Equal Opportunities Policies and Discrimination at Work - Coursework Example

Equal opportunities (EO) policies and discrimination at work Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Equal opportunities policies have failed to reduce discrimination at work. Critically discuss Introduction It is worth noting that there have been extensive debates on whether equal opportunities (EO) policies have played a significant role in the minimization of discrimination in the work places. Majority of the critics of EO policies for instance, Young (1987), Hoque and Noon (1999) as well as Liff and Dale (1994) among others have argued that in most cases, these EO policies just act like smokescreens behind which unfair practices, inequality and prejudice thrive and take root. This skepticism has further been fortified by statistical data which has revealed that an elevated number of institutions forward claims that they have extensively executed formal equal opportunities policies but in the actual sense, vices of discrimination continues to thrive in these organizations. Additionally, such skepticism has in some instance been validated by some high profile cases, best epitomized by those at Microsoft, Coca Cola as well as Ford (UK) among others where the institutional practices in these organizations have fallen short of the adopted values of EO which are enshrined in the company policies (Hoque &Noon, 2004, p. 482). On the other hand, some of the proponents of EO policies have argued that great achievements have been realized through the cognition by diverse employers that equality measures in the workplaces can be instrumental in serving their interests in the highly competitive labor market, enhance competitive advantage in the product market as well as elevate organizational performance. Towards this end, they have formulated and implemented robust EO policies in their organizations which have been fundamental in minimizing the level of discrimination in their respective organizations (Dickens, 1999, p. 9). Thus, this optimistic school of thought perceive EO policies as being a fundamental intervention in minimizing discrimination at work. Against this background of conflicting perceptions, this paper is an insightful effort to critically evaluate whether equal opportunities policies have failed to reduce discrimination at work. Equal opportunities policies There has been divergence between scholars and practitioners over the development of the EO policies in the contemporary societies. This is whereby some scholars like Ben-Tovim et. al., (1986) and Young and Connelly (1981) perceive the development of equal opportunity policies as the product of a wider process of pressure groups politics, political negotiations as well as bureaucratic policy making. On the other hand, there are others who advocate for looking beyond these public political negotiations. This latter group perceives that looking at the development of the EO policies from the aforementioned perspectives culminates to the promises of EO policies being viewed broadly as symbolic political actions which can do very little to effect any real change in discriminatory processes in work (Solomon, 1989, p. 2). Nonetheless, despite these divergences of perceptions in regard to the development of EO policies, it is an apparent fact that different organizations in diverse countries have increasingly made efforts to implement EO policies aimed at curtailing any forms of discrimination at the workplaces. This phenomenon is best exemplified in Britain, Australia and Turkey among other countries where different approaches were used to reduce or totally eradicate discrimination in the workplaces. This is revealed by Ozbilgin (2000, p. 46) who determined that radical, liberal as well as transformative change approaches were evident in a concurrent model in the employment practices in Britain and Turkey in the 1990s. These approaches had variances in terms of success in minimizing discrimination. It is imperative to note that this discrimination can range from gender to the discrimination of immigrants in at the organizational level among other forms of discrimination. However, despite these imperative steps in the adoption of EO policies aimed at reducing discrimination in the workplaces, there has been evidence that these policies have failed to achieve their desired objective. One of the major reasons behind this failure is that despite majority of companies adopting EO policies, they have been reluctant in their implementation processes as well as monitoring and evaluation practices aimed at assessing the impact of these policies. This is best epitomized whereby by the Industrial Relations Service (cited by Hoque &Noon, 2004, p. 483) which revealed that nearly three-quarters of the 208 companies which were surveyed had a disability policy aimed at reducing and eventually totally eradicating discrimination of the disabled in the workplaces. Nonetheless, only 40% of these companies monitored their job application practices using disability. Moreover, only a marginal 25%had instituted arrangements aimed at consultation and representation of the disabled employees while only 53% would permit time off for this category of employees for the sake of treatment and rehabilitation. Equally, the Commission for Racial Equality (cited by Hoque &Noon, 2004, p. 483) revealed that while over 90% of the employers in the private sector had drafted EO policies which covered race, sex and disability, less than a half of these companies were able to clearly demonstrate that they instituted prudent mechanisms to implement these policies or adopted a robust action plan to put these EO policies into practice. This phenomenon has also confronted the EO policies aimed at mitigating the discrimination of migrant workers in different countries which have experienced and influx of this category of workers in this contemporary age of elevated globalization. Towards this end, the critics of the EO policies have plausibly inferred that these policies have extensively failed in the reduction of discrimination in the workplaces. This can be justified by the previous figures which have revealed that the non-commitment of different companies to implement the EO policies has increasingly reduced the impact of these policies culminating in their eventual failure. Nonetheless, despite this criticism of the EO policies in reducing the level of discrimination in the workplaces, the critics have failed to reveal the extent of impact of the EO policies in the minimization of discrimination in workplaces, mostly in regard to the migrant workers. In this case, the level of success of these policies in the compliant firms still remains uncertain. Proponents of the EO policies have thus maintained that in the companies where these policies have been successfully implemented, they have been effective in the reduction of the level of discrimination. On the other hand, in his analysis of the EO policies in the police service, Martin (1996, p. 510) inferred that despite the introduction of the EO policies in many services in the late 1980s as well as early 1990s, the real change towards non-discrimination was extensively slow in filtering down to the lower ranks. This culminated to the argument that these early changes in policies were merely notional but not entirely practical. This has been credited for the increased disillusionment among majority of the individuals and collectives who are concerned about the EO policies in employment as revealed by Cockburn (1989, p. 213). In this case, majority of the migrant workers in the forces among other employment areas, mostly those in the lower ranks of employment continue to experience discrimination in the workplaces. This can be seen as an example of failure of the EO policies to eradicate the level of discrimination of this category of employees in their places of work in different industries. However, these critics have failed to credit the impact of these EO policies in the reduction of discrimination at work, even if it is in the high ranks of employment. They have thus tended to be inclined to the radical approach to the issue of reducing discrimination among the minority groups in the workplaces. This is founded on the assertion by different advocates of the EO policies, for instance, Crow (1995) who revealed that the enhancement of the position of one group in the workplace through radical action does not necessarily play a key role in the provision of equal opportunity to all members of a similar group, for instance, the immigrant workers. Similarly, Cockburn (1989, p. 217) forwarded an assertion that the radical approach towards discrimination in works was ‘retrogressive’ in the sense that it tends to further divide the powerless group which is already divided. The author also pointed out that although the utility of the radical approach in eradicating discrimination could be chief in promoting the relative position of one disadvantaged group, for instance, the immigrant workers, it does not offer any concrete promise in improving the structural set-up which expedite inequalities in different workplaces. Subsequently, the work by both of the authors above points to the fact that the critics of EO policies who tend to take a radical approach to discrimination has a minimal chance of noticing and appreciating the imperative role of EO policies in reducing discrimination at work. However, a more liberal approach is able to notice some gradual changes in the discrimination minimization in works. In this case, the fact that some of the companies have continuously implemented the EO policies in their operations, results from these companies have revealed that in fact these policies have significant effect in the reduction of discrimination in these organizations. An additional concern which has been forwarded by those who determine that the EO policies have failed is that even in cases whereby in case these policies are more than just mare paper exercises, their design is often structured to have a selective effect in the workplace. This is best epitomized by Richards (cited in Hoque &Noon, 2004, p. 484) who gave an example of the ‘Opportunity Now’ initiative. This policy was widely criticized for totally failing to pose any significant impact on women who were in the non-managerial positions. This reveals that this policy tended to benefit only a subsection of the women in different companies. This has been a similar case among the immigrant workers whereby only those in the managerial positions tend to benefit from the EO policies. Similarly, Dickens (2000, p. 153) also provided a classical example in regard to how improved maternity provision as well as career breaks exclusively target women who are ‘high-flyers’. This approach helps different organizations to retain their scarce skills in this category of the workforce as well helping in the retention of the valuable organizational knowledge embedded in this category of women. In this regard, this particular EO policy is often targeted to a particular sub-set of women at the organizational level in a way which reflects the needs of the employers as opposed to the needs of the larger social group in general. This is founded on the reality that the implementation of these EO policies by different organizations is a practice which is purely geared towards protecting the interests of the companies in terms of sustaining their human resource competitive advantage in the market. This is opposed to ensuring that all the members of the institution are subjected to a non-discriminatory environment in the workplaces, which has been linked to greater performance of the firm by some scholars. Additionally, the adoption of such a policy by the employers tends to further divide the broader social group based on the fact that some of the members of this group are given preferential treatment while others, who are mostly the majority, are ignored altogether. In this case, the EO policies can be perceived to have failed in the minimization of discrimination at work, mostly among members of a social group, for instance, women or immigrant workers who can be easily replaced in the organization. On a different perspective, it has been noted that despite the implementation of the EO policies in different institutions, the level of discretion mostly in the decision making processes has culminated in the failure of these policies to reduce the level of discrimination in the workplaces. This fact is evidenced by Cunningham, et. al. (2002, p. 67) who determined that the equality initiatives, for instance, women-only training programs, part-time and flexible working patterns, provision of nurseries as well as ‘family friendly’ policies are increasingly under threat based on the elevated discretion over decision making in these areas. This fact is supported by Hoque &Noon (2004, p. 484) who determined that there is usually a major point of concern in relation to the extent of the line managers in a given institution to exercise discretion in regard to the operationalization of the EO policies. This has been perceived to be particularly difficult in the family-friendly arrangements whereby some line managers might be unwilling when juxtaposed with others to make efficient arrangements for employees to seek parental leave or to job share. In this case, the reluctance of majority of the line managers to operationalization of the EO policies has seen increased failure of the EO policies in workplaces. Lastly, different organizations and agencies have failed to produce robust actors in the decision making processes in the formulation and implementation of the equal opportunity policies. This has greatly resulted in the failure of the EO policies to address the discrimination in the workplaces. This fact is evidenced by Bothfeld and Kuhl (2007, p. 14) who determined that there is a generic lack of powerful actors in the fundamental decision making networks who are highly interested in the equal opportunity policy. This has led to a situation whereby the EO policies have been insufficient in addressing the issues of discrimination in the workplaces, mostly among the women and the immigrant workers. This phenomenon led to the critics of the EO policies to infer that so far since the inception of these policies, they have extensively failed to address the issue of discrimination in the workplaces. Conclusion The above critical analysis has evidenced that there have been extensive debates on whether equal opportunities (EO) policies have played a significant role in reducing discrimination in the work places. It has further forwarded arguments mostly from the critics of the EO policies which have revealed the failure of these policies to minimize the level of discrimination in the workplaces. On the other hand, it has also raised some critical errors in criticism and asserted that the EO policies have to some extent contributed to the reduction of discrimination in workplaces. It is thus the perception of this paper that more needs to be done aimed at fortifying the implementation processes of the EO policies, mostly in relation to the immigrant workers if they have to achieve increased effectiveness in minimizing and eventually totally eradicating discrimination at work. References Ben-Tovim, G. et. al., 1986, The Local Politics of Race, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Bothfeld, S. &Kuhl, M., 2007, ‘Equal opportunity policy and feminist political science – the “invisible avant-garde” of governance research?’, retrieved 12th April 2013, . Cockburn, C., 1989, ‘Equal Opportunities: the Short and Long Agenda’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 213–25. Crow, SM., 1995, ‘Priorities of hiring discrimination: who is at greatest risk – women, blacks, or homosexuals?’, Academy of Management: Best Papers Proceedings, Vancouver, Canada, 6–9 August, pp. 443–7. Cunningham, R. et. al., 2002, ‘‘Next Steps’ for Equality?: The Impact of Organizational Change on Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service’, Gender, Work &Organization, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 67-78. Dickens, L., 1999, ‘Beyond the business case: a three-pronged approach to equality action‘, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 9-19. Dickens, L., 2000, ‘Still Wasting Resources? Equality in Employment’, in S. Bach and K. Sisson (eds.), Personnel Management (3rd ed.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 137–69. Hoque, K. & Noon, M., 1999, ‘Racial Discrimination in Speculative Applications: New Optimism Six Years On?’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 71–82. Hoque, K. & Noon, M., 2004, ‘Equal opportunities policy and practice in Britain: evaluating the ‘empty shell’ hypothesis‘, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 481-506. Liff, S. & Dale, K., 1994, ‘Formal Opportunity, Informal Barriers: Black Women Managers within a Local Authority’, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 177–98. Martin, C., 1996., ‘The impact of equal opportunities policies on the day-to-day experiences of women police constables’, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 510-528. Ozbilgin, MF., 2000, ‘Is the practice of equal opportunities management keeping pace with theory? Management of sex equality in the financial services sector in Britain and Turkey’, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 43-67. Solomon, J., 1989, ‘From Equal Opportunity to Anti-Racism: RacialInequality and the Limits of Reform’, Policy Paper in Ethnic Relations No.17, University of Warwick, Coventry. Young, K., 1987, ‘The space between words’, in R. Jenkins and J. Solomos (eds), Racism and Equal Opportunity Policies in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 93–109. Young, K. & Connelly, N., 1981, ‘Policy and Practice in the Multi-racial City’,Policy Studies Institute, London. Read More