consider the various manifestations of workplace discrimination. When it comes to employment, discrimination affects both visible and invisible minorities. A growing body of extant research has demonstrated various injustices at organizational and institutional levels that lead to adverse outcomes for members of visible minority groups (Hansen & Seierstad 2016). A study by Okechukwu et al. (2014) shows that workplace discrimination can substantially damage the psychological integrity of exposed individuals. In addition to occupational health disparities, there is ample evidence showing the contribution of discrimination to socioeconomic outcomes experienced by affected individuals (Guryan & Charles 2013). Unfortunately, the empirical focus of most research up to now has been on the investigation of practical manifestations of occupational discrimination with respect to visible minorities without exploring the perspective of invisible minorities.

It should be acknowledged that discrimination research concerning invisible minorities belonging to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities is fraught with difficulties caused by heteronormative expectations underpinning many social structures around the globe. Therefore, it is the effects of workplace discrimination on visible workers that take the form of the dominant discourse in modern academia (Priola et al. 2014). Nonetheless, it is increasingly well established that despite comprehensive legal efforts to ameliorate discrimination against invisible minorities, many organizations do fall short of being inclusive workplaces for those individuals who do not fit within the boundaries of normative heterosexual models (Ning, Xiao & Lee 2017).

Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination

To better understand normative heterosexuality as a discriminatory manifestation, it is necessary to consider two types of sexuality-based discrimination: formal and interpersonal. Formal discrimination targets certain individuals at the hiring stage. It is also a causal agent of inequitable distribution of resources and a lack of promotional opportunities (Blustein 2013). Interpersonal discrimination, on the other hand, is manifested through verbal and non-verbal acts undermining the well-being of individuals. It is clear that the normalization of heterosexuality contributes towards the creation of organizational climates that privilege heterosexual behaviours and family arrangements, thereby isolating LGBT employees (Kollen 2016). A study by Woodruffe-Burton and Bairstow (2013) shows many organizational cultures are still far from countering heteronormativity that promotes discrimination against LGBT workers. Current vocational research shows that discrimination against invisible minorities is pervasive (Denissen & Saguy 2014).

EO Policies

EO policies are underpinned by the social justice principles that emphasize the importance of diversity. Gender, race, disability, religion, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, and age are all major dimensions of diversity, as well as sources of discrimination in the workplace (Ning, Xiao & Lee 2017). It follows that existing equality policies seek to eliminate negative employment outcomes for groups whose unique characteristics can be the subject of discrimination. The EO approach is based on the recognition of the issue of formal discrimination that disproportionally affects individuals from protected groups. The growing interest of policymakers in the elimination of occupational discrimination has resulted in the emergence of legislative EO agenda. The Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Disability Discrimination Act exemplify key pieces of legislation that enabled the development of a formal equality-centred legal framework in the UK (Hansen & Seierstad 2016). Unfavourable treatment of minorities in occupational settings is tackled to some degree by these and other regulations.

The Effectiveness of the EO Approach

The legislative EO agenda has become a powerful force of change in the modern world. The approach is driven by the desire for social fairness, which underpins all legislative efforts. It has to be borne in mind that the main goal of the EO approach is to rectify historical errors and correct existing labour imbalances. For example, the core motivation of EO policies concerning gender is to ensure that employees are not disadvantaged because of their gender. In other words, the drive for equality can be seen as a causal agent of all EO efforts at the governmental level. Unfortunately, the progress in eradicating workplace discrimination is largely marginal.

In her recent Golden Globes acceptance speech, Oprah Winfrey shed light on contemporary forms of discrimination that target women (CNN 2018). The talk show host expressed her concern over the prevalence of sexual harassment in the entertainment industry and made it clear that discrimination is responsible for earnings disparities. Women often find themselves at the bottom end of the wage distribution, which can be explained by a desire by men to retain their occupational status, and associated material benefits, by discriminating against women.

Wage gaps are not the only forms of modern discrimination to persist, despite EO efforts. A study by Cortina et al. (2013) shows that general incivility is a common feature in Western workplaces. The term ‘general incivility’ refers to subtle forms of sexism and racism that are manifested in “rude and discourteous behaviour that lacks a clear intent to harm” (Cortina et al. 2013, p. 124). It has been long established by organizational scholars that such manifestations of bias are a function of psychological aggression, which is extremely damaging to exposed individuals. Even though workplace incivility can lack overt intent, its effects are far from harmless. General incivility in organizational settings at both individual and group levels results in higher rates of job-related stress and lower levels of cooperation (Schilpzand, De Pater & Erez 2016). Distressed employees are more likely to lose commitment to their jobs and result in higher turnover rates. As such, in addition to any adverse consequences for the individual workers affected, discrimination in the form of general incivility endangers the long-term success of businesses and also prevents organizations from fully capitalizing on diversity. Moreover, the prevalence of general incivility points to the fact that the EO approach has limited efficiency.

Women in STEM Fields

Women are still greatly outnumbered by men in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related occupations. This has to do with the fact that the expectations of candidate performance seem to be closely linked to gender. According to Doering and Thebaud (2017), initial hiring decisions of both male and female employers are guided by gender-related beliefs. Specifically, there is strong evidence of discrimination against females in STEM hiring. Distorted expectations of female candidates’ job performance lead to the unfavourable distribution of sexes across certain occupations. A corollary is that despite substantial progress in creating equal employment opportunities for all candidates regardless of their gender, the EO approach still fails to produce satisfactory results.

The realities of workplace discrimination are underscored by differential treatment of candidates at Google. Even though the company prides itself on having an egalitarian mindset, its recent diversity report reveals that only a small number of women have joined the tech giant’s workforce in recent years; only 21 percent of female candidates were hired for tech positions at the company in 2016 (Fortune 2017). Furthermore, the hiring of Black and Latino workers accounted for 3 percent and 4 percent of new employees, respectively (Fortune 2017). Google’s diversity statistics for their global workforce show that women made up 31 percent of all employees in 2016 (Fortune 2017). This suggests that even inclusivity-driven employers cannot significantly raise the representation bar for women and minorities. One can argue that US equality legislation is not sufficient to all eradicate disproportionalities in employment practices.

Ideological Discrimination

Despite the fact that the EO approach is based on the recognition of individual differences as factors contributing to the competitive advantage of a company, diversity as a means of achieving organizational success cannot be fully enforced through governmental policies alone. Combined legislative efforts to achieve equitable employment results sometimes have disproportionate effects on workers belonging to dominant social groups. A former tech employee of Google, James Damore, has recently filed a class action lawsuit against the company (Tech Crunch 2018). The lawsuit purports to represent all employees of the tech powerhouse who have been systematically mistreated and “discriminated against due to their perceived conservative political views by Google, due to their male gender by Google, and due to their Caucasian race by Google” (Tech Crunch 2018, para. 4). According to Damore’s filing, the company regularly terminates workers who “expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business” (Tech Crunch 2018, para. 5). If these claims hold up to scrutiny, it will be necessary to investigate the existence of ideological discrimination that cannot be aligned with the modern EO agenda.

Even though there is a lack of research on ideological discrimination, it is well established within the field of social sciences that individuals on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum perceive their counterparts as value violators (Wetherell, Brandt & Reyna 2013). Such perceptions may push proponents of certain ideologies to discriminate against their opponents, thereby undermining EO principles. If the existence of ideological discrimination is confirmed by multiple lines of independent investigation, it could be argued that the current state of EO policies should be reviewed to promote ideological diversity.

The Current State of Discrimination

A recent report issued by the US Census Bureau reveals that African Americans and Hispanics earn 59 percent and 70 percent, respectively, of the average White income (cited in Jones et al. 2017). These disparities can be attributed to three forms of occupational discrimination: selection and promotion, opposition to diversity policies, and performance evaluation (Marhiondo, Ran & Cortina 2018). When it comes to wage discrimination, there is convincing evidence to show that the gender wage gap persists despite numerous EO initiatives to eradicate it. Specifically, in 2015, US women earned only 83 percent of what US men earned on average (Pew Research Center 2017). Practically, this means women have to work an extra 44 days to ‘close the gap’ (CNN 2017).

There is a wealth of data showing that racial discrimination also manifests in wage differences (Cornwell, Rivera & Schmutte 2016; Lee 2017; Quillian et al. 2017). According to Derous, Pepermans, and Ryan (2017), wage discrimination is the continuation of ethnic and racial discrimination that starts at the hiring stage. It should also be noted that discrimination in the modern workplace can occur based on age, weight, and religion, among others (Drydakis et al. 2018; Jones et al. 2017; Scheitle & Ecklund 2017).

Alternatives

Taking into consideration the poor performance of the EO approach to managing workplace discrimination, it is necessary to consider alternative solutions to the problem. The principal focus of EO legislation is to achieve formal equality, which means free access to hiring, promotion, and wage opportunities in organizations. This method of managing discrimination is two-pronged: positive action and exercise of discretion. To eradicate shortcomings of the EO agenda, managing diversity emerged as an alternative in the early 1990s (Nickson 2013). Unlike the EO approach, managing diversity seeks to emphasize individual differences of employees in the workplace and recognize them as assets, contributing to efficiency and performance.

The key distinction between the EO approach and managing diversity is the focus on individuals instead of groups. As a consequence, the latter approach can be used to account for additional distinctions not covered by the EO legislation (Kirton & Greene 2015). Furthermore, managing diversity draws upon organizational resources to fight discrimination in the workplace. Given that legislative policies can be used to promote occupational diversity only to a limited extent, it is necessary to consider the employment of internal organizational forces for this purpose. To establish egalitarian hiring and promotional frameworks, companies should review their structure towards the promotion of diversity. To this end, a business case can be made for eradicating workplace discrimination. For example, it has been established that diversity positively affects innovation in companies (Ozgen, Nijkamp & Poot 2017). There is also a bidirectional link between workplace diversity and performance (Kundu & Mor 2017).

Forward-looking companies should develop their own diversity-oriented policies to alleviate the burden of discrimination. By recognizing managing diversity as a long-term business objective, business enterprises can achieve a competitive edge in the environment characterized by a high level of competition (Kirton & Greene 2015). In addition, all employers should be closely familiar with the principles underpinning the drive for diversity, thereby ensuring that their hiring policies, practices, and procedures contribute to the eradication of discrimination. Unlike the EO approach, managing diversity can help workers from minority groups to feel respected and appreciated by their companies.

Conclusion

The paper has discussed the degree to which the EO approach can be applied to promote diversity and mange occupational discrimination in organizations. It has been argued that the approach has failed to produce satisfactory results across a wide-range of both organizationally and socially relevant variables. Despite numerous legal efforts driven by the EO agenda, people are still discriminated against on the basis of their gender, religion, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight. To ensure that workplace dynamics are not skewed by the harmful effects of discrimination, it is necessary to consider alternative approaches to diversity management. Specifically, forward-looking organizations have to adopt a managing diversity approach, which places emphasis on individual characteristics of employees instead of just recognizing their membership in marginalized groups. By following this approach, it is possible to ensure that modern workplaces are not marred by the persistent discrimination that often results in a lack of diversity and equality.

Reference List

Blustein, D.L. (2013) The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

CNN (2017)5 things to know about the gender pay gap. Web.

CNN (2018)Read Oprah Winfrey’s rousing Golden Globes speech. Web.

Cornwell, C., Rivera, J. and Schmutte, I.M. (2016) “Wage discrimination when identity is subjective: evidence from changes in employer reported race”, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 43-51.

Cortina, L.M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E.A., Huerta, M. and Magley, V.J. (2013) “Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 123-129.

Denissen, A.M. and Saguy, A.C. (2014) “Gendered homophobia and the contradictions of workplace discrimination for women in the building trades”, Gender & Society, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 381-403.

Derous, E., Pepermans, R. and Ryan, A.M. (2017). “Ethnic discrimination during resume screening: interactive effects of applicants’ ethnic salience with job context”, Human Relations, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 219-244.

Doering, L. and Thebaud, S. (2017). “The effects of gendered occupational roles on men’s and women’s workplace authority: evidence from microfinance”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 1-14.

Drydakis, N., MacDonald, P., Chiotis, V. and Somers, L. (2018). “Age discrimination in the UK labour market. Does race moderate ageism? An experimental investigation”, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 28, pp. 1-4.

Fortune (2017) Google’s 2017 diversity report shows progress hiring women, little change for minority workers. Web.

Guryan, J. and Charles, K.K. (2013) “Taste-based or statistical discrimination: the economics of discrimination returns to its roots”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 123, pp. 417-432.

Hansen, K. and Seierstad, C. (2016) Corporate social responsibility and diversity management: theoretical approaches and best practices, New York, NY: Springer.

Jones, K.P., Arena, D.F., Nittrouer, C.L., Alonso, N.M. and Lindsey, A.P. (2017) “Subtle discrimination in the workplace: a vicious cycle”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 51-76.

Jones, K.P., Sabat, I.E., King, E.B., Ahmad, A., McCausland, T.C. and Chen, T. (2017) “Isms and schisms: a meta-analysis of the prejudice-discrimination relationship across racism, sexism, and ageism”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 1076-1110.

Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M. (2015) The dynamics of managing diversity: a critical approach, Abington: Routledge.

Kollen, T. (2016) Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: global perspectives on LGBT workforce diversity, New York, NY: Springer.

Kundu, S. C. and Mor, A. (2017). “Workplace diversity and organizational performance: a study of IT industry in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 160-183.

Lee, M.J (2017) “Extensive and intensive margin effects in sample selection models: racial effects on wages”, Journal of Royal Statistics Society, Vol. 180, No. 3, pp. 817-839.

Marhiondo, L., Ran, S. and Cortina, L. (2018) The Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nickson, D. (2013) Human resource management for hospitality, tourism, and events, Abington: Routledge.

Ning, Y., Xiao, Z. and Lee, J. (2017) “Shareholders and managers: who care more about corporate diversity and employee benefits?”, Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 93-118.

Okechukwu, C.A., Souza, K., Davis, K.D. and Castro, A.B. (2014) “Discrimination, harassment, abuse and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp. 573-586.

Ozgen, C., Nijkamp, P. and Poot, J. (2017). “The elusive effects of workplace diversity on innovation”, Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 29-49.

Pew Research Center (2017) The narrowing, but persistent, gender gap in pay. Web.

Priola, V., Lasio, D., Simone, S. and Serri, F. (2014) “The sound of silence. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations’”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 488-502.

Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O. and Midtboen, A.H. (2017). “Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time,” PNAS, Vol. 114, No. 41, pp. 1-14.

Scheitle, C.P. and Ecklund, H.E. (2017) “Examining the effects of exposure to religion in the workplace on perceptions of religious discrimination”, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I.E. and Erez, A. (2016) “Workplace incivility: a review of the literature and agenda for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 57-88.

Tech Crunch (2018) James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying it discriminates against white male conservatives. Web.

Wetherell, G.A., Brandt, M.J. and Reyna, C. (2013) “Discrimination across the ideological divide: the role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 658-667.

Woodruffe-Burton, H. and Bairstow, S. (2013) “Countering heteronormativity: exploring the negotiation of butch lesbian identity in the organizational setting”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 359-374.

Click Here To Order Now!