Diversity, Equality, and Women in the Workplace - Essay Example

?DIVERSITY, EQUALITY AND WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE INTRODUCTION Rapid changes in the global economic market entail transformations affecting not only the external environment of organizations, but also their internal operations and processes (Hall, 2008; Hodgetts, 2002). One important change that has altered the nature of contemporary organization is the “acknowledgement, development and systematic use of the skills and knowledge of employees” (Ramirez et al 2007, p 496). The central role of employees’ participation in the success of the organization involves not only “high performance work systems… [but] also involves the decentralization of decisions and work enrichment that provides employees with opportunities for involvement in decision-making and innovation.” (Wood & de Menezes 2008, p 639). As such, contemporary organisations have provided the arena wherein growth and success of the firm is tied up with the growth and participation of the employees for the success of the organization (Li, Guohui & Eppler 2008; Wolfgang & Brewster, 2005). However, it is not only contemporary organizations that have undergone changes. The nature of the contemporary workforce has also been modified (Jinzhao, 2007). Globalization is not only about removal of economic barriers among nations and movements of capital, investments and goods, but it also pertains to the more free movement of people across nations reducing the significance of physical borders as barriers (Fischer, 2003; Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard, 2004). In this regard, the nature of the contemporary workforce has been revolutionized from a homogenous workforce to a heterogeneous, diverse workforce (Maxwell, McDougal & Blair, 2001). The idea of a heterogeneous work force means “differences in attitudes, and behaviors of employees relative to gender, race, age, ethnicity, physical ability, and other relevant characteristics” (Jinzhao, 2007, p. 60). However, it should be noted that “dimensions of workplace diversity include, but are not limited to: age, ethnicity, ancestry, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, sexual orientation, educational background, geographic location, income, marital status, military experience, religious beliefs, parental status, and work experience” (Thomas 1992, p 306). This reality pervades all organizations regardless of their nature. In the light of this change in the nature of the contemporary workforce, the concepts of diversity and equality will be discussed vis-a-vis the reality of women in the workplace. As such, this research will address the following questions: what are diversity and equality policies? Do they work? Finally, do they open possibilities and opportunities for women? DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY POLICIES: A CONCEPTUAL LOOK Diversity in the workforce is initially perceived as a response toward the increasing diversity of the consumers in the market (Agocs & Burr, 1996). From there, it has been observed that capitalizing on existing differences among the employees provides benefits to the organization. Diversity in the workforce fosters and encourages creativity, innovativeness, diverse views and approaches to a particular problem, opens alternative perspectives and taps diverse talents from varying backgrounds to harness the organizations problem-solving and decision-making skills. For these reasons, scholars are in agreement that managing diversity is a challenge organizations must be willing to undertake because using the pot of diversity opens creativity and innovativeness for the organization (Agocs & Burr, 1996; Jinzhao, 2007; Bartz et al,1990; Maxwell et al, 2001). Moreover, it has been claimed that diversity should not be limited only to the physical and observable differences existing among employees. Intangible differences such as background, values, religious orientation, beliefs and the like are as important as physical and tangible differences like age, sex, disabilities, color of the skin, accent of speech and other similar qualities, since, if all these differences are harness, it will make the employee feel valued and accepted for who they are. Through diversity policies, management encourages the members feeling of belongingness and oneness with the organization (Kandola & Fullerton, 1998). In this regard, diversity policies are those adopted by organizations that will recognize and harness the existing differences among the workers for the benefit of both the individual employees and the organization. In this sense, diversity policy is cognizant of and responsive to the personal differences and personal aspirations of the employees (Strachanan et al, 2004). In this regard, diversity policies that make the organization sensitive to the employees’ individuality “can reduce labour turnover and absenteeism, improve productivity and commitment, and hence service the operational goals of the employing organization” (Strachanan et al, 2004, p. 6). Equality, on the other hand, is different from diversity. Equality is levelling the playing field for employees. This means opening access to opportunities or services, which will provide all citizens with the means by which they can pursue their goals, enhance their abilities and capacities and protect their dignity as human persons (Malik, 2003). In this sense, equality implies equality in opportunities and chances for both men and women at all levels and in all facets of the organization – from management and leadership positions, to wages, to productive work, up to caring for the family (Giele & Stebbins, 2003). Furthermore, equality in productive work also implies equality in education, equality in job opportunities and equality in pay (Giele & Stebbins, 2003). Moreover, equality in work also provides equal opportunities for both men and women to be involved in the care of the family in such a way that no one person in the family is over burdened by work and both are given the chance to participate in the rearing of the family (Giele & Stebbins, 2003). The main factors that contributed to the equality between men and women in the workplace are modernization and feminists movements around the globe. Modernization has created the condition wherein women’s work outside the home is given economic value and worth (Giele & Stebbins, 2003). Meanwhile, feminist movements around the globe, though of varying strands, highlight the need for and reality of the inclusion of women and women’s participation in all facets of human society, for society to be considered as authentically responsive and respectful of human dignity. However, the struggle for equality is not only limited to gender equality. It also includes discourse regarding race, ethnicity and class (Acker, 2006). This has been the case because it is observed that there is an intersection among these concepts pertinent to the issue of equality (Acker, 2006). In this regard, it has been claimed that the issue of equality does not operate in a vacuum but is affected by socio-economic and political issues of the society (Strachanan et al, 2004). As such, equality policies are crafted and initiated by governments in terms of laws like the UK Anti-Discrimination Law, the Equal Opportunity Act for Women of 1999, The U.S Civil Rights Act and the like. As such, discourse on equality is based on legal and moral norms. It is also formal and organizations are required to meet certain standards or criteria (Strachanan et al, 2004). Lastly, it is focused on certain groups such as women and racial groups (Strachanan, et al, 2004). In this regard, it can be claimed that both equality and diversity policies are established with the goal of levelling the playing field, as opportunities are opened and made accessible to people (equality), while protecting the inherent differences among the people who become players in the in the competitive arena of work (diversity). Gaining understanding regarding these two concepts leads to the second question, do they work? EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY POLICIES: DO THEY WORK? The theoretical discussion presented shows that effort is being made to level the playing field. This is in response to the changing dynamism and nature of both contemporary organizations and the workforce. An important concern regarding these policies, pertain whether they effect the intended change that they are set to do or not (Ng, 2010; Zanoni, et al, 2010; Greene et al, 2005). There is some controversy as it question whether such policies really work. This is based on the following suppositions: 1. Issues of social justice and discrimination have been tackled in organizations by creating flat forms where differences among employees are tapped and used for the success of both the organization and the individual employee (Greene et al, 2005). However, the same policies are being used to perpetuate the divide between men and women. For example, in management, top management are almost all male while human resources, health administration and education, are roles that are traditionally given to women are the typical managerial positions that women occupy (Acker, 2006). Thus, the essentialist perspective supporting the male –female dichotomy is perpetuated (Acker, 2006). 2. Diversity policies recognize inherent pluralism in contemporary organizations. In this sense, they support equal opportunities for all (Strachanan et al, 2004). However, the space provided by organizations does not authentically recognize the individuality of the employee; instead, it is subsumed into the reality of employees being valued in terms of utility or instrumentality in attaining the goal of the firm (Linstead & Linstead, 2005). 3. Equality and diversity policies have allowed both men and women to break the divide between household work and productive labour and share in the care of the family, both in terms of productive labor and household work (Giele & Stebbins, 2003; Ng, 2010). However, the reality of women in the academe facing is that marriage and children bring penalties, thereby, limiting tenure track and tenure rank to full time instructors and assistant professors while men dominate the full professor status (Ozbiglin, 2009). These instances show that as while theories try to promote equality and diversity management, the reality of equality and diversity management attests to the continued inequality and exclusion in the workplace of some members of the society – the women. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY POLICIES: MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN? History bears witness to the fact that for a long period wherein women’s work has been excluded from the public arena and valued as insignificant (Gregory, 2007). However, by the 19th century, things have started to change. Three important factors have paved for the inclusion of women in the workplace and the change in the perception regarding the value of their work. These important factors are: first, new work opportunities have arisen for women. The second factor is the growth in women’s labour supply. This means that there is growing availability of women who are capable, willing and prepared to do work outside the home (Giele & Stebbins, 2003). Lastly, the third factor is the “re-organization of work sites, the family division of labour and the individual life patterns of men and women that together enable women to take the employment that is available to them” (Giele & Stebbins, 2003, p. 15). In this sense, women in the workplace, both as a reality and as a concept, are a contemporary phenomenon. In this sense, do equality and diversity policies offer more opportunities to women? The answer is no. This position is maintained based on the following claims: First, indeed, more women are part of the labour force. In the United States alone, 46.7 % of the labor force in 2009 was made up of women (www.bls.org). This shows women are now actively involved in productive labour (Giele & Stebbins, 2003; Rubery, 2002).However, women only make 77.5 cents for every dollar men earn and that women earned less than men in 99%of all occupations (www.bls.org). Moreover, women have to work longer hours for lower pay (www.bls.org). This is not an opportunity, but it is taking advantage of women’s condition. Second, equality and diversity policies do not remove the stigma associated with household chores and in fact have created the truism of the double burden shouldered by women. The concept of double–burden means that even if women have entered the workforce and are undertaking productive labor and receiving wages, they are still at the same time, expected to continue doing the traditional household chores (Knijn, 2001; Knijn & Selten, 2001). As such, they are doubly-burdened by work and care of the home and they are never free, unlike men who are generally expected only to put food on the table, but not to share in the household chores (Strachanan et al, 2004). Third, there are many jobs that are offered to women, but these jobs are traditionally associated with women, e.g. nurse, teacher, secretary and other similar jobs. Admittedly, equality and diversity policies have opened to women fields that were known to be exclusive to men before, like engineering, politics, medicine, and military service, to name a few (Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger & Meaney, 2008). However, women have to sacrifice family, or they have to be like male co workers – masculine or they are limited to being the secretary, assistant, or other functions that are essentially associated with their gender, if they are given access to these male jobs (Ozbiglin, 2009). This shows that current policies are insufficient in addressing existing gender inequality, gender pay gap and gender segregation (www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk). These situations manifest the urgency to rethink existing equality and diversity policies, as they do not emancipate women, but in effect perpetuate their disadvantaged position as the divide between men and women/male and female is maintained (Acker, 2006; Strachanan et al, 2004; Pascall & Lewis, 2004). In this sense, there is a need to re-conceptualize diversity and equality to address inequalities that current equality and diversity policies cannot correct or eliminate. Equality and diversity policies, indeed, have opened some possibilities for women. However, the possibilities and opportunities that are opened to them are spaces in the public sphere that are still determined by male dominance, the male model of organizing and persistent gendering (Linstead & Linstead, 2005; Acker, 2006). CONCLUSION For a long time in the story of humanity, women have been kept away from being recognized as significant and important members of society. However, as socio-political and economic structures of the society have been continuously changing, women now find themselves together with men in the public sphere performing jobs that are valued as productive labour. Women have come a long way compared in the past. However, it does not mean that women have attained genuine equality with men. Women’s position in the workplace is still defined and marked by a male model of organizing, gender pay gap, gender segregation, legitimization of organizational power and reward favouring the white male standard (Acker, 2006), gender inequality and other problems that are deemed to be inherent in the male –female/man-woman dichotomy. This reality is perceptible by concrete examples in the workplace, such as few women occupying positions in top management, sexualisation of some jobs, women’s lower salary and other narratives, which bear witness to women’s continued exclusion from work opportunities recognizing their dignity and worth as human persons equal to men. In this regard, current equality and diversity policies should be re-evaluated as theories fail to account for the continued oppression and denigration of women in the contemporary workplace. The wide gap between theories and practice should be bridged by authentic policies that will recognize and respect women’s humanity. Equality and diversity policies are certainly steps toward women’s emancipation. However, women’s full self-actualisation can only be attained in a sphere that is lived authentically with family, with others in work and in society, and in an arena where equals meet. (2505 words) REFERENCES: Acker, J 2006, ‘Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organisations’, Gender & Society, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 441- 464. DOI: 10.1177/0891243206289499. Agocs, C. & Burr C. 1996, ‘Employment Equity, Affirmative Action and Managing Diversity: Assessing the Differences’, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 17, no. 4/5, pp. 30-45. Balakrishnan,P 2003, ‘Globalisation, power and justice’, Economic and Political Weekly, pp 3166 – 3170. Bartz, D., Hillman L., Lehrer S. & Mayburgh G. 1990, ‘A Model for Managing Workforce Diversity’, ManagementEducation and Development, 21, 5, pp. 321-326. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey 2010, "Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race," Annual Averages 2009 (2010). Retrieved at www.bls.org. Accessed on 15 March 2011. Desvaux, G, Devillard-Hoellinger, S & Meaney, M C 2008, ‘A business case for women’, The McKinsey Quarterly, September 2008, pp. 1 – 8. Giebe, J Z & Stebbins, L F, 2003, Contemporary Issues: Women and equality in the workplace. California: ACL- CLIO. Gregory, A 2003, Women and workplace discrimination: overcoming barriers to gender equality. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Greene, A-m, Kirton, G & Wrench, J 2005, ‘Trade union perspectives on diversity management: A comparison of the UK and Denmark’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 179 – 196. DOI: 10.1177/0959680105053962. Hall, K. 2008, ‘Global Transformational Leadership’, Globalization Domain V, 1 -15. Hodgetts, R.M. 2002. Modern Human Relations at Work. Chicago: Dryden Press. Jinzhao, W., 2007. ‘Innovations of human resource management in lodging industry’, Canadian Social Science, vol. 3, no 6, pp. 58 -65. Knijn, T. 2001, ‘Care work: innovations in the Netherlands’, in M. Daly (ed.), CareWork: The Quest for Security, Geneva: ILO, pp. 159?74. Knijn, T & Selten P.2002, ‘Transformations of fatherhood’, in B. Hobson (ed.), Making Men into Fathers: Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 168?90. Kandola, R. & Fullerton J. 1994, Managing the Mosaic – Diversity in Action. London: IPD. Levit, N 2008, ‘Megacases, diversity, and the elusive goal of workplace reform’, Boston College, Law Review, vol. 49, pp. 367 – 429. Li, Y, Guohui, S, & Eppler, M J 2008 “ Making Strategy Work: A Literature Review on the Factors influencing Strategy Implementation”, ICA Working Paper 2/2008. Linstead, S & Linstead A (eds) 2005, Thinking Organisation, Routledge, New York. Malik, H. 2003. A practical guide to equal opportunities. 2nd ed. London: Nelson Thomas Ltd. Maxwell, C., McDougall, M., & Blair, S., 2000. ‘Managing diversity in the hotel sector: the emergence of a service quality opportunity’, Managing Service Quality, vol. 10, no 6, pp 367 – 373. Ng, E S W 2008, ‘Why organizations choose to manage diversity? Toward a leadership-based theoretical framework’, Human Resource Development Review, vol. 7, no. pp. 58-78. DOI: 10.1177/1534484307311592. Ozbiglin, M (ed) 2009, Equality, diversity, and inclusion at workplace: A research companion, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Pascall, G & Lewis J 2004, ‘Emerging gender regimes and policies for gender equality in a wider Europe’, Jnl Soc. Pol., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 373–394. DOI: 10.1017/S004727940400772X. Ramirez, M., Guy, F., & Beale, D 2007, ‘Contested resources: Unions, employers and the adoption of new work practices in US and UK telecommunications’, British Journal of International Relations, vol. 45, no 3, pp 495 – 517. Rubery, J 2002, ‘Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: The impact of the EU employment strategy’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 33 (5), pp. 500 – 522. Thomas, R. R. 1992, ‘Managing diversity: A conceptual framework’. In S. E. Jackson and Associates, Work through diversity: Human resources initiatives. New York: Guildford Press Strachan, G, Burgess, J & Sullivan A 2004, ‘Affirmative action or managing diversity- what is the future of equal opportunities policies in organisations’, Women in Management Review, vol.19, iss. 4, pp. 196 – 204. Suarez-Orozco, M.M., & Qin – Hilliard, D.B. 2004, Globalization: Culture and Education in the new Millennium., Berkeley: The Ross Institute. Wolfgang, M. & Brewster, C 2005, ‘European human resource management: Reaching developments over time’, Management Revue, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp 36 – 64. Wood, S., & de Menezes, L.M. 2008, ‘Comparing perspectives on high involvement management and organizational performance across the British economy’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 19, no 4, pp 639 – 682. Zanoni, P, Janssens, M, Benschop, Y & Nkomo, S 2010, ‘Unpacking diversity, grasping Inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives’, Organization, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 9-29. Read More