When is Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawful - Essay Example

 When is Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawful? Introduction One reputable author, Susan Scott-Parker, argues that the business case for diversity has failed to produce measurable improvements in terms of overall business performance. The author suggests that the business case for diversity no longer has sufficient relevance to creating a successful organisational model and simple social constructs such as fairness and equality should return to the corporate and governmental agenda. Despite this particular viewpoint, there is ample research evidence available which serves to refute this viewpoint of diversity as an outdated business concept. Many authors suggest that the business case for diversity maintains far-reaching advantages and benefits to the contemporary organisation in terms of enhancing corporate profitability and overall competitive performance. This paper illustrates the proponent viewpoints of the business case for diversity as well as discussing the current equal opportunities framework which exists in the United Kingdom. This paper additionally argues that the business case for diversity does have its professional merits and that creating a culture of equality and fairness cannot necessarily be achieved through training and development alone without the assistance of equal opportunity legislation. The business case for diversity The primary author of discussion in this paper clearly illustrates her viewpoint of the business case for diversity being an outdated business philosophy when stating that the diversity brand is “vague, tired and devalued” (Scott-Parker, 2008: 2). The author suggests this as it is perceived that the long-term contribution to assisting women and other ethnic minorities has been minimal at best. The author is essentially suggesting that the modern notion of diversity is nothing more than a culmination of various legislation, working as somewhat of a window-dressing to promote a positive business focus on corporate social responsibility. Interestingly, the basic notion of diversity tends to suggest elements of equality and fairness as part of the diversity campaign. Despite this, Scott-Parker clearly views the diversity business case as one without a sound sociological outcome on the organisational culture but as one in which genuine social connection amongst working professionals is absent. Despite this viewpoint, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2007) offers several distinct advantages which support the business case for diversity. The authors indicate that wider varieties of skills and experiences maintained by diverse staff members will lead to a broader series of solutions to business problems when these ideas are tapped into. Additionally, it is suggested that staff retention levels can be reduced, leading to a more manageable budget in human resource activities. Further, it is offered that the business case for diversity increases staff efficiency in cross-functional team projects when employees understand how to function in groups maintaining widely-different demographics. From this perspective, the contemporary business case for diversity is supported by a number of positive outcomes leading to cost-savings, team efficiency, and the ability to brainstorm ideas to create immediate business solutions to complicated issues. From this viewpoint, fairness and equality as the only acceptable constructs of diversity in business could not possibly hope to serve performance-related outcomes of the aforementioned magnitude. In a team environment, fairness and equality are common themes of building healthy social relationships, thus the business case for promoting organisation-wide diversity policies not only ensures that these activities are occurring but provides the regulatory framework to ensure organisation-wide compliance as well. Compliance cannot possibly be secured with philosophy of fairness and equality alone. The impact on the external environment is also on the forefront of supporting the business case for diversity as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2007) offers that positive customer and supplier relationships are built by recognising that different cultures exist in external organisations, requiring representatives with focus on diverse values and beliefs as a means to project a positive image of the firm to various external customers. For instance, a manufacturing environment might require a wide variety of raw materials shipped in to ensure adequate supply, making it necessary to communicate and negotiate with a wide variety of people with different personality constructs. In order to be successful with external clients, the company culture must understand the importance of equal and fair treatment. In this scenario, Scott-Parker’s viewpoint of refuting the business case for diversity has merit as it would require a total change in attitude about the values and beliefs of others before any positive business changes or performance increases are noticed and measurable. In terms of regulation in diversity, it would be important to identify issues of disability on the job. The Disability Discrimination Act was instituted in 1995 in order to provide the legal framework by which to ensure fair treatment of disabled workers and to ensure they are given equal employment opportunities (Disability Rights Commission, 2006). This Act provides the legal mandate necessary to ensure compliance and gives a forum by which those who are disabled can argue against perceived discriminatory practices. Issues of sexual orientation are also part of the diversity campaign, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2006) describing that it is generally unlawful for any organisation to discriminate based on sexual preference. The authors indicate a situation in which discriminating on basis of sexual orientation are actually lawful, such as in a situation where a gay-oriented charity requires a public relations official to deliver services to gay clients. If it is determined that heterosexual men cannot understand the unique cultural values of the client, then denying heterosexual representation is deemed lawful (Equality and Human Rights Commission). It is important to illustrate the legal framework which underpins the modern business case for diversity as it points out situations in the real-life business environment which are regulated by equal rights advocates and legislation. There will always be situations in the business world which require unique decision-making, such as in the case of the gay representative, to illustrate that simply promoting concepts such as equality and fairness will not provide the guarantee of discriminatory protection provided by regulatory frameworks today. The development of today’s anti-discrimination and diversity laws have provided the tangible security for many diverse workers to ensure that their employment needs (and basic human rights needs) are being met. This is something which could not be accomplished without a sound legislative template for diversity compliance and rules. Keeping with the discussion on the disabled, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2008) again describes several startling statistics facing the disabled in today’s work environments. A survey of nearly 4,000 disabled workers uncovered that 25 percent of respondents indicated they were always being checked-up-on to ensure they were doing their work correctly. An additional 22.5 percent indicated they were experiencing continuous, unfair criticism of their work outputs and behaviours, something not experienced by non-disabled workers. This would seem to point toward the necessity to change social perspectives on the disabled, as suggested by Scott-Parker in her argument to abandon the business case for diversity. However, the general, professional belief that the disabled would be unable to perform a competent job without constant criticism and supervision is a deeply-embedded cultural belief which likely requires the influence of regulation, rather than promoting perceptions of equality and fairness alone. Until the social landscape for the broader community is changed, the business case for diversity appears to be a sound mechanism by which to prevent discrimination against the disabled. Discrimination against the disabled is borne of a culture of low expectations against this group, something that sound diversity policies and laws can ensure does not impact this protected group. The Coca-Cola Company utilises marketing principles to illustrate to society that the firm remains focused on diversity as a main corporate and cultural belief. In 2000, the company made headlines by delivering advertising which featured a wide variety of different racial demographics coming together because of Coca-Cola’s influence in social relationships (Cartwright, 2002). Many businesses, today, are marketing-focused, meaning that they apply a great deal of human and financial resources to providing a sound method to sell products and make higher profits (Boone & Kurtz, 2007). Under the business case for diversity, marketing professionals would rely on diverse talents and group experiences to create viable marketing positioning and promotion. Coca-Cola took this a step further by illustrating the constructs of its diverse-minded organisational culture and projected it to the local community by which to change social attitudes on racial demographic differences. It is important to highlight Coca-Cola’s diversity campaigns as it both supports Scott-Parker’s viewpoint on diversity as an outdated business model and also refutes her viewpoint as well. Coca-Cola utilises a wide variety of talent to develop an appropriate marketing campaign, of which Coca-Cola’s high revenue stream would tend to support diversity as a positive business outcome. However, in the 21st Century if a television commercial for a cola drink maintains the ability to create global awe and sensation due to different ethnic backgrounds as the star players in marketing advertisements, this would indicate that society is not yet assimilated into recognising the importance of equality and fairness as common lifestyle practices. If this is the truth about 21st Century European society, then Scott-Parker offers a valid viewpoint of the necessity of promoting equality and fairness as primary social goals over that of the regulated and mandated diversity campaign. One author states it rather plainly: “The new face of Europe is one of diversity…becoming increasingly a melting pot like the United States” (Guttman, 2001: 2). However, with this diverse group of ethnic backgrounds in Europe today working and living together, it would be common sense to believe that society should share many of the same cultural meanings in similar regions of the country. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2000) describe culture as one in which beliefs and values, commonly-shared, encompass the overall personality of the region or the business brand. Under this definition of culture, Scott-Parker’s argument of the necessity to ignore the business case for diversity would be valid, where the necessity to change total social beliefs and values is more paramount for long-term success than the short-term compliance and regulation demanded by diversity policies and laws. Regulated policies designed to offer public relations flair or spectacle simply could not act as a catalyst for changing social behaviours. Perhaps, then, it is a matter of changing social beliefs regarding respect for others as a means to change viewpoints about the importance of diversity. In the United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA (2008), describes a different approach to diversity where respect is on the forefront of diversity policies. In this type of organisation, requiring a wide variety of technical and technological expertise, the recruitment environment is going to be scrutinising the international/global environment in the pursuit of talent. This will create an organisational culture built of a wide variety of different demographics, requiring the necessity to instill, from the top-down, a culture built on individual respect. This NASA policy and the organisation’s approach to managing diversity would tend to support Scott-Parker’s assessment of the necessity to change attitudes, rather than diversity policy, in order to reap organisational successes and satisfy a diverse corporate culture. Is the business case for diversity outlived? From the business and governmental perspective, Susan Scott-Parker’s argument that the business case for diversity should be replaced with a more liberal, sociological viewpoint to include equality and fairness is somewhat unrealistic. In today’s business environment, company leaders are continuously working on strategic options and value propositions which add long-term value to the company and governmental agency. With complicated concepts such as marketing and understanding consumer behaviour, the recognition of various competitive and strategic threats to the business, and the ideology of a quality profit model require active participation from a very diverse group of work professionals. In this situation, simply to ensure that the organisation’s long-term goals are met and corporate expectations are achieved, it is vital to the business that diversity remains a business case and continues to be largely regulated by different equal opportunity policies. It would be impractical and highly idealistic to believe that the business can rely on simply changing long-standing, sociological beliefs amongst many different values and beliefs in order to create a quality diversity model of business. Even though there is research evidence which suggests that Scott-Parker’s view has its sound merits, the realities of the modern business and governmental organisation requires that the needs of the business must be secured primarily (in terms of profit and overall business performance). In a perfect organisational climate, it might be possible to have a corporate culture where everyone shares the same beliefs and values in regards to fair treatment and equality, however this is likely not the reality of the business world today. This assessment is supported by the acknowledgement of many different business models in contemporary society which attempt to understand the many psychological and sociological elements of enhancing cultural unity. If businesses today are having a difficult time in simply trying to theorise new opportunities to build a positive organisational culture, it is likely that sociological viewpoints regarding diversity have not changed much in recent years, making it necessary to support the business case for regulated diversity policies. Conclusion Clearly, the business case for diversity involves several positive outcomes including increased organisational efficiency, reduced turnover leading to lower costs for human resources activities, and a broader pool of different ideas by which to improve business function stemming from diversely-different demographic and experience backgrounds. These are vital aspects to sustaining a profitable and long-lasting organisation in today’s complicated business world. Simply assuming that long-standing social values and beliefs can be altered through a series of inter-organisational training policies and moral programmes is unrealistic and will not serve to enhance the future of the particular business where diversity is paramount in policy creation. Despite Scott-Parker’s arguments that the business case for diversity is both outlived and irrelevant in contemporary organisations, there is solid justification that diversity policies, as they are currently constructed, should bring long-term value to the organisation or governmental agency. Proper regulation and legislation which is provided to secure the needs of the worker will only support the positive development and success of the business environment, creating the ability to argue that the business case for diversity is the most appropriate method to improve business function and success. Though Scott-Parker would likely disagree, there is sizeable evidence that the existing diversity campaigns found commonly throughout the United Kingdom would better suit the diverse requirements of the worker to include ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation and many other individual demographic differences. Is this not what diversity programmes are designed to accomplish today? Diversity, as a business case, has most assuredly not lived out its purpose and function in today’s society. Susan Scott-Parker, it appears, has not looked at the bigger corporate picture but remains focused solely on the worker as a point of comparison. Bibliography Boone, L. and Kurtz, D. (2007). Contemporary Marketing, 12th ed. United Kingdom, Thomson South-Western: 404-405. Cartwright, Peter. (2002). Managing Diversity, Oxford, United Kingdom. Capstone Publishing Ltd. Disability Rights Commission. (2006). “Top tips for small employers. A guide to employing disabled people”. Accessed 28 Nov 2008 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ Documents/Disability/Employment/EMP5_new.pdf Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2006). “Disabled people are more likely to experience bullying and harrassment at work, new research finds”. Accessed 28 Nov 2008 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/newsandcomment/Pages/Disabledpeoplemore likelytoexperiencebullyingandharassmentatworknewresearchfinds.aspx. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2008). “When is sexual orientation discrimination lawful?”. Accessed 28 Nov 2008 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/yourrights/ equalityanddiscrimination/SexualOrientation/Pages/Whenissexualorientation discriminationlawful1.aspx. Guttman, Robert J. (2001). “Letter from the editor”, Europe, Washington. Iss. 411: 2. Henslin, James M. (2003). Sociology: A Down-To-Earth Approach, 2nd ed. London, A&B Publishing. NASA. (2008). “Diversity at NASA’s Goodard Space Flight Center: The Business Case”. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Accessed 28 Nov 2008 http://diversity.gsfc.nasa.gov/Documents/BusinessCaseDec00.pdf. Scott-Parker, Susan. (2008). “Is the diversity band-wagon moving on?”, Equal Opportunities Review, Iss. 176. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. (2007). “Widen your choice of employees to improve competitiveness: The business case for diversity”. Accessed 28 Nov 2008 http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.l1=1073858787&r.l3=1074417786&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074421939&r.l2=1073858914&r.s=sc Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (2000). Riding the Waves Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing: 13. Read More