Affirmative action,is it necessary in the 21st. century - Essay Example

Affirmative Action, Is It Necessary in The 21st. Century Executive summary At the beginning of the XXI century, the policy of affirmative action isstill of vital importance. Politics and human rights policy have changed significantly throughout the twentieth century, notably in relation to attitudes about race, gender, and sexuality. And although they have nurtured a particular vision of social justice. Unfortunately, not all the problems of equal opportunities at the workplace have been solved. For females and minority employees, affirmative action proposes great opportunities to be equally treated and protected (to some extent). During half a century, affirmative action policies have proved their effectiveness, but cannot "abolish" gender and racial inequalities. For this reason, training and promotion activities as a part of affirmative action are vital for successful organizational performance. Nevertheless, there are some disadvantages of these policies. They include low-qualifies fork force and low-personal achievements of employees involved in the affirmative action programs. To over come these possible threats the organization should conduct programming of specific human resources activities, based on personal development and human capital policies. Organisations play a major and continuing role in the lives of people, especially with the growth of large-scale business organisations and the divorce of ownership from management. Organisations of one form or another are a necessary part of a society and serve many important needs. The decisions and actions of management in organisations have an increasing impact on individuals, other organisations and the community. It is important, therefore, to understand the role of affirmative action and the pervasive influences which it exercises over the behaviour of people. In the 21st century, the debate over pros and cons of affirmative action is still alive. Heated discussions concern the role of affirmative action in organizational development and its impact on HR management. The policy of affirmative action has deep roots. It goes back to 1941 when F. Roosevelt "encouraged minority employment by ordering defense contractors to cease discriminatory hiring" (Yates, n.d.). Further, this concept was developed by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 when he "put teeth into minority hiring rules for government contractors' (Yates, n.d.). The next amendments took place under the presidency of J. Kennedy who introduced Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) "establishing to investigate contractors' practices, impose sanctions, collect employment statistics, and ensure compliance with government regulations" (Yates, n.d.). The necessity of Affirmative action was caused by dominance by white males in American workforce. At the middle of the XX century they occupied the majority of managerial positions and many of the more important blue-collar jobs. The role of women was to occupies lower-paying positions. On the other hand, racial minorities found considerable barriers to entering the labor market at the higher paying levels. The necessity of affirmative action is still an issue of the day, because people are discriminated in many aspects of our life and work. The selection process in particular directly discriminates between people in order to offer the reward of a job to one but not the others. Certain forms of discrimination are acceptable but others are not, and have been made unlawful. Facts rather than prejudice, and relevant facts rather than irrelevant facts, are important criteria in determining what type of discrimination is acceptable. "For instance, members of minority groups, females, the hard core disadvantaged, persons with disabilities, veterans, and persons more senior in age than most or who have sexual preference differences. People and groups of people typically discriminated against on the job, in promotional consideration, in employment retention, in hiring, in services and in admissions" (Martinez, 1997). Legislation, voluntary codes of practice and equality initiatives have resulted in some progress towards equality of treatment for minority groups, but there remains inescapable evidence of continuing discrimination. More recent approaches of the business case for equal opportunities, the economics of equal opportunities, the valuing and managing of diversity in organisations, and the mainstreaming of equal opportunities are a response to the insufficient progress made so. In his comments Gary Becker supposes that "employers,, universities, and other organizations should make special efforts to find qualified members of minority groups, persons who might have been overlooked because of their poor family backgrounds or the bad schools they attended" (On Affirmative Action-BECKER, 2005). The necessity of affirmative action at the beginning of the XXI century can be explained by the fact that there are always certain groups in any society that are discriminated against unfavourably due to the prejudices and preconceptions of the people with whom they have to deal. These preconceptions are sometimes verbalised, but often not, and the people holding these preconceptions may well be unaware of the way that they see and judge things and people. However, these preconceived ideas influence the actions of the people who hold them, and the way they deal with others. The effects of this can be seen in the employment arena, as this is inextricably linked with discrimination in the rest of societyr. These offer some useful perspectives and practices, although the underlying concepts also raise some issues and concerns. A very interesting and extravagant idea was expressed by Valentino B. Martinez in the article "The affirmative action debacle: how a 20th century solution is becoming America's 21st century problem". This author compares life experience of an employee with parade and "the effort to get you into the parade of your choice, particularly if you have been prevented by design or by accident, or by accidental design is the rub and not in keeping with the accepted premise that we should all have fair and equal access in our pursuit of happiness, particularly if certain parades will take us there" (Martinez, 1997). From the managerial point of view, disadvantaged groups, who have already been identified, are women, people from other racial backgrounds, disabled people and older people, and in the USA there is legislation protecting the employment rights of the first three of these four groups. The roots of affirmative action go very deep, and in relation to women concern challenging a system of institutional discrimination and anti-female conditioning in the prevailing culture. Culture is important in two ways in affirmative action - first, in respect of the whole range of approaches to cultural diversity, organisational culture is a determinant of the way that organisations treat individuals from different groups. Equal opportunity approaches tended to concentrate on behaviour and, to a small extent, attitudes, whereas management of diversity approaches recognise a need to go beneath this. So changing the culture to one which treats individuals as individuals and supports them in developing their potential is critical, although the difficulties of culture change make this a very difficult task. Today, the debate concerns the action that should be taken to alleviate the disadvantages of minority groups. One company supports legislative action, while the other argues that this will not be effective and that the only way to change fundamentally is to alter the attitudes and preconceptions that are held about these groups. The initial emphasis on legislative action was adopted in the hope that this would eventually affect attitudes. However, there have been some efforts to change attitudes directly in addition to this. In spite positive effects of affirmative action, some researchers prove nagative influence of this policy on company's performance and HRM. In his study "A Case Against Affirmative Action", Arnold Barnett proves the fact that affirmative action has an extremely negative impact on human resources: "We argue here against extreme affirmative action, which we define as preferential treatment based on ethnicity and/or gender that routinely results in the selection of less-qualified individuals over more qualified ones" (Barnett, 1996). This view point is supported by substantial results and statistical data, nevertheless this author examine on one side of this problem, namely, the necessity to recruit of low-educated and low-qualified workforce according EEOC and the Civil Rights Act. On the other hand, the positive outcomes of affirmative action have been proved by statistical results. "Women now account for 46 percent of the labor force, up from 38 percent in 1970. White women now earn 76 cents to a white man's dollar, compared with 61 cents three decades ago. At 64 cents, the wage gap for minority women has narrowed relative to white men as well. Entrepreneurs also have gained. About 37 percent of U.S. businesses are owned and operated by women, up from 22 percent a decade ago" (Gerencher, 2001). In spite this results, the problem of gender descrimination has nor been solved yet. And for this reason, affirmative action is the only possible way for managers to treat equally males and females. In essence, women are working in occupations which reflect their perceived role in society, and are generally found servicing and caring for others. It is recognized that many organisations are adopting equal opportunity policies and are seriously examining whether they are fulfilling the potential of all their staff. However, statistics reveal that progress is slow and the number of women holding senior managerial positions is still insignificant. On-the-job training increases employee pay and other rewards as work experience increases, because productivity increases, and employers are said to make specific investments such as executive training of their employees. Training and development are also proposed to lead to promotion to top management by developing knowledge, skills, credibility, and credentials and thus expertise and power (Linehan, 1997). The interrupted pattern of women's employment therefore decreases the incentives for both women and employers to engage in their training. Although this may explain the position for some it does not explain the position of women who do invest their time in education and training. Neither does it explain the disparities in earnings which exist between men and women where neither have committed themselves to education and training (Linehan, 1999). In addition, this included "identity-blind merit-based structures" in which human resource practices do not identify protected groups, and management attitude, or being subject to lawsuits. Identity-conscious human resource management structures explicitly identifying their purpose for protected groups were weakly related to women's highest ranks and people of color in greatest percentages in management, and not being subject to compliance reviews to greater percentages of women in management (Argyris, 1994). In summary, affirmative action increases, although weakly, the advancement in management of women and minorities. The major reason for affirmative action can be explained by the fact that discrimination against various groups in an organization has been made unlawful and legislation designed to avoid discrimination have been introduced, but they cannot solve all the problems arisen at the work place, and affirmative action exploited by managers is the only possible way to manage diversity. "It is obvious why affirmative action may hurt members of the majority group who are denied promotions or admission to various colleges, even though their records are better than many minorities accepted" (On Affirmative Action-BECKER, 2005). A national drive to promote equal opportunities for women at work began in 1992 with the aim of commiting employers to going through a three-stage process of: auditing existing policies; setting measurable goals; making a public commitment from top management to achieving them. Organizations achieve their own goals in line with their business objectives. One practical result of this drive was that Iceland Frozen Foods pledged to increase the proportion of female store managers from under 10 per cent to 15 per cent by the end of the year. At the beginning of the XXI century, the main techniques used by managers to support minorities and other groups include training, promotion, equal pay, etc. Training is needed because it may give a wider general knowledge of new techniques or a broader outlook, but can be most beneficial to employee and employer. An effective training programme can: improve efficiency and morale; introduce new techniques; provide for succession, enabling qualified replacements to be available; raise the standard of unskilled personnel, thus helping overcome labor,: shortages; develop supervisors and decrease the amount of supervision needed; lead to a reduction in scrap rates and improve machine utilization. The concept of the learning curve is important in affirmative action programs. It seeks to present in diagrammatic form the progress of an individual. It ascends quickly, showing increasing proficiency. There are various levels in the curve, where a person is consolidating and developing his knowledge. Where a group of persons is trained, the group may set 'norms' which may stop individuals from moving ahead, and therefore it is important to ensure that the group norms are the same as the objectives of the trainer, so that individuals can progress. For managers, it is important to propose equal opportunities for males and female at the workforce avoiding violation of human rights and dignity. Many companies do not regard training as a affirmative action activity, and in many cases training officers are not themselves trained. Many courses are held and employees sent to college without any serious thought being given to the real training needs of a company. At the beginning of XXI century, the policy of affirmative action is important because it secures female employees and minorities to be equally treated. A policy for promotion is needed and its contents may be: all promotions to be made, as far as possible, within the firm; the main basis of promotion to be merit and ability. Seniority (often the number of years' service) to be considered but not to form the sole reason for promotion; opportunities given to all employees to reach the highest grades; vacancies be advertised and be kept open to all employees; accurate personnel records must be kept and these must include grading and merit ratings and other relevant details. These occur from one department or job to another or both and may solve a number of problems. Clear records are essential to obtain knowledge of the new job's requirements and the qualities needed for it. The employee, or department head, may have requested the transfer. Care and tact are needed in these situations. After identifying the development needs of the individual the choice of course must be made. Some firms have noted the waste of money on affirmative action. Nevertheless, this policy deprives individuals to be given an opportunity to use the knowledge gained (Ludwig, 1995). Affirmative action policy cannot be considered in isolation from the remuneration policy. Wages may account for up to 80 per cent of total costs in some industries. The objects of a policy of remuneration are: to attract and retain sufficient staff of the required calibre to meet the organization's objectives; to provide staff with incentives for better work; to have a policy which is logical and consistent, easily understandable and flexible. After objectives, policies and priorities have been determined, the methods of remuneration to be used to achieve them should be considered, i.e. job evaluation, merit rating, incentive schemes and fringe benefits (Rosow, Casner-Lotto, 1998). According to statistical results in 2000 there was a drop in the percentage of white American-born male workers in the workplace. It was found that 14 % of the new entrants are white males. The percentages for nonwhites and immigrants of both genders is increased. In general, there are more women in positions of responsibility in both the public and private sectors and more opportunities for minorities. Affirmative action effectiveness explained additional variance in representative hiring for management positions of nonminority but not visible minority women. Vice President of Action at the National Organization for Women explains that "Lots of young women who come out of college and enter the workforce feel like they're equal. Then they notice young men speeding ahead of them or they face sex discrimination or run up against the glass ceiling. To be sure, women gradually increased their numbers in most jobs, but not enough to justify dismantling programs that protect such gains." (Gerencher, 2001). At the beginning of the XXI century, affirmative action approaches have sought to influence behaviour through legislation so that discrimination is prevented. It has been characterised by a moral and ethical stance promoting the rights of all members of society. Management of affirmative action, on the other hand, stress the economic and the business case for equal treatment, offering benefits and advantages for the employer if they invest in ensuring that everyone in the organisation is valued and given the opportunity to develop their potential and make a maximum payment. Today, many companies formalized human resource management strategies to promote affirmative action in the main not related to women's and people of color's percentage in management and highest ranks (Linehan, 1999). People with a high achievement motivation may perceive that successful performance is caused by their own internal forces, and their ability and effort, rather than by the nature of the task or by luck. If members of staff fail to perform well on their tasks they may believe that external factors are the cause, and as a result may reduce the level of future effort. On the other hand, if staff perform well but the manager perceives this as due to an easy task or to luck, the appropriate recognition and reward may not be given. If the staff perceive that good performance was due to ability and/or effort the lack of recognition and reward may well have a demotivating effect. An employee may expect promotion as an outcome of a high level of contribution (input) in helping to achieve an important organisational objective. People also compare their own position with that of others. They determine the perceived equity of their own position. Feelings about the equity of the exchange is affected by the treatment they receive when compared with what happens to other people. Women, unlike men, reported having to push for the job after a trial. Today, affirmative action covers a range of approaches and emphases, some closer to equal opportunities, some very different. In reality, there remains the question of the extent to which approaches have really changed in organisations. Equal opportunities in may just be a way of making it more palatable in today's climate, may be used to revitalize the equal opportunities agenda. Affirmative action policy can be seen as introspective as it deals with people already in the organisation, rather than getting people into the organisation -managing rather than expanding diversity. It is not possible to use affirmative action until the company really needs it. If differences are not recognised, then the norms and standards of the dominant group are not questioned. Others however argue that a greater recognition of perceived differences will continue to provide a rationale for disadvantageous treatment (Baqley, Connerty, 2000). Many organizations prefer not to invest in human capital, because they are not sure that it will be repaid with interests. Traditionally, employee relations in America has been characterised by the concept of free collective bargaining between employees and employers. However, in recent years this philosophy has been underpinned by increasing amount of labour law. During the last two decades, however, this area of law has been significantly extended, introducing new statutory rights for both those in employment and seeking employment. These rights are now subject to more realistic enforcement procedures through a tribunal system, and cover a range of issues from relatively minor matters such as time off for public duties, to the more important protection rights across the USA. To conclude, affirmative action plays a major and continuing role on the organization-employee relations. The decisions and actions have an increasing impact on individuals, other organisations and the community. At the beginning of XXI century affirmative action involves setting policies, formulating plans, and trying to make the best decisions possible. All this is done in a context of how the organisation as a whole, and the HR manager in particular, see the role of affirmative action, the environment of the business, and the situation in which it operates. The importance of affirmative action policies can be explained by the fact that these policies create an environment which encourages the creativity of all, and enables everyone to work without feelings of insecurity, and without insult. Equal treatment of all employees is vital in every organization. The organization should conduct programming of specific affirmative action activities, including training and development, to overcome gander inequalities and violation of minority rights. A large part of a manager's task is getting things done through people, a manager must therefore try to understand the role of affirmative action for a particular employee. This aspect of the management element of direction is concerned with inducing people to work to the best of their ability. References 1. Argyris, C., "The Future of Workplace Learning and Performance," Training and Development, May 1994, pp. 36-46. 2. Barnett, A. "A Case Against Affirmative Action". Building Equal Opportunity On Firmer Footing. August 1996, Vol 23, #4. [on-line edition] Available at: http://www.lionhrtpub.com/orms/orms-8-96/building.html 3. Baqley, W., Connerty, W. Affirmative Action: Pro and Con. Apr. 25, 2000. Available at: http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.aspeventID=29 4. Gerencher, K. Chavez spurs debate whether women still need it. 2001. Available at: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/gerencher.html 5. Linehan, M. Senior Female International Managers. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1999. 6. Ludwig, B.G. "Extension Leaders: Moving Beyond Affirmative Action to Value Diversity" Journal of Extension. Vol. 33, Num.5, 1995. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995october/a1.html 7. Martinez, V. "The affirmative action debacle: how a 20th century solution is becoming America's 21st century problem". Hispanic Times Magazine. March-April 1997. Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWK/is_n2_v18/ai_19488276/pg_2 8. On Affirmative Action-BECKER. 2005. Available at: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/08/on_affirmative.html 9. Rosow, J., Casner-Lotto, J. People, Partnership and Profits: The new labor-management agenda, Work in America Institute, New York, 1998. 10. Yates, W.T. Equity Management: Affirmative Action for the 21st Century. Available at: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Change7.html Read More