Affirmative action- Trials within human resource management - Term Paper Example

?Affirmative Action: An Overview The term “affirmative action” was first mentioned in the United s when President John F. Kennedy signed the Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961; this was then used to refer to initiatives that aimed to attain equality and prevent discrimination (Anderson, 2004). By 1965, the Executive Order 11246 was implemented, requiring all national contractors to make use of affirmative action when hiring employees, regardless of national origin, culture, and religion; in 1968, gender was then included in the anti-discrimination list. Aside from the US, other countries have taken similar approaches to promote equality in the society, such as Canada’s employment equity or the United Kingdom’s positive discrimination. Affirmative action is known to be a set of policies that consider gender, race, culture, religion, and national origin for an underprivileged or underrepresented population to obtain equal rights and benefits, thereby contradicting the outcomes of discrimination that have been passed down from every generation . Such policies emphasize a wide range of aspects, from health programs and social services to education and employment opportunities. Because affirmative action aims to encourage equal opportunities, it is typically applied in government actions and educational settings to make sure that all groups in the society are involved in such programs. Affirmative action can be exemplified through different forms, such as rigid quotas or encouragement of members of minority groups to apply for employment. Similarly, each intends to increase the number of underrepresented groups in the workplace, educational settings, or in any societal context. Programs that demonstrate affirmative action vary in terms of the extent to which they consider race as an important factor in making decisions and obtaining results. In 2001, representatives from the Americas gathered together to establish policies and implement strategies to combat racial discrimination. In order to adopt affirmative and positive actions, paramount importance was attached to the creation of conditions for every individual to become involved both in decision making and realizing civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights with regards to all aspects of life on a foundation of non-discrimination (Global Rights, 2005). Such ideas acquired considerable support in the World Conference against Racism with which the Declaration and Programme of Action points out affirmative action as fundamental factor for the global struggle against discrimination. Due to the fact that international law promotes affirmative action, national and international treaties along with regional and global institutions have attempted to integrate countless norms that support equality and non-discrimination; more states are also being required to take on active roles in guaranteeing such rights. While a number of norms state that affirmative action is permissible, this form of positive action can be made mandatory by others. While the form and outline of such norms may slightly vary, nonetheless, international law requires that all states be involved in promoting affirmative action. Guidelines for Affirmative Action Plans and Programs Affirmative action should be supported in all contexts, such as in educational and workplace settings; therefore, educational institutions and organizations have proposed guidelines to promote equality among all individuals (Kravitz, Bludau, and Klineberg, 2008). For instance, American universities, in their intentions of seeking employees, have established guidelines for their affirmative action programs, directed towards women, minority groups, people with disabilities, and veterans, to which academic and staff members should comply. For instance, university policies that affect staff members should be reviewed to ensure the provision of equitable treatment for every employee, compliance with the legal requirements for avoidance of discrimination and equal employment opportunity, as well as consistency with the affirmative action requirements. Reports and evaluations regarding the affirmative action compliance programs and activities in the campus should be regularly updated while senior administration must be able to assist in establishing availability as well as workforce data, creating programs for equal training and development, and carrying out comprehensive analyses. For companies, they should be able to create recruitment plans and advertisements appropriately, indicating their commitment to affirmative action, support for equal opportunity, and acceptance of diversity in their workforce. Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action A number of justifications have been constantly provided for affirmative action. Due to its main definition, affirmative action entails that assistance and support be provided towards the underprivileged and less advantages members of the society, thereby aiming to counter the outcomes of past discrimination. Such corrective justification recognizes the mistakes that have been previously committed and emphasizes a moral obligation to rectify such wrongs and guide actions and behaviors toward the appropriate direction. Those who are in opposition of the affirmative action do not necessarily contradict the moral obligation of correcting previous wrongdoings with regards to discrimination; however, they have asserted that certain policies for affirmative action will broadly expand and allow individuals who are undeserving to obtain benefits from such practices. Another justification for the affirmative action is the concept of diversity with which it has been argued that the entire society can benefit from such norms when diversity is maintained in educational institutions, businesses, and workplaces. Individuals, who were raised from different genders, backgrounds, and cultures, can integrate their skills and knowledge into systems and achieve balance in task accomplishment and decision making. However, others have rejected the diversity rationale as they assert that there are no intrinsic benefits of tolerating diverse schools and workplaces (Haley and Sidanius, 2006). There has been doubt as to whether certain attributes, such as race, gender, or culture, can be a reliable basis for assessing the social benefits acquired through diversity. In short, opponents of affirmative action believe that it is not acceptable to distribute social benefits based on immutable attributes, including race and gender. Affirmative action itself is a form of prejudice that can discriminate again certain groups, such as the White male population, in contrast to previous forms of discrimination that focused on women and members of minority groups (Harris, 2009). Nonetheless, it has been argued by the supporters of affirmative action that the goal of such positive action is to establish social justice for people who have been denied of such opportunities over the years, and not to cause harm in the majority. Affirmative Action in Human Resource Management Application of personnel policies will cover a number of processes when integrated with human resource management, such as the employee recruitment, selection, promotion, transfer, increase of merit, training and development, as well as separation, which are all considered as essential to the effectiveness of affirmative action compliance and equal employment opportunity programs in the workplace (Groschl, 2011). In addition, the education, experience, competence along with other attributes that are required in a position will be limited to the qualifications that are significantly related to the effective performance of the tasks and responsibilities of said position. Specifically, the processes for outreach and recruitment should be reviewed; affirmative action will then be undertaken to recruit women, minority group members, and other qualified individuals which underutilization has been associated with. Applicants should not be denied employment and should not be selected in preference to others on the basis of national origin, gender, culture, religion, disability, or status in the society. Equal opportunities should also be granted for both males and females especially in work positions that have been often associated with a certain gender. Promotional opportunities should also be equally available to every eligible employee regardless of the race, gender, religion, culture, or status. Similarly important is the practice of awarding merit increases to employees who have demonstrated successful attainment, considerable experience, and satisfactory performance. Financial and non-financial gains are to be acquired by employees based on their sole performance. Finally, opportunities for employee training and development and the decisions made regarding separation will all be determined with no regard to national origin, race, gender, and culture. However, despite the proposed guidelines of both the public and private sectors, many workplaces are still faced with the challenge of effectively incorporating affirmative action policies in HRM as well as its outcomes on the employees and the organization itself. Owing to the critical issues on diversity and discrimination in work settings, there remains a great need to identify efficient practices and policies with which affirmative action can be successfully be incorporated into organizational processes. References Anderson, T.H. (2004).The pursuit of fairness: a history of affirmative action. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004 Global Rights (2005). Affirmative action: a global perspective. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from http://www.globalrights.org/site/DocServer/AffirmativeAction_GlobalPerspective.pdf?docID=2623 Groschl, S. (2011). Diversity management strategies of global hotel groups: A corporate web site based exploration. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23 (2), 224 – 240. Haley, H., and Sidanius, J. (2006). The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: a group dominance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (5), 656-668. Harris, G. (2009). Revisiting affirmative action in leveling the playing field: who have been the true beneficiaries anyway? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29 (4), 354-372. Kravitz, D., Bludau, T., and Klineberg, S. (2008). The impact of anticipated consequences, respondent group, and strength of affirmative action plan on affirmative action attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 33 (4), 361-391. Read More