Understanding Enduring Discrimination at the Workplace - Essay Example

?Understanding Enduring Discrimination at the Workplace Introduction Workplace or employment discrimination, according to Robinson , pertains to an employer’s less favourable or unequal treatment of an employee based on any of the following factors: race, ethnicity, gender, status, religion, physique, health, age, and others that are irrelevant to the objective requirements of the work. This practice, Pager and Shepherd (2008) note, reinforces inequalities, because as Fevre et al. (2013) explain, employment in modern society greatly defines one’s social membership. Meaning, the higher employment status you have; the higher you can be in the socio-economic ladder. Hence, employment defines one’s inclusion or exclusion in social groupings. Other than this, Robinson’s (2013) study also found workplace discrimination to be counterproductive because the bases of hiring, retention, or promotion are bias and tend to be unrelated to productivity. On the contrary on a broader perspective, Burchardt (2000) argues that the more inclusive employment hiring can be; the wider tax base the government can have; and the smaller out-of-work benefit expenditure and the lesser health and social services spending, the government has to give. Therefore, workplace discrimination works not only against employees and the company but the national economy as a whole. Various international and national laws illegalising discrimination at the workplace have been passed and updated to ensure the observance of equality and fairness in workplaces. However, enduring forms of discrimination at workplaces, like race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, disability, and sexual orientation – to which Robinson (2013) simply coined as REGARDS for easier remembering – are consistently confirmed by various studies like those of Pager and Shepherd (2008) and Pager et al.’s (2009) studies on racial discrimination at workplaces, Hernandez’s (2010) study on workplace discrimination at ethnically diverse workplaces, Channar et al. (2011) and Hoobler et al.’s (2011) studies on gender discrimination at workplaces, Butler and Berret’s (2012) study on age discrimination in today’s hiring practices, Friedman’s (2010) study on religious discrimination in the workplace, Pothier’s (2010) study on disability discrimination at work, and Pizer et al.’s (2012) study on workplace discrimination against LGBT people. It may be argued that cases of discrimination at workplaces have declined. This may be true only in cases of direct/overt discrimination. But studies done by Lee (2005:481) on ‘unconscious bias theory in employment discrimination litigation’, by Pager and Shepherd (2008) on the sociology of discrimination, and Jones et al. (2013) on subtle and overt discrimination show that workplace discrimination today most commonly occurs in subtle and covert ways. Thus the decline in cases of direct/overt workplace discrimination does not necessarily indicate an overall decline in cases of workplace discrimination. Furthermore, as Pager et al.’s (2009) note, discrimination may occur at several points throughout the employment relationship that even slight incidences of discrimination when taken together can similarly affect employees and work adversely. The enduring forms of discrimination at workplaces may not be surprising after all. Discrimination, particularly racism and sexism, Appleby (2008) notes, has been with humankind since the beginning of civilisation, which makes most cases in today’s business world sub-consciousness-driven. Meaning, discrimination is deeply rooted in the history of humankind that its eradication may not be possible. This precisely is what makes this employment practice worthy of examination – To understand what makes these enduring forms of discrimination at workplaces. Factors Explaining Enduring Forms of Workplace Discrimination Stereotypes and prejudice Stereotypes and prejudice are intrapsychic factors which, Pager and Shepherd (2008) explain, strongly urge employers to discriminate because these factors operate at both the conscious and unconscious level – the latter being more problematic following the unconscious bias theory. According to this theory, Lee (2005) explains, employers may not intend to discriminate but these intrapsychic factors make them do so unconsciously, hence subtle/covert discrimination occurs – Something that cannot be easily observed and thus cannot be easily proven. Stereotypes, as Fiske and Lee (2008:14) define, are ‘categorical associations – including traits, behaviours and roles – perceivers make to group members based on their membership’. In short, stereotypes are long-held beliefs or pre-conceived notions about certain groups to which individuals are associated. These beliefs, Fiske and Lee further, either overestimate or underestimate (stereotypic inaccuracy), or exaggerate the positivity or negativity (valence inaccuracy), or over- or under-generalise the variability (dispersion inaccuracy) between the members of the stereotypicality of the target group. Therefore, stereotypes are always inaccurate thereby resulting to acts of discrimination. For example, Pager et al. (2009) note that underlying racial discrimination is the stereotyping of blacks as lazy; underlying gender discrimination, Hoobler et al. (2011) explain, is the sex role stereotyping where male characteristics are associated with leadership positions and female characteristics are associated with subordinate positions and domestic functions. On the other hand, prejudice which Fiske and Lee (2008:14) define to generally refer to the feelings or attitude favouring or disfavouring certain individuals based solely on individuals’ group association commonly explain racial animus, specifically against blacks. The studies by Pager and Shepherd (2008) and Pager et al. (2009) consistently show that blacks are widely discriminated against whites in terms of wage and hiring whether they have criminal records or none. Moreover, racial animus, Hernandez (2010) explains, becomes more intense in more ethnically diverse workplaces, because here, animosity between people of different colours and cultures is prevalent. What instigates intergroup prejudice, according to research, primarily originates from group threats (Fiske and Lee, 2008). However, intergroup prejudice is not always blatant. Today, it is observed to be more subtle. Fiske and Lee (2008) provide various contemporary theories to explain racial disparity at today’s workplaces. One is ambivalent racism, which explains the existence of two-bladed attitude of white Americans to blacks – anti-black sentiments on one side grounded on the stereotyping of blacks to be lazy or incompetent, while sympathetic on the other side due to the belief that blacks are in fact disadvantaged in society. Another one is aversive racism, which explains that there exists an intrapsychic conflict within individuals between interracial antipathy and concerns for egalitarian principles. Hence, employers with aversion towards another race conscious of egalitarian principles tend to oppose their own racism, avoid interracial interaction, or try to be responsible when interaction cannot be avoided. Thus, this theory predicts that discrimination is more likely to occur at workplaces when protective structures, systems, and mechanisms against discrimination are weak. Other theories are the three related sociocultural theories of symbolic racism, modern racism and racial resentment, which prejudice comes from a combination of anti-black sentiments and conservative values, founded on four basic beliefs: Blacks are unemployed because they lack work ethics; blacks are too demanding; blacks are no longer discriminated; and blacks do not deserve preferential treatment. As such, the danger these new racism theories imply is the very subtle occurrence of contemporary racism at the workplace that it can hardly be noticed both by the perceiver and the target. Statistical discrimination The theory of statistical discrimination on the other hand argues that workplace discrimination is just part of rational decision-making. Following Baumle and Fossett’s (2005) definition, statistical discrimination can be understood as decisions or acts of employers favouring employees in response to the practical concerns and objective limitations of the company and not because of stereotyping or prejudice. Hence using statistical discrimination, employers justify their hiring of applicants based on productivity and safety. According to Burnell (1993) statistical discrimination is frequently used to essentially justify gender bias against women in the labour market, grounded mainly on the traditional patriarchal-based occupational segregation. Contrary to claims that statistical discrimination is not grounded on race or gender bias, Stainback and Tomaskovic-Devey (2012) note that employers’ motive to discriminate actually relies on stereotypes about the productivity or reliability of social groups. Hence, age limits in hiring is grounded on stereotypes about old age; or male exclusive hiring in heavy industries is grounded on gender role stereotypes. Institutional factors Institutional factors, such as the existing workplace discrimination laws and organisational dynamics and mechanisms also explain the enduring forms of discrimination at workplaces. For example, Jones et al.’s (2013) study shows that anti-discrimination laws and policies tend to target the direct/overt forms of discrimination at the workplace, consequently overlooking subtle/covert forms of discrimination, which ramifications are found more substantial. As such workplace discrimination persists. Similarly, Lee (2005) notes, that the emerging form of employment discrimination today affecting women and minorities is unconscious bias – Something that makes litigations against employment discrimination very hard to prove, especially so that the law is unclear as to how unconscious bias could be used against employment discrimination. Suffice it to say therefore that laws against discrimination at workplaces are not sufficient to cover all forms of employment discrimination, hence causing enduring forms of workplace discrimination. In the same vein, Robinson (2013) adds that discrimination laws are too complex for layman’s to understand. Hence, they are not too facilitative to put in check employers’ discriminatory acts. In short, though illegalising employment discriminatory practices have gone a long way, and though this may have significantly reduced cases of overt discriminatory practices at workplaces, it has yet to address the subtle forms of employment discrimination that currently appear to be widespread, perhaps because these enable employers to conveniently get away from their culpability. Moreover, it is worthy to note Appleby’s (2008) point that society’s norms and standards, specifically regarding sex, unwittingly create obstinate double standards that consequently influence norms and standards in workplaces and may render the law ineffective. On the other hand organisational dynamics and mechanisms, Green (2003) explains, although are not themselves discriminatory, could be instrumental in facilitating and perpetuating workplace discriminations as the current organisational changes in workplaces today imply. For example, according to Green, the flattening of formerly hierarchical organisational structures and categorisation of specific jobs based on knowledge and skills instead of the traditional specific job descriptions have removed the multi-stepped hierarchy and other intra-institutional markers by which employees are evaluated. As such, discrimination usually manifests in terms of preventing an employee’s opportunity and development, for example, the denial of promotion. Worst, this may not be identified as a discriminatory decision. In short, this current organizational structure has provided employers an easy way out to discriminate. Economic factor Economic factor is also found to explain the enduring workplace discrimination. Specifically, Pager et al. (2009) illustrate how the changing landscape of low-wage labour markets sustain or renew racial-based decision-making. For example, the demand for low-wage labour, to which blacks are more inclined to apply, is most available in the growing service industry in positions heavily requiring personality-related qualifications that are discriminatory to black applicants. Hence, Pager et al. further, employers subtly discriminate black applicants by asserting that the required work-qualifications do not match against the soft skills of black applicants. Similarly, Pager and Shepherd (2008) note that low-wage markets today are becoming highly diverse, giving low-skilled black workers more competitors for the job, particularly, the low-skilled Latino workers, who are more likely to be hired than blacks. Furthermore, the opening of the low-wage labour markets to recently released prisoners further lessens employment opportunities for black applicants. As Pager et al.’s (2009) study show, a white felon is more likely to be hired than a black applicant without any criminal record. The Need for Employers to Promote Equal Opportunities and Diversity Management Today’s employers are bound to promote equal opportunities and diversity management, because workplaces, as Hernandez (2010) has described, have become increasingly diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, age, and more and today’s socio-legal environment has become more vigilant in preventing employment discrimination. The diversity of workplaces presents corresponding challenges to the promotion of equal opportunities and the prevention of any form of discrimination at workplaces, which if not addressed properly would surely affect productivity, as Robinson’s (2013) study show; would cause job dissatisfaction, as Channar et al.’s (2011) study show; and may result to various litigations that could be costly and stressful, as studies of Lee (2005) and Robinson (2013) show. Agreeably though, Cox (2001, cited in Mor Barak, 2010) notes that diversity management can create a competitive advantage to the organisation, specifically in marketing – because the diverse workforce is capable to address the corresponding diverse needs/demands of the equally diverse market; in problem solving – because as the old adage goes ‘two heads is better than one’, which means a diverse workforce when effectively manage can bring-in to the organisation various perspectives than can enrich decision-making and problem solving; and resource acquisition – because a diverse workforce could also mean a diverse network that can be optimised. Hence, the challenge of having a diverse workforce, Cox furthers, is more than having a complex workforce to deal with. Instead, it is all about creating facilitative conditions that will at least minimise or at best transform its potential to hinder productivity into a potential to enhance productive performance. This can be possible if employers adopt diversity management. As Mor Barak (2010:235) defines, ‘Diversity management refers to the voluntary organizational actions that are designed to create greater inclusion of employees from various backgrounds into the formal and informal organizational structures through deliberate policies and programs’. Conclusion Various studies have similarly confirmed the enduring forms of workplace discrimination in today’s increasingly diverse workplaces despite existing international and national laws and company policies against workplace discrimination. These studies also show the adverse effects of workplace discrimination not only on the employee but also on the productivity of the company and the national economy as a whole. Hence to prevent this destructive workplace practice, modern employers have no other recourse but to promote equal opportunities and diversity management in order to transform workplace diversity into a competitive advantage. Bibliography Appleby, G. S. (2008) Harassment and discrimination and other workplace landmines, Entrepreneur Media. Baumle, A. K. and Fossett, M. (2005). ‘Statistical discrimination in employment: its practice, conceptualisation, and implications for public policy’, American Behavioural Scientist, 48(9): 1250-74. Burchardt, T. (2000) Enduring economic exclusion: disabled people, income and work: Issue 21 of work and opportunity series, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Burnell, B. S. (1993) Technological change and women’s work experience: alternative methodological perspectives, Greenwood Publishing Group. Butler, T. H. and Berret, B. A. (2011) ‘A generation lost: the reality of age discrimination in today’s hiring practices’, Journal of Management & Marketing Research, 9(December): 1-11. Channar, Z. A., Abbassi, Z., and Ujan, I. A. (2011) ‘Gender discrimination in workforce and its impact on employees’, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Science, 5(1): 177-191. Fevre, R., Robinson, A., Lewis, D., and Jones, T. (2013) ‘The ill-treatment of employees with disabilities in British workplaces’, Work, Employment and Society, 27(2): 288-307. Fiske, S. T. and Lee, T. L. (2008) ‘Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination’, in Brief, A. P. (ed), Diversity at work, Cambridge University Press. Friedman, R. J. (2010) ‘Religious discrimination in the workplace: the persistent polarised struggle’, Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law, 11: 143-65. Green, T. K. (2003) ‘Discrimination in workplace dynamics: toward a structural account of disparate treatment theory’, Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review, 38: 91-157. Hernandez, T. K. (2010) ‘Employment discrimination in the ethnically diverse workplace’, Judges’ Journal, 33(Fall): 33-7. Hoobler, J. M., Lemmon, G., and Wayne, S. J. (2011) ‘Women’s underrepresentation in upper management: new insights on a persistent problem’, Organisational Dynamics, 40: 151-6. Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., and Gray, A. L. (2013) ‘Not so subtle: a meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination’, Journal of Management, 20(10): 1-26. Lee, D. (2005) ‘Unconscious bias theory in employment discrimination litigation’, Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review, 40: 481-503. Mor Barak, M. E. (2010) Managing diversity: toward a globally inclusive workplace (2nd edition), Sage Publications. Pager, D. and Shepherd, H. (2008) ‘The sociology of discrimination: racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets’, Annual Review of Sociology, 1(34): 181-209. Pager, D., Western, B., and Bonikowski, B. (2009). ‘Discrimination in a low-wage labour market: a field experiment’, American Sociological Review, 74(October): 777-99. Pizer, J., Sears, B., Mallory, C., and Hunter, N. D. (2012) ‘Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against LGBT people: the need for Federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits’, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 45(3): 715-80. Pothier, D. (2010). ‘Tackling disability discrimination at work: toward systemic approach’, McGill Journal of Law and Health/Revue de Droit et Sante de McGill, 4(1): 18-37. Robinson, D. (2013) Workplace discrimination prevention manual: tips for executives, managers, and students to increase productivity and reduce litigation, Archway Publishing. Stainback, K. and Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012) Documenting desegregation: racial and gender segregation in private-sector employment since the Civil Rights Act, Russell Sage Foundation. Read More