Hiring and Strides Discrimination - Term Paper Example

Name Tutor Course Date Discrimination in Hiring and Promotion Introduction Throughout the course of history, the process of hiring and promoting staff in any organisation tends to be murky and riddled by many corrupt practices. This is partially due to the degree of confidentiality involved, competitiveness and the possibility of some people using crooked means for their own advantage. These and many other factors result in possible discrimination of an employee or a potential employee if he or she is not of interest to the hiring or the promoting authority. Discrimination is any form of inequitable handling of an individual or group by showing some intolerance. Prejudice may be manifested in terms of gender, race, religious affiliation or even geographical location (Hecht 121). In hiring and promotion, there is always a high chance that some people will use unfair means to gain competitive advantage over other applicants or potential employees. This not only leads to lack of motivation and discouragement, but also may leads to huge losses in the case where incompetent persons are hired or promoted. With the ever-increasing competitive job application opportunities, there is a risk that cases of discrimination will keep on rising. Although there is increased efforts to fight this vice and many firms have put in measures to curb it in their systems, discrimination in hiring and promotion causes reduced productivity among employees in a firm. In this essay I explore there, is a reduction in productivity in the work place, caused by discrimination. Arguments for thesis One of the main reasons for hiring and training in an organisation is to ensure that the organisation or the firm acquires the best possible human resource that can be found (Dess, Lumpkin and Eisner 113). It is the aim of every management to hire the best performing employees and the best talents possible. As a result, firms will in many cases go an extra mile to ensure that the recruitment process is as strict as possible, and only the best talent is captured. This is the reason why there is an influx of firms, which specialize in hiring on behalf of other firms. The cost involved in this process is usually high, and so a firm must ensure that the best talent is netted into the firm. However, this is usually not the case when there is discrimination in the hiring process. Because of discrimination, it is not always automatic that the best person is hired. A person who is best suited to perform a task might be disqualified due to gender, age or his or her race affiliation. In the end, a person of lesser capability gets the job. This leaves a firm with many unqualified staff. In most cases, this person is likely to have some good qualification though not as good as everyone else is. However, in extreme cases, it might end up the person who is favoured and gets the job is absolutely incompetent. As a result, the person’s capacity to perform the required task is too demanding and his decision-making capacity is low. Since productivity of a worker is majorly determined by his competence, the incompetence of these staff will cost a firm a lot of money due to low productivity. Once a person is hired in a firm, the only way to rise through the ranks is through promotion. As a rule, promotion in any organisation that wants to maintain high productivity must be pegged on performance. There should be no promotion if an employee is not performing well. By promoting the best performers, it gives the other workers morale to work harder and achieve higher status or position in the firm. In addition, the person who is promoted is motivated to perform even harder in order to achieve more in the organisation. Due to competitiveness, many people may seek unorthodox means to get promotion (Roscigno 94). This may lead to a situation where the employees are not promoted based on performance or achievement, but on the discretion of the management. The double tragedy in this approach is that a firm ends up with less qualified staff in the managerial positions, while the best performing and talented employees remain in a junior position. This greatly affects the level of decision making in the firm and leads to hostility between the employees. Consequently, performance is reduced. In addition, those who qualify but fail to are greatly demoralised since there seems to be no fair way up the ladder. The gross result is reduced productivity in the organisation or firm. Discrimination in places of work and in the country is an issue of great concern to all the stakeholders involved. This has resulted to the institution of various committees, and commissions to fight the vice. The federal government runs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is vested with the task of making certain that there is an equal opportunity for everyone. In order to enforce this, many states have their own commissions that address the same issue. The state of Maryland has its own Maryland Commission on Human Relations, which is tasked with the responsibility of handling, complains from the public about possible discriminations and abuse in the place of work. In a smaller scale, firms also put in their own mechanisms that are involved in fighting this vice. The problem with all these efforts being taken is that they tend to drain a lot of money from the federal government, the state government and even the firms. The cost of hiring and maintaining an external ombudsman to cater for discrimination complains for a company is quite high. In addition, since a firm cannot tell when there are incidences of discrimination will occur, an integrity ombudsman of a company must be a full-time employee. Moreover, the person must be of very high integrity, which probably means that a firm will spend a lot of money on him. This has the effect of increasing the cost of operation in the firm, hence low production. In the states and federal governments, this cost is usually pushed to firms in the form of taxes. Objections to thesis There are those who argue that discrimination in hiring might be beneficial to an organisation. This is when it is done in the best interest of a company or a firm. This is the reason why in many cases, members run many family businesses, and whenever there is a need to hire an expert from outside the management reserves the right to hire without necessarily explaining their recruitment criteria. This may happen in big organisations where a majority shareholder reserves the right to appoint persons to office, without being accountable to the minority shareholders. The argument behind this is that in all cases, it serves to safeguard the interests of the owner or the specific group. However, I totally disagree with such principle since the result is a situation where performance and efficiency are compromised. It is the aim of every profit-making firm to be as efficient as possible in production. Another reason why a form of discrimination may be employed is depending on the nature of the work involved. Where there is a lot of unmechanized manual work, employees tend to favour male employees than the female, irrespective of the qualifications (Noone 1). This may explain the big imbalance that exists between male and female staff in the disciplined forces. Other jobs like in the beauty and hospitality industries do a thorough assessment of the applicants and physical appearance determines the probability of one landing a job or getting a promotion. The truth of the matter is that in all these cases, where competence is not the only determining factor in hiring, there is always a compromise in the level of performance. Conclusion The implications of discrimination in the process of hiring and promoting employees are too costly to any firm or organisation. It does not only reduce productivity, but it also results in a lot of unnecessary expenditure and spending by the concerned organisation. Efficiency is lowered and mistrust and resentment are developed. Any firm that wants to enhance its growth must therefore, embrace transparency and accountability in the hiring and promotion of employees. In addition, more mechanisms to fight this vice should be adopted by the organisations and even the governments. Works Cited Dess, Lumpkin, and Eisner. Strategic Management: Creating Competitive Advantages. New York; McGraw-Hill, 2007. Hecht Michael. Communicating Prejudice. California; Sage Publications, 1998. Noone Debora. Employment Discrimination in Hiring and Promotion Procedures. Maine; Maine Commission for Women, 1989. Roscigno Vincent. The face of Discrimination: How race and gender impact work and home lives. Maryland; Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Read More