Can Workplaces Be Open and Tolerant Nowadays - Literature review Example

Can workplaces be open and tolerant? Name Institution Introduction The issue of discrimination in the workplace is an issue that has raised a lot of concern over a long period. Various forms of discrimination occur in workplaces that leave one wondering whether workplaces will ever be truly open and tolerant. It is worth noting, however, that the advent of many organizations in the world that protect workers especially in the twentieth and the twenty first century have brought about much revolution into the way different companies in the world treat their workers (Peters & Waterman, 1982, p.4). Before these organizations emerged, workers had a rough time at their workplaces where they faced all kinds of discrimination. Various studies have been conducted based on the same topic on a global scale in a bid to try to establish whether workplaces could become truly tolerant or not. This paper adds to this body of knowledge through an examination into the kind of discrimination that occurs in workplaces and through an evaluation of whether these places could become tolerant and open as it is desired. The paper conducts a review of a few articles based on this topic to try to understand what other authors have to say on the subject. It will be found out that the most common forms of discrimination that have been encountered in the various workplaces includes discrimination on grounds of race, color, gender, religion, age and in some cases background (Dipboye & Haverson 2004, p. 135; Parker 2000, p. 14). To conduct this analysis, the paper will be divided into a number of subtopics namely the different forms of discrimination in workplaces, typical examples from readings, tolerance in the work place, approach taken to prevent discrimination from occurring and the consequences faced by those who perpetrate this cause. A conclusion that ties the various points in discussion here will be offered at the end. Forms of discrimination According to Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p.131) in their discussion of the “subtleness and not so subtle” discrimination occurring in workplace, some interesting factors are highlighted. Majority of discrimination in the workplaces occurs based on race, gender and age. Jackall (1998, p. 78) concurs with Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 131) through offering a perception that decisions made by different managers in different scales in the workplaces are designed and attributed to the personality or state of the decision maker. In other words, a certain decision made in the office will be taken seriously or otherwise depending on the origin of the same. As an example, it has been observed that the decisions made by managers who are female in gender are not taken as seriously compared to those made by their male counterparts (Jackall 1998, p. 79; Dipboye & Haverson, 2004, p. 134). This brings us to the concept introduced by Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 131-135) of subtleness or openness in the workplace. Parker (2002, p.93) argues that discrimination in the workplace compromises work ethics. People will not feel very motivated to deliver their best at the workplace if they feel that in one way or the other they are not appreciated or they are discriminated against. Even though Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 133) and Gabriel (1997, 316) mildly agree with this theorem instigated by Parker (2002), they feel that the underlying problem of discrimination does not in one way or the other affect the competencies of a certain individual. Discrimination comes in many various forms in the workplace. Race is one of the major sources of this discrimination. According to inferential statistics formulated by Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 133) through a survey conducted in random and independent stations to identify the extent of the discrimination in workplaces, people of white origin were given preferential treatment compared to other people of black or Hispanic origin. The types of jobs that they were given and their descriptions almost transcended through racial lines. The whites were given management positions while the blacks and other people of other races were given mainly menial jobs such as driving machines, packaging among others. Gabriel (1997, P. 317) agreeably states that the majority of the personnel who are termed as highly ranking and highly influential individuals in the management structure of many companies are from a certain “advanced race”. Despite this notion raising much debate and subject to a lot of criticisms from all sectors, the survey conducted by Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 133) still show that this could be true in almost more than half of the companies this independent survey was carried out. The issue of race goes hand in hand with the issue of culture. According to Ackroyd and Crowdy (1990, p.4) in a study of the English slaughter men, the way people react and behave in the workplace is sometimes driven by other factors beyond the internal. The external factors that affect these people on social grounds outside of work are carried into their workplace. Culture is one of these factors. In this study by Ackroyd and Crowdy (1990), the inferiority complex that eats into these people because of the various cultural setups they come from or embrace prohibits them from taking up certain challenges. They feel inadequate, basing their argument from their background as well as cultural practices that they engage in on a day-to-day basis. Gender is another cause of discrimination in the workplace. Taking a retrospective approach into the miasma of time, man has always had an upper hand over his female counterpart. The fact that there has never been a theory to prove that man indeed was wiser and somehow inferentially stronger both in mind and in stature does not do this statement any justice. However, that is just the way it is. Women who are placed in management positions feel a little sidetracked when it come to the process of handling affairs in the workplaces than their male counterparts. Even though Pocock (2005, p. 34) insinuates that competency in workplace is not disputed nor aligned to the specific gender of the personnel, female workers lack the “sassy” nature and the “natural skills” not learnt in classroom walls to survive the cutthroat competitiveness of the business world today. Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 137) could not agree more with Pocock (2005) when he states that most women managers have the title but not the descriptions that come with the job. Many complaints have been raised by women across the globe who state that they feel that they are faced with sexual harassments especially from their male superiors in the workplaces. Male superiors demand sexual favors from these female workers in exchange for jobs and/or promotions. Another form of discrimination occurs along the lines of age. People all over the world, despite having the necessary competencies and skills have been denied opportunities to work based on the lines of age. Many companies all over the world have their preferential average age for their workers and most of them prefer young energetic minds. This makes it very hard or almost impossible for the aged to attain any form of meaningful employment. Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 138) argues that it is not fair for workers to be discriminated based on age. The competency and the skills of the worker should be the benchmark here. The aged should also be given the chance to a fair interview just like the rest of the other participants. Discrimination based on disability is also becoming one of the most common forms of discrimination in the world. People with disabilities feel that they are not given the necessary attention and their work description does not always relate to their competencies. They feel that people view them as disabled and they do not think that they are equally as competent as the people who are not disabled. Examples of discrimination and their consequences Since the beginning of time, discrimination has always occurred in one form or the other. There have been different classes of people down time lines. Some people ruled over others and others became their slaves. The destiny of what one became was usually dictated mainly by the families they were born in. In Egypt, for instance, during the era of the pharaohs, discrimination was based on the line of tribe as well as family descent. If one was born into the family of the pharaoh, it was inevitable that he or she was bound, by default, to become a lord over estates and over other people. The same notion applied in the scenario whereby if one was born into a family that was a slave to the pharaoh, chances were that they would become slaves forever, taking an example of the Moses and the sons of Israel when they were in the land of Egypt. The same applied in kingdoms that considered themselves democratically civilized like Greece. Discrimination occurred along lines of family and conquered lands. Take an example of Alexander the Great, a young Roman who had the dream of conquering the world. He made slaves of all the people and the nations that he conquered. Once a nation was placed under his kingdom, the people in this land were bound to become their slaves forever. Slaves did not enjoy as much privileges as the other commoners. In Africa, the black people were captured and sold to other nations as slaves for quite a period. It was believed that the people of white origin were more superior when compared to those of the black origin. This perception was also shared by these slaves themselves and that could be one of the major reasons as to why they allowed themselves to be treated in a way that diminished their personality and trait as human beings. Fast forward to more recent times, Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 139) states that religion, sex, race, color, creed, age and disability is among the major reasons for the cause of discrimination in the world today. Quoting Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 138), a Chicago auto company was sued and fined huge amounts of money for failing to offer an old man an opportunity to get an interview. The old man had over twenty years of experience in the industry but during the interview session, he was not given the opportunity to have a fair interview despite waiting for quite some time. He noticed that younger people were allowed to interview for the job, closing him out. This case is just a single illustration of the numerous cases that have occurred over a period pertaining to such forms of discrimination. In the same context Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p.136), a female black worker states that her request for a transfer was denied by the boss because he would miss having her beautiful body around the office. This case amplified the various forms of sexual harassment that many workers, especially female ones face in their respective workplaces. Religious backgrounds and creed also form a certain proportion of discrimination factor. People have lost their jobs because of their religious inclinations. In some countries, some people of certain religious affiliations are not considered competent or dedicated enough to be able to take up some offices or some specific responsibilities. A belief is designed to support that argument that sometimes religion indoctrinates into people certain beliefs that hinder them from performing in one certain capacity of the other. For instance, a person who has a high Christian belief may find it hard or almost impossible to find placements in companies that manufacture alcoholic products. Their religious indoctrination cannot allow them to engage in activities of which they are accustomed to criticizing from the other edge. Perhaps the most common form of discrimination comes from within a person. A person’s perception of him or herself is often very instrumental to the way this particular person operates and how he or she relates with other people (Gabriel, 1997, 317; Jackall, 1998, p. 79; Jonnergard et al , 2010, p. 5; Cohen & Taylor, 1996, p. 47) and it directly affect the results of this particular person and the attraction factor to other people (Parker, 2002, p.97). So this begs the question: is discrimination a state of mind? Jonnergard et al (2010, p. 15) thinks that it might be a state of mind to an extent or becomes directly instigated by a feeling of either superiority of inferiority. Business ethics might be compromised or upgraded by perception of the workers (Jackall, 1998, p. 78). The same applies to the management concept. People who believe in themselves have the potential to deliver more and better than their colleagues who might not share this belief, a perception supported by Morgan & Spicer (2009, p. 252) in their book “ critical approaches to organizational change”. According to Morgan & Spicer (2009, p. 253) and Brewis et al (2007, p.16), organizational changes, in whatever capacity, commences with an individual or groups of individuals who have it in them the belief that they are capable of bringing about positive development in their organizations. Tolerance in the workplace It is without doubt that in the twentieth and twenty first centuries there has been a major revolution into the way companies treat their employees. In most instances where avenues of discrimination arose, the areas where these used to happen have been neutralized. The agents of change have been numerous. The creation and advent of bodies, both governmental and others have contributed largely to this scenario. Most companies have joined bodies that protect the rights of the workers. Apart from the normal demand for proper conditions of work, good wages and other favorable factors, these organizations, commonly referred to as unions have gone a little further to inculcate the notion of gender equality and discrimination free working environments (Dipboye & Haverson, 2004, p. 139). Reviewing an example of tolerance in the workplaces designed by Dipboye & Haverson (2004), a lady manager could be having all the necessary perks that are attributed to her position as a manager in an organization but her colleagues will still think that she lacks the necessary capacity and even capability to handle other affairs of the job as competently as a man could. So, in the subtleness nature developed by Dipboye & Haverson (2004, p. 138), during meetings for instance, if the lady demands to speak out her mind, she is viewed as having a condescending persona by other people in her level. If she decides to keep quiet, she is viewed as having passive persona, a role that she is expected and that she is supposed to play. The fact that some roles are not given to some people for certain specific reasons in the workplaces does not necessarily constitute a crime in the legal setup. By definition of discrimination by legal systems, not sharing an opinion about something with a certain person and sharing the same with others is not a crime. Many female workers feel segregated from their male counterparts in one way or the other. For instance, the male colleagues cease to discuss a certain topic once she comes into their vicinity, they might be talking about her in her back or they might not invite her to hang out with them among other many forms of repressed discrimination. Many companies nowadays hire their workers based entirely on their competencies, gender irrespective. Other companies ensure that they put in their policies to have a certain proportion of both gender represented in the workplace to prevent biasness (Peters & Waterman, 1982, p. 59). The job descriptions are also largely standardized. What the men do, even women could comfortably achieve the same status. Studies have also shown that the level of competency in an organization is also not influenced by the color of the skin or even religious backdrops. Many companies have embraced the concept of cultural diversity and employ different people from different walks of life (Konrad, 2003, p.13). The civilization syndrome considers it a naivety approach to discriminate people just because they do not hail from a particular religious, cultural or ethnic background. This integration has even gone further to strengthen the ties that bind companies to community social responsibilities (Banerjee, 2008, p. 53). Companies that have good CSR have a higher chances of success and survival as compared to the companies which do not embrace this concept clearly. The legal frame work today has in essence done as much to assist in the tolerance of people in their workplaces (Willmott, 1993, p. 525). People have been given the legal right to sue companies they think are not conforming to these rules. If they feel that in any given manner that they are being discriminated against, they have the right to start legal proceedings against their employer. For this reason, many employers have conformed to these guidelines that require them to treat their workers in absolute fairness to avoid losses arising from lawsuits. Conclusion Openness and tolerance in the workplaces is one of the virtues that many companies should embrace in the view of making everybody feel appreciated. It has been observed in this discourse that despite the diversities people have in regards to gender, race, creed, age, sexual orientations, disabilities and other minor avenues of discriminations, the uniqueness of each individual translates to the general achievement of the organization’s goals. Organizations which hire people from different ethnic backgrounds are seen to be more successful as compared to those which shun this practice. Several consequences of discrimination have been discussed too and the possible manners to avoid this form of vice discussed, some out of own volition and other arising from compulsory statutes and laws. It has also been shown in brief that sometimes people discriminate themselves through a belief that in one way or the other they cannot measure up to the challenge. This perception prevents people from giving out their best in whatever field they are involved in. Embracing openness in the workplaces makes people feel appreciated. This in turn makes them happy and happy employees are motivated enough to deliver in accordance to the company’s goals. References Ackroyd & Crowdy 1990, ‘Can culture be managed? Working with “raw” materials: the case of the English slaughter men,’ Personal review journal, Vol. 19, No.5, pp. 3-15. Banerjee, S, B, 2008,‘Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’, ‘ Critical Sociology, Vol. 34, No.1, pp, 51-79. Brewis et al 2007, Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management, Thompson learning center: London. Dipboye, R & Halverson, S 2004, ‘Subtle (and Not So Subtle) Discrimination in Organizations’ in Griffin, R. And O’Leary-Kelly, A ‘The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, Wiley; San Francisco  Gabriel, Y 1997, ‘Meeting God: When Organizational Members Come Face to Face with the Supreme Leader’, Human Relations journal, Vol. 50, No.4, pp. 315-342.  Jackall, R 1988, Moral mazes: the world of corporate managers, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jonnergard et al 2010, ‘Performance Evaluations as Gender Barriers in Professional Organizations: A Study of Auditing Firms’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol.17, No.6, pp. 17-52. Konrad, A,M 2003, ‘Special Issue Introduction: Defining The Domain Of Workplace Diversity Scholarship’, Group & Organization Management , Vol.28, No.4, pp. 4-15. Morgan, G & Spicer, A 2009, Critical approaches to organizational change in Handbook of Critical Management Studies, Alvesson, M, Bridgman, T & Willmott, H, (eds), London: Sage. Parker, M 2000, Organizational Culture and identity- Unity and division at work, SAGE publications: London. Peters, T, J & Waterman, R, H 1982, In search of excellence : lessons from America's best-run companies, (1st Ed.), Harper & Row: New York. Willmott, H 1993, ‘Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.515-547. Read More