Human Resource Practice on Managing Workforce Discriminations - Coursework Example

Title: Module: Instructor: Name: Date: Human resource practice on managing workforce discriminations. Eradication of discrimination and management of diversity in workforce will remain a complex area of research for human resource managers. The problem has been complicated further by globalization which has created global demand for human capital resource that has resulted to low retention levels. Studies claim that institutions that will initiate proper management practices to avoid discriminations and manage diversity work force properly stand a better chance to excel in this competitive and dynamic global human capital resource market (Ongori & Agolla 2007). Diversity is defined as the variations among workers in terms of race, age, gender, experience, knowledge and skills (Morris et al 2001). Subsequently, diversity management is defined as a planned and systematic commitment by institutions to employ, promote, retain and reward a mixed workforce (Ongori & Agolla 2007).This essay will identify discrimination types in the case study, correlate human resource management practices and theories to discrimination resolutions. Discrimination can be categorized according to Queensland health anti-discrimination policy into unlawful discrimination, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, vicious liability, discrimination in employment and the outcome which is the disciplinary action (Health Queensland 2008). According to the present case study, this essay identifies two forms of discrimination, which are indirect and direct discriminations. Direct discrimination is when actions are taken that specifically denies a group or an individual from benefiting or reduces opportunities and chances of success due to lack of a certain personal attribute relevant to a given circumstance. In this category, sex can be given as an example (Health Queensland 2008). In contrast, indirect discrimination is where results of decisions, rules and practices that is supposed to support or be neutral, unreasonably reduces that person’s chances to succeed or benefit. These outcomes in selection include weight, height, and age as limiting factors for the candidate’s roles. These factors actually are not essential or relevant to position on offer. In both direct and indirect discrimination an individual is subjected to unlawfully consideration which is biased or the candidate is harassed on particular issues pertaining public life (Health Queensland 2008). Employment and job promotions are generally key areas where persons can be discriminated in an organization on the basis of their personal attributes or characteristics in comparison to other candidates in a similar capacity or circumstances. Discrimination in workplace environment has a devastating impact both on the organization and on the affected employee. Work efficiency and service delivery in the organization reduces which then lead to deterioration in production. Similarly, the affected person’s work performance decreases due to low esteem and poor working relationships (Health Queensland 2008). Theorists have had a great deal studies on workplace diversity. One of the theories which help management in resolving differences in an organization is a fairness and discrimination paradigm. This theory ignores all differences and claims among employees and adopts a fairness position. According to the theory, an individual’s experience and background is treated to have no relationship on work performance and productivity in the company (Reeves 2009). However, this theory can not be applied universally because the reality is that people are different and so are their personal attributes (Reeves 2009). A more appropriate means of determining discrimination in work place is by applying scientific methods to provide evidence that can be quantified and proofed by statistical method. This essay will compare two statistical approaches that draw semblance to the case study. In an article by Baumle and Fossett (2005, pp. 1250-1274), they describe statistical discrimination as a phenomenon for future applications because prejudices based on traditional practices like racism and gender inequality are fading out slowly. This theory assumes a multidisciplinary approach encompassing perspectives in law, sociology, and economics. Its central role is to resolve prejudices that are based on ethnicity, stratification and conflicts (Baumle & Fosset 2005). However, sometimes discrimination disputes may not be resolved within the organization framework. As a result, a different statistical model is applied where discrimination cases in employment can be analyzed statistically based on quantitative patterns and availability of data (Drogin 2001). This method is called fair model and is used to ascertain claims of bias by comparing personnel practices and complainant claims. The method predisposes litigation in discrimination and it centers on this fairness model through arguments that are supported by statistical data. The statistical data are actually control factors, for example in job promotions, years an individual has worked for the organization, job priority, education and other factors may not be relevant in filling the vacancy. However, exclusion or inclusion of control parameters may reveal whether disparity was statistically significant (Drogin 2001). There are two major discrimination types encountered in this case study, the first was discrimination on the basis of age. The second discrimination is that of gender identity or sex. According to studies there has been a steady decline in workforce participation by older employees since 1970. The major reasons for this decline are redundancy, provision of incentives for early retirees, and choices of individual lifestyle. Ageism or active discrimination and sexual prejudices are some of the major contributors to this decline (Bennington 2002). In the U.S.A, evidence show that rates of unemployment for aged workers is low. In contrast, older workers take longer periods of unemployment, experience lowest probabilities of reemployment, face highest losses in wages, and are mostly employed on part-time basis (Bennington 2002). However, mainstream theories have failed to explain age discrimination but instead have linked it to sexism. Age remains a very important factor that needs to be addressed since it affects virtually everyone at one stage in lifespan (Bennington 2002). The pattern of discrimination on age has become dynamic as lifestyle trends keep changing. In some countries, workers of thirty six are perceived to be aged (Bennington 2002). In reality, research studies show that older employees are punctual on duty, show high rates of retention and are great performers. This correlates with ageism in the case study of Lucy, where although no information was given on the gender composition of the selection panel, it is apparent that Lucy received bias based on her age and sexual orientation since the other two selected candidates were all male and in their youthful age. A case of discrimination is also justified against Safeplanet management for overlooking her length of time she has worked in the organization, experience and accomplishment among other personal attributes (Drogin 2001). The fact that Lucy was short listed and eventually qualified for appointment is a similar capacity by interstate section of the organization confirms age discrimination. Legislation on discrimination of age in most states of Australia has substantially improved compared to states in America. Bennington’s report indicates presence of converging consensus from four studies conducted on age discrimination in Australia. According to the report bias is expressed in the language used by advertisements for job offer, delivery of messages by recruitment agencies and consultants, employers self reports, and experience specifications for job applicants (Bennington 2002). For example Queensland Health anti discrimination act of 1991 provides for protection of employees against discrimination on race, relationship status, age, sex, gender identity, parental status, religious faith among others (Health Queensland 2008). However, the act also provides exemptions if there is genuine requirements for a specific job offer or promotion with advice from human resources division Harassment and workplace discrimination is a day to day occurrence in any organization with a diverse work force. Supervisors and managers have a major responsibility to prevent discrimination and also manage outcomes arising from cases of discrimination or harassment (Health Queensland 2008). Likewise, workers have an obligation to abide with rules and regulations that bar them from indulging in behaviours which are discriminatory or a source of harassment to their managers, supervisors, patients, fellow workers or clients (Health Queensland 2008). In this case study, Safeplanet management should have taken initiative that outlines reasons why the complainant did not merit promotion. These initiatives should be in line with the organizations procedures that are both formal and informal. Among this would be; 1. Draw argument based on legislative provision and organization rules and regulation on employment and promotions, 2. Establish close links in diversity and equity in line with the organizations strategic operational plan and vision, 3. Ensure that principles on diversity and equity are integrated into human resource management and administration on daily basis (Health Queensland 2008). Similarly, the complainant was supposed to seek redress for discrimination in this case, by taking immediate action to identify laid down procedure of lodging a complaint. The first step would be to seek informal appointment with her immediate supervisor, if she is not satisfied move on to senior managers or human resources managers to establish if indeed discrimination was applied in the short listing process. At this stage, the complainant could raise merit status for the advertised position and state her qualifications in terms of experience, competence and skills as indicated for the job priority. The second step to be taken would involve lodging an official or formal complaint supported by facts established that indeed bias in selection occurred (Drogin 2001). The complainant could cite age and gender of the short listed candidates as evidence of discrimination. This grievance should then be forwarded to an established office in the organization that handles such complaints. The last step which should have been taken if the complainant was dissatisfied with Safeplanet’s resolution was by finding legal provision like Anti-discrimination act and lodge litigation with relevant authorities against Safeplanet (Health Queensland 2008). In conclusion, findings from this case study suggest existence of slim chances of reducing bias towards sex and age in organizations. Despite the fact that Safeplanet is an organization that advocates for equality, it is not possible for it to avoid discrimination from within. The major challenge for organizations in this widening global labour market is to set up measures that encourage retention and continuous appraisal of its workers for it to compete fovourably. Currently, most organizations have identified management of diversity as a challenge to prosperity and hence strive to train and expand their human resources departments. In addition, worker protection policies have been initiated in line with legal legislation like the anti-discrimination policy in Queensland health. However, it’s only through strict implementation and reinforcements of such policies that discrimination at workplace will be defeated (Health Queensland 2008). References Baumle, AK & Fossett, M 2005, ‘Statistical Discrimination in Employment’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1250-1274, Viewed 20 April 2009, Bennington, L 2002, ‘Age discrimination: Converging evidence from four Australian studies’, Employee responsibilities and rights journal, Vol 13, no 3, p.125, Viewed 21 April 2009, . Drogin, R 2001, ‘Use of statistical evidence in employment discrimination litigation’, American bar association, pp. 28-31, Viewed 20 April 2009, Health Queensland, 2008, Anti-discrimination human resources policy. Viewed 20 April 2009, Ongori, H & Agolla, E 2007, ‘Critical review of literature on workforce diversity’, African Journal of Business Management, pp. 072-076. Viewed 20 April 2009, Read More