Unfair Elimination for Job Promotion - Term Paper Example

Unfair Elimination for job promotion Outline Introduction Examples of structural and personal discrimination Sticky floor and glass ceiling; 2. Maria is the only woman in the department; 3. All supervisors are white males. Evidence that Maria was unfairly treated: 1. Maria was a better candidate; 2. Family reasons were not taken into account; 3. Accent is a ridiculous excuse. Unaccented English: a right or a privilege? 1. A form of indirect discrimination; 2. Against diversity of labor force; 3. Why hire unfit people? Plan for avoidance 1. Eliminate any form of indirect discrimination; 2. Facilitate feedback; 3. Introduce whistleblowing policy. Conclusion Introduction If one takes a look at the society, one can not help noticing that it should be regarded as one of the essential prerequisites for the development of the inner potential of the human being. Indeed, if it had not been for the presence of other people around, a considerable number of our characteristic features would not have evolved. Nevertheless, there are situations when certain individuals are not treated properly because they belong to one of the minorities. This becomes rather dramatic if this happens at work since success in the workplace ensures one’s prosperous life in the society. This paper will analyze the case of Maria and pay attention to several important points. In order to do so it will explore the structural and personal examples of discrimination that are evident in the case; prove the Maria was denied of promotion unfairly; explain why the requirement for unaccented speech constitutes a form of indirect discrimination and propose an effective policy to avoid such situations in the future. Examples of structural and personal discrimination To begin with, one should note that the situation that is described in the case fits the definition of two concepts, namely sticky floor and glass ceiling. The former refers to the situation when particular employees, usually female workers, are not able to rise above their initial position and the latter is used to show a phenomenon when an employees, also predominantly females, are denied of promotion for no particular reason (Nevaer, 2010, p. 213). For example, it has been stated that Maria has been forming in the company for almost 10 years and was not able to advance a lot from her entry position. Furthermore, she was denied of a promotion, though she was the best candidate for the job. The next aspect of the situation would show the extent of the structural discrimination. The text argues that Maria was the only woman and the only non white person in the department. Of course, it is understandable that it could have just happened so that a particular department recruited only white males. However, the probability of it is rather small, keeping in mind the diversity of the contemporary labor force. This means that the company deliberately recruited people who fit some of their hidden requirements, avoiding hiring people of color or women. With this in mind, it becomes obvious that the board of directors in general and the managers in particular were more concerned about the external features of their work force rather than think about improvements that actually might bring benefits to the company in general. In addition to that, one should also keep in mind that Maria had a white supervisor who was a male. Moreover, all the supervisors fitted this description. This means that the structure of the company actively employed the idea of white privilege. The latter is a concept that grants white people unreasonable benefits that make their work or career better while other who do not qualify for this are left with nothing. It is quite understandable that this is a problem that has a systemic nature. However, a company is able to cope with it independently in case it acknowledges the existence of it and will contribute to the diversity of the work force that is being employed. In other words, Maria should not think that the discrimination was directed at her for personal reasons: it is a system that should be blamed for such a situation. Evidence that Maria was unfairly treated If one carefully considers the case in question and compares the two candidates, namely the main character, Maria, and the person who actually received the promotion, one will be able to see that the former was a better candidate for a considerable number of reasons. By naming them, one will be able to prove that she was treated unfairly. To begin with, it is essential to note that Maria was far more experienced that her counterpart. Indeed, it has been stated that she has been working for 10 years in the company and occupying her current position for 7. One would make no mistake suggesting that ten years of experience in any field should be regarded as a tremendous baggage that allows a person to become a valuable contribution to the company. Nevertheless, the managers did not take this into account. Another example that shows that Maria was treated unfairly is the consultations that she had with her supervisor because of her alleged tardiness and absenteeism. The woman in question justified her absence or lateness with family reasons. It is quite understandable that there might be situations when work ceases to be number one priority and other matter become more important (Mathis & Jackson, 2002, p. 63). Keeping in mind that Hispanic Americans often has extensive families, it is quite probable that all the episodes that were mentioned above were caused by problems in her family. However, it seems that the supervisor did not believe her, being suspicious about the “real” reasons. In other words, it the company had not made such a big deal out of it, Maria would have never had to go through all those consultations. Finally, the most articulate example that she was not treated properly lies in the fact that she was denied of a promotion because of her accents. This means that the company agrees that Maria is an employee that possesses the necessary knowledge and skills for the position, but it is her accent that would prevent her from showing outstanding results. With this in mind, one might argue that this reason should be regarded as a poor excuse. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to argue that Maria’s ancestry greatly conditioned the way she speaks. However, in the course of the entire 10 years, this has never been a problem. In addition to that, when she was hired she was not told that she could only obtain the entry level position and should not hope for something more. In other words, to a certain extent she was deceived when she was hired. Unaccented English: a right or a privilege? The next question that should be considered may be formulated in the following way: Is the company within its rights to expect its employees who communicate directly with customers to speak in unaccented English? If one takes a broad perspective on it, one will see that the answer will be negative. Indeed, the request for the ability to speak unaccented English should not be seen as a big deal; however, it is a form of an indirect discrimination since only people of European ancestry are able to speak English without accent (Hunter, 1992, p. 6). Thus, the company does not explicitly say that people who belong to African cultural background, Asian cultural background or Hispanic cultural background are not able to occupy a certain position. Instead of that there is a requirement that make people of white race being the only ones who can qualify. Another point that should be mentioned is that when the company in question asks for a person who speaks unaccented English, it goes against the idea of diversity that is currently being promoted in the society. Indeed, nowadays the social environment is composed of people of different cultural backgrounds and this is reflected in the work force as well. In other words, the latter has become more and more diverse; so, there is no wonder that people who belong to various races are employed in the same company. In other words, it would be ridiculous for a company to try to keep its staff without the limits of white race. This is not only insulting, but is also not effective. The previous point that was made should also be connected to the initial phase of the recruitment process. Indeed, if the company wants its employees to be white males it should make the selection process extremely rigid as there are many other people who do not qualify for this, but still want to find a job. Moreover, if the above mentioned conditions are so important then the company should make it clear for every candidate that applies for a job. Nevertheless, the company in question will never be able to do that in the open since the government will quickly detect traces of discrimination in this practice. As a result, there are only two options: refrain from such practice and make sure that this practice is concealed properly. Keeping in mind that the former is not an option for this company, it chose the only one that it was left with. A plan to avoid similar situations Finally, it may be rather important to work out a plan that would make sure that the situations in question would not happen in the future. The first aspect that should be noted in particular is that the board of directors should perform a careful investigation and mage sure that there are no other requirements that might be qualified as indirect discrimination. This is particularly important since the existence of one such practice implies that there is also a different one which does not allow the company to develop properly. With this in mind, the change should come from the very top since the people at the bottom are not able to detect the white privilege that they have been given. That is why significant changes that are aimed at diversification should be performed. The next step that should be carried out is the facilitation of the effective feedback between different parts of the company. Thus, at one point there is only Maria that is able to spot the hidden discrimination; however, as more different people are hired that should be able to make their voices heard in case they witness an example of discrimination. This means that the significance of feedback can hardly be exaggerated as it will provide the top management with the evidence that is necessary to perform effective changes which will ultimately contribute to the performance of the company. Furthermore, putting emphasis on the feedback will greatly enhance the cooperation between different parts of the company and make sure that morale of the staff is high as every employee will know that his or her voice can be heard. The third step in the plan is the introduction of the effective whistleblower policy. The phenomenon of the whistleblowing has extremely beneficial implication for the company as it is able to highlight the structural problems that exist and make sure that the necessary changes are made (Lipman, 2012, p. 56). Indeed, in the situation in question, Maria is portrayed as a victim of structural discrimination that is not able to do anything about the current state of affairs. However, if she had been a whistleblower, the impact of her activity would have been much bigger. In other words, she would no longer have been a victim, but rather a person who accuses the company of negative practices and urges it to refrain from them. This means that the instruction of the whistleblower policy would have a positive impact on the future development of it. Conclusion Having examined all the points that were discussed in the paragraphs above one might come to the following conclusion: the situation with Maria proves the necessity to tackle structural discrimination. To begin with, it is important to highlight the evidence which shows that the character in question became the victim of this phenomenon. So, in spite of having worked in the company for 10 years, Maria was not able to advance far from its entry level position. In addition to that, the department where she worked was primarily composed of white males. Furthermore, the supervisors who make evaluation of her work were white males as well. She clearly was the best candidate for the job, but she was refused for a ridiculous reason. In addition to that, a company does not have a right to request its employees to speak in unaccented English. References Hunter, R. (1992). Indirect discrimination in the workplace. Annandale: Federation Press. Lipman, F. (2012). Whistleblowers: Incentives, disincentives, and protection strategies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Mathis, R., & Jackson, J. (2002). Human resource management: Essential perspectives (2nd ed.). Syndey: South-Western College Pub. Nevaer, L. (2010). Managing Hispanic and Latino employees a guide to hiring, training, motivating, supervising, and supporting the fastest growing workforce group. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Read More