Diversity, Fairness and Equality - Coursework Example

Diversity, Fairness and Equality There is a growing body of research showing that ‘diversity’ has outlived its usefulness, Susan Scott-Parker argues that it is time to move on from the business case for diversity, and fairness, equality should be back on the business agenda. Discuss. Introduction With regard to diversity and equality, great progress has been made in the past which has brought more diversity to the workplace and allowed to creation of conditions which bring about greater equality. However, while it can be argued that one is more important than the other, it can be shown that expert opinion on the topic presents diversity as a business objective. Moving on from the business case for creating diversity in a company may be a difficult proposition since it is easy to show various companies the benefits for moving towards a diverse work organization. Equality can be a more difficult idea to push in a situation where the legislation still focuses on creating diversity. The Legislation in the UK While diversity legislations commonly seek to bring about more people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, religious and even sexual orientations into the same workplace, equality related legislation seeks to give different individuals the same opportunities for development within a company. Simply put, diversity may be enforced by the government but equality remains more abstract and can be difficult to measure. This is because the overall cultural perspective on diversity as well as equality remains to be fully understood (CIPD, 2006). Organisations in the UK may have HR managers that seek to develop diversity as well as equality but the objective there is to gain competitive advantages for the organisation but the company culture may be a hindrance (CIPD, 2006). For instance, companies may find it difficult to change quickly to become accepting of younger employees from diverse backgrounds working in higher positions within the organisation. This problem was even faced by large MNCs operating in UK such as GE which has had cultural issues while creating diversity and equality policies in the company (Alleyne, 2005). In terms of legal developments, diversity as well as equality is being seen as one of the business requirements placed by the government. However, the competitive advantages can not be ignored since a high level of equality can help in motivating employees while making them more productive. This idea has been pushed to the extent that some companies are taking the creation of higher diversity and better equality as a one of their strategic objectives (CIPD, 2006). In such situations, the policy makers of the company can certainly appreciate the various laws that are applicable to them officially. Fredmen (2001) discusses these set of laws which are known as fourth generation equality legislation. Equality legislation improves the participation of affected groups in the decision making process. Fredmen (2001) says that: “Fourth generation equality laws based on a positive duty to promote equality rather than simply to refrain from discrimination are being actively developed in several jurisdictions. At EU level, a powerful boost was given to the effectiveness of sex equality legislation by the adoption of the policy of ‘mainstreaming’. Mainstreaming means that equality is not just an add-on or after-thought to policy but it is one of the factors taken into account in every policy and executive decision (Fredmen, 2001, Pg. 27). The application of the laws may be difficult for most organizations even if they wish to create diversity and equality. This means that the laws in place remain more concerned with diversity than the proper establishment of equality. Properly establishing equality will require planning, investment and effort on behalf of the organization to get to a good position with regard to equality and diversity. To get this process started the personnel department of the company will have a pivotal role in diversity management (Folkes & Patrick, 2003). To follow the dictates of modern equality laws, the senior managers of the company along with the primary stakeholders of the company should be aware of the idea of equality to make the legislation a part of the policies of the company. Undoubtedly, the culture of the company may need adjustments so that the culture appreciates the individuality of workers but also appreciates equality within the workforce. Lockwood (2005) reports that such equality fostering cultures are not easy to build since many managers may not be fully aware of equality or diversity related problems. Further, this lack of awareness may be more acute at higher levels within the same company. The Business Case for Diversity and Equality Lockwood (2005) shows us that there is a tremendous need for management professionals to improve their understanding of diversity as well as equality and to help others know that there are business benefits for both elements. Daniels & Macdonald (2005) seem to agree with this suggestion and report that such steps would improve the image of the company as well as its business results. In essence, instead of taking a legal perspective to support equality within the company, the recommendation from theses researchers remains taking a business perspective. The business perspective on equality is noted by Brown (2005) who suggests that the force behind the new perspective is the changing demographics which have affected the labour market as well as the consumer base. Diversity and equality at all levels in the company can help build an organization which can use its diverse human resources to provide positive customer interactions at all levels. This can bring about higher acceptance from consumers and may also provide workers the incentive to be more productive especially if they see that there is equality in the firm. The business case for equality shows us that in an equal organisation, information flows freely between, teamwork is more efficient and managers look at individuals as their peers rather than subordinates who have to be ordered around (Brown, 2005). Despite this need and the business case for diversity and equality, Schuller (2005) reports that many equality creating measures may fail to meet their targets. To avoid the pitfalls associated with focusing on equality or diversity alone, companies need to use quantifiable and real objectives. These need to be connected to the business value which is generated through diversity and equality. Undoubtedly, such moves can require heavy investments of time and money but the legal structure of employment law may change soon enough to make equality a requirement as much as diversity is a requirement today. While some companies may see diversity or even equality as a business need, there remains a problem with the social fabric of society where prejudices and biases continue to exist. We seem to be living in a world where equality may be difficult to create when consumer mentality or public perceptions of a certain gender suggests that one gender is better at doing a job than the other (Crawford et. al. 2002). This only acts as a hurdle on the way to equality since even if there are laws in place to support the creation of equality, few companies may be willing to lose money over it and instead may find ways to go around the requirements given to them. It can be expected that such biases and their effect on society may diminish over time as the nation moves towards a more equal and inherently diverse workforce. However, as of yet the problems concerning equality and diversity does exist in the UK as well as Europe at large. It must be noted that the overall global situation has improved and the Fortune 500 list shows that in 2003, women held nearly 15 percent of board seats in the corporate world. In 1995, they had less than 10 percent of the same seats. In recent years, the situation has come to a much better point since quite a few companies have a board setup where 25% or more of the seats belong to women (Lockwood, 2005). The case of women in the UK is an interesting one with regard to creating equality since it may also be possible that women are choosing to remain in part-time positions which pay considerably less than full-time work opportunities. Arndt (2003) suggests that women in the workforce may try to adapt their work to their lives outside the office or they may try to work around their lives while keeping up with their family commitments. The importance of family and children in the life of a woman may point towards the woman finding or even asking for equality while this also becomes a predictor for their marital status and rate of fertility. The research showed that the majority of women who were fully focused on their work were likely to be employed on a full-time basis, not likely to be married and were more likely than others to have low fertility rates. This brings up the question of choice for equality since some women may actually be choosing to be unequal in order to have more time for their children or the needs of their families. The research done by Jenkins (2004) shows that women who are more focused on their homes as well as their families are more likely to be married and may have more than twice the number of children as compared to women who work full-time. Undoubtedly, these ideas may go against feminist thought but they show that balancing life and work may be a difficult proposition for many individuals who do not receive the proper support from their work position. To fully understand why equality can not be the right answer, we have to consider Hakim (2000) who gives us the Preference Theory for explaining the pay gap between the sexes. This theory seeks to explain the choices women appear to make between family and work; she presents the argument that women are not one group that can be judged as a unit. She separates women into three groups in which only a minority is focused on a professional career. She suggests that this minority stands somewhere between 10-30% of all women in the workplace. A similar number are focused on just their families and give preference to children as well as their homes (Jenkins, 2004). Hakim has certainly received a lot of criticism for presenting the theory and Arndt (2003) reports on a Cambridge professor i.e., Bob Rowthord who said that the reason Hakim is criticised is simply because she “actually looked at the facts (Arndt, 2003, Pg. 1)”. He further says that, “Womens employment is such an ideological subject and a lot of people are not very interested in the actual evidence. Hakim has taken the cudgels up against what had become a monolithic consensus (Arndt, 2003, Pg. 1)”. Taking an objective view of equality may show us that equality is already in place while an idealistic view may show that employment for men and women is not on an equal footing. The study conducted by Kan (2005) gives strong support to Hakim’s Preference Theory and the data analysed by Kan (2005) leads her to conclude that, “Concurring with Hakim’s arguments, women who have followed a home-career path hold consistently more home-centred attitudes over time than women who have been committed to their employment careers. (Kan, 2005, Pg. 2)”. Even politicians who wanted more women in the workforce and social leaders such as the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard have come to agree with the preference theory. Anne Summers, a former women’s advisor to the Australian government has called Hakim’s theory little more than, “A statement of the bleeding obvious (Arndt, 2003, Pg. 1)”. The data which is given in support of the theory shows that some women may indeed prefer less demanding work situations and may even prefer to give up full time managerial posts in order to give more attention to their children. However, to say that it is a preference for them may be an injustice without knowing that they actually do prefer to live at home and be with their children. Of course some women from a higher socioeconomic standing or those who may have good opportunities in the work place may consider it a preference to have children and quit work but the same could not be said for all women. There are social, economic and even cultural constraints that may have to be considered by some women especially those coming from minority groups while they make decisions about their careers or available job opportunities. Calling these constraints preferences is unjustified when women have to face pressures from their family or need to satisfy their demands of their husbands. Or even their own internal desires to have children. A forced choice can not be a preference but the facts of the matter may show that it is. This means that the Preference Theory is more indicative of the various constraints placed on women rather than an actual measure of their preference to work in part-time jobs. Equality and the idea of equality remains important for those who seek to work full-time and need to be reassured that their company will not treat them any less than other employees. It is difficult to see the Preference Theory as the final answer since it can ask researchers and even social policy makers to ignore the problem of equality. Conclusions It becomes easy to conclude that equality remains an issue for many individuals who continue to work in organisations that treat them unequally. However, the idea of creating equality can only benefit if the business case for the creation of equality is pushed as much as the business case for diversity was being pushed a few years ago. Undoubtedly, there have been companies that have gained from being more diverse since they were able to access those markets which might have otherwise remained closed to them. However, there seems to be no immediate need for companies to push the idea of equality in a world where things such as Hakim’s Preference Theory can explain why women may prefer to work part-time. While more work is easily recommended on the theory itself as well as the legislative framework that forces companies to become more equal in terms of treating and paying their employees, unless companies can see the business benefits of treating employees equally, it is likely that unequal treatment will continue. A more positive work environment, equal effort from all employees and an understanding that everyone is one the same team is only just the beginning for a company. With the right approach to equality, a company can see productivity gains and other tacit benefits that may remain invisible without equality. The recommendation that equality should be brought back on the business agenda only makes sense if the person making the recommendation can show what a business has to gain from actively pursuing equality in a world where the theory of preference explains why women are not paid on equal terms as their male counterparts at work. Word Count: 2,708 Works Cited Alleyne, S. 2005. But Can You Walk the Walk. Journal of Black Enterprise, 36(2):100-105. Arndt, B. 2003, ‘Myths and misconceptions’, Sydney Morning Herald, [Online] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498913240.html Brown, R. V. 2005. The ROI of Diversity. Mortgage Banking. 65(12): 111-113. CIPD. 2006. ‘Diversity and equality’, CIPD.co.uk, [Online] Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/dvsequl/ Crawford, M., Sherman S. J., and Hamilton D. L. 2002. Perceived Entitativity, Stereotype Formation, and the Interchangeability of Group Members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5): 1076-94. Daniels, K. and Macdonald, L. 2005, Promoting Equality: challenging discrimination and oppression in human services, McMillan Folkes, V. and Patrick, V. M. 2003. The Positivity Effect in Services: Seen One, Seen Them All? Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (1): 125-37. Hakim, C. 2000, Work-lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory, Oxford University Press. Jenkins, S. 2004, Gender, Place and the Labour Market, Ashgate Publishing. Kan, M. 2005, ‘Work Orientation and Wives’ Employment Careers: An Evaluation of Hakim’s Preference Theory’, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, [Online] Available at: www.genet.ac.uk/workpapers/GeNet2005p12.pdf Lockwood, N. 2005, ‘Workplace Diversity: Leveraging the Power of Difference for Competitive Advantage’, HR Magazine, 50(6): 1-14. Schuller, S. 2005. Develop diversity culture through a sequential process. Journal of Hotel and Motel Management. 220(14): 13-14. Read More