Reinventing Human Resources Management - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION The notion that there is an inherent gender-based disparity in the workplace is one that has been present throughout the of modern history. This disparity proves extremely detrimental to women. The current statistics indicate that women are not moving up the corporate ranks as quickly as men. The Institute for Employment Studies (IES) examined the trends with regards to female employment. In so doing, it has determined that the number of women in the workforce has systematically and continually risen over the course of the past two decades while the number of men in the workforce has progressively declined. These figures, however, indicate disparities in the proportionate number of women in top management when compared with men. On average the majority of the women are employed in the support services field while top management is overrepresented by men. Additionally, women continue to earn less than eighty cents per dollar earned by men (‘Women in the Labour Market: Two Decades of Change and Continuity’ (IES 2005)). One important fact to question is one that begs an inquiry into why women fail to move up the employment hierarchy. One possible explanation has to do with the perception that women do not "fit in" with the traditional "male" profile. This is most prevalent in the choice of employment conceived by children which translates to future adult employment aspirations. As children career choices are guided by hobbies, skill sets and the notion that some careers are more attractive than others. In so doing, the traditional gender roles play a crucial rule. Female children tend to aspire to employment with fits the traditional gender roles of women being employed in a subservient position while male children tend to aspire employment which places men in dominant positions such as that of upper level managerial positions (‘Childhood Aspirations May be the Key’ (HRM 2006)). This bias in the rating process may lead to subjec­tive selection and promotion decisions. In fact, in a HRM survey on work place diversity and the decision to promote individuals within an organization indicates that subjectivity plays a vital role. Other barriers cited by this survey include lack of developmental exposure and experiences provided to women, and selection through word-of-mouth networking from current male employees. Fur­ther, most of these organizations steer their women em­ployees into staff positions. These positions often have lower career promotion opportunities than do line posi­tions. Employees in staff positions often suffer from less organizational exposure than do their line counter­parts (‘Workplace diversity is more rhetoric than reality’ (HRM 2001)). In examining the constitution of the workforce in the UK, it is prudent to examine the relative gender-based distribution within the public sector. Approximately 20% of all men were employed in skilled trades compared to 2% of all women, 17% of all men employed as managers or senior officials compared to 11% of all women, 14% of all men employed as professionals compared to 11% of all women. The largest disparities in employment positions where women outnumber men can be seen in employment as administrative or secretarial support staff where 5% of all men are employed in this area as compared to 22% of all women. The implications of this division are such that traditionally employees within the administrative and support services are paid much less than individuals in other forms of employment with similar educational as well as skill levels (‘All in employment: by sex and occupation, 2005, UK’ (National Statistics Online 2005). Gender-based biases even prove to be operational at the governmental level in that there are gender-based biases within the state bureaucracies and on all three levels—distributive agencies, Regulatory agencies and redistributive agencies. The distribution agencies provide maintenance and services to the public. The gender division within these agencies is such that only 6% of the administrations are female. The regulatory agencies are agencies involved in the insurance that laws and statutes as well as overseeing the governance of the utility and transportation industries. These agencies include the police and fire departments as well as utilities and transportation companies. In the police department, for example, the workforce only consisted of 15% female employees in 1997. During that same time period, the utility and transportation agencies only 22% of their employees were female. Within the redistribution agencies, the number of female employees is less than one-third of that of male employees. The redistribution agencies are charged with the responsibility of overseeing social welfare, hospitals and health services. (‘Gender imbalance in State Bureaucracies’ (HRM 2002)). THE LITERATURE WITH REGARDS TO WORKFORCE DIVERSITY An examination of the pertinent literature in the field proves to be very indicative of the trends with regards to gender-based disparity within the workforce in the UK as well as the demographics of the workforce as a whole. Demographic projections indicate significant changes are occurring in the composition of the labour force within the UK. Increasingly more men will be leaving the workforce than will be entering. Additionally, more women will be entering the workforce. As per the IRM actual data and projections through 2006, approximately 58% of the women in the UK were members of the workforce in 1971 as compared with approximately 90% of the men during that year. The projections indicated that in 2006, the rate of women employed in the workforce would increase to approximately 75% while that of males would decrease to approximately 80%. These figures indicate a 10% decline in employment rates for men and a 17% increase in the number of women in the labour force. The implications of this are such that if the current trends continue, the percentage of women in the workforce will outnumber that of men. (‘Women in the Labour Market: Two Decades of Change and Continuity’ (IES 2005)). According to current trends in the UK census data, most of the new workers will be women, minorities, and immigrants (Noon & Ogbonna 2001, pp179-182). This future diverse workforce will bring with it deficiencies in education (Crompton 1999, pp 99-102), as well as deficiencies in skills in many fields (Crompton, Gallie & Purcell 1996, pp146-152). Skill deficiencies tend to be greater for ethnic minorities, many of whom are highly concen­trated in low-skill occupations where demand is declining (Crompton, Gallie & Purcell 1996, pp177-178). An increasing number of women in the workforce will bring a different set of demands to human resources than the skill and education enhancement requirements for the racial and ethnic minority labour pool. According to HRM projections, 80% of women between 25 and 54 will be active participants in the workforce. This 25- to 54-year-old age category includes young mothers who enter the workforce and are saddled with the responsibility of rearing families and handling child care responsibilities (‘Women in the Labour Market: Two Decades of Change and Continuity’ (IES 2005)). As such, employees may look to employers to help defray those costs. This age catego­ry also includes female employees who will need to care for elderly parents (Fagan, Grimshaw, Rubery & Smith 1998, pp 211-215). Further, dual career couples may be less open to corporate job reloca­tion than were the single-career couples of the past (Fagan, Rubery & Smith 1999, pp 20-22). After having given the pertinent statistics with regards to the gender disparities in the workplace, it is prudent that we frame this examination within a theoretical context. In so doing, we must turn our attention to a discussion of the institu­tional perspective theory of human resource management. It is then that we are able to identify the benefits of diversity management. These approaches are vital to employee attraction, retention, and the development of a diverse workforce. WORKFORCE DIVERSITY FROM A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE Institutional Perspective Theory A full recognition of the gender disparities as well as other factors inherent in the workforce has rendered the necessity of programs aimed at addressing the diversity within the workplace. In so doing, the rationale behind many of these programs are questions. The questions asked raise very little concern with regards to the best approach for a given organization—one which takes into account its many intricacies. The institutional perspective theory suggests that many human resource programs are instituted into organizations for reasons other than rational ones. In fact, in some cases, the recognition and handling of diver­sity in the workforce seems to be evolving into a fad, with organizations often seeking alternatives because other organizations have done so. An analogy to this situation can be seen in the way in many UK businesses embraced quality circles in the 1970s and the 1980s. In this vein, businesses hastily instituted quality circles without giving much thought to the way in which these circles would integrate in and coordinate with the organization as a whole (Bloomfield, Coombs, Knights & Littler, D. 2000, pp 115-122). One of the most prolific applications of this concept can be seen in the attempt made by Digital Equipment Company (DEC) to address the need to counter the institutional perspective with regard to diversity management when it devised a philosophy for diversity management wherein the necessary changes would be made to the underlying systems, infrastructure and management practices to eliminate the barriers which hinder employees in their quest to reach their full potential (Warner 2001, pp 393-395). Operating utilizing this theoretical framework, this company recognized the underlying subjectivity human resource structure, systems and practices as well as the way changes are instituted in those areas of HRM. A review of the institutional perspective theory includes attention to the various reasons why organiza­tions incorporate various human resource practices. Cited reasons include coercion, approval seeking, social approv­al, conformity to outside agents, fads, and inertia. Coercion Some human resource practices originated out of coercive action. This action often emerges from govern­ment mandates such as requirements arising from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EEO) and the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). Denison (2001) argued that without legislation creating equal employment opportunity requirements, HRM might be very differ­ent today. In fact, many organizations address diversity from the perspective of equal opportunity compliance (Riddell & Salisbury 2000, pp 95-112). Social Approval Another example of approval seeking from a diversity perspective is the desire for social approval that some organizations take. Giacalone & Rosenfeld (1989) noted that organizations that wish to be seen socially responsible to the public will tend to support child care more than those organizations that are not as concerned with an image of social responsibility. The strategy in those cases is external in nature and aimed at the corporate image rather than the development of human resources initiatives as well as the betterment of its labour force. Fads Yet another rationale for institution of human resources practices is to allude to the appearance of maintaining pace with the rest of the industry. In so doing, they develop diversity programs without clear connections between program offerings and effectiveness measurements (objectives) may be instituted merely because it is the fad of the current zeitgeist. For example, one company cited in the literature as proactive in the area of workforce diversity revealed that enhanced productivity is the objective of their diversity programs. But the diversity programs were institutionalized because of a 1988 company survey showing high turnover among minority employees. This turnover, according to employees, was due to a perceived lack of interest in minority needs by management. Management responded to the problem of high turnover by incorporating diversity sensitivity training, employee councils, and management accountability tech­niques. Although these diversity programs are aimed at retention, the effectiveness measurement chosen by this particular company is one that measures productivity, not retention (Taylor & Bennett 2002). A Fortune 500 manufacturing organization approached diversity from the perspective of how other companies were handling the issue. A survey of several companies was conduct­ed to determine how diversity was managed elsewhere. This information was used to build this manufacturers approach to diversity management (Burke & Cooper 2004, pp 140-145). Many other Fortune 500 organizations showed a simi­lar lack of coordinated approach to workforce diversity. At one company/ no corporate-wide approach to diversity management exists. Rather, a conscious decision was made to allow initiatives to emerge from individuals interested in starting up such programs. The variety of programs at this company include multicultural advisory groups, minor­ity networks and networking conferences, new minority employee orientations, mentoring, and training (Burke & Cooper 2004, pp 175-186). Another organization described by Burke & Cooper (2004) emphasizes training, recruiting, and promotion opportuni­ties, which vary by facility and without coordination of effort. Diversity is considered during performance review time. However, level of importance awarded to diversity programs in the review process varies greatly from manager to manager. Bouckaert & Pollitt (2000) referred to organization that also places emphasis on diversity during managerial per­formance reviews, but its importance varies from manager to manager with no set policies attached to the process. Inertia The final reason often given for institutionalizing human resource programs has to do with inertia more than rational thought. Some human resource practices in organizations are kept alive because management believes that the way things have always been done continues to be the best way despite the changes in time and circumstances. This is done without giving formal attention to the practice. In fact, programs are kept because they are part of the organizations historical culture often are changed only as a result of a significant need (Bouckaert & Pollitt 2000, pp 126-130). The emerging diverse UK labour force profile is creating a significant need among human re­source practitioners to examine some of these entrenched human resource programs to insure that they continue to meet the needs of the organization and the employee pool. Essentially, organizations do not always introduce diversity programs for rational, objective reasons. Even so, clear benefits exist for those organizations that institutionalize workforce diversity programs. Benefits of Diversity Management Writers in the field of workforce diversity have presented a wide variety of benefits for organizations instituting workforce diversity programs. New Product Development A study of standard business practices reveals that the perception among businesses is that new product development increases as the workforce diversifies. The belief is that employee diversity leads to increases in the generation of new, innovative ideas that may lead to the development of new products ((Burke & Cooper 2004, pp 251-254). This view that employee diversity leads to innovation and creativity is shared by others in the field. In a study of 125 line managers and human resource practitio­ners, Copeland (1988) found managers shared the belief that diverse employees were more creative and motivated to produce if they knew that their respective organizations valued them. Labour Retention and Absenteeism Associated with the need to attract a qualified employee pool is the need to retain that employee group. For example, Frank & Wang (1990) found reasons organizations may support child care include an effort to increase employee commitment to remain with the organization. One reason why employee commitment is so important is related to the high costs associated with hiring and orienting new em­ployees. Employee recruitment costs, along with the costs associated with new employee orientation and job training, can be significant. Employers who experience high turnover rates and the associated expenses in new employee recruit­ment and training should be interested in efforts to increase labour retention. DIVERSITY PROGRAMS SPECIALLY TARGETED TO WOMEN In order to make the workplace women-friendly, there is a need to identify diversity programs which may be helpful in impacting an end to gender-based bias in the workplace. In attempting to address the nature of these programs one needs to ascertain the minimal requirements for the integral components of those programs. Kirton (2003) maintained that in order to accommodate women in the workforce, there is a need for eldercare as well as childcare assistance, flexible benefits, flexible scheduling, parental leave, and other work-family programs. Essentially, the trending has been to provide women with those programs. In so doing, the retention, productivity and overall employment satisfaction among women has systematically increased. Colgon & Ledwich (2002) added that there is a need for developmental activ­ities such as mentoring, advanced education, and task-force participation, as well as changing recruiting prac­tices to embrace women and minorities in a bias-free way. In the area of developmental needs, many researchers have been concerned with gender-based mentoring programs. In a study top -level female executives were interviewed. The researchers found that all the women who were in these high-level positions had mentors at one time or another in their careers. Manev & Stevenson (2001) found than organizations promotability ratings were significantly higher for 40 women and minori­ty employees who had been mentored, when compared to a matched control group of 40 non-mentored women and minority employees. Coordinating the attention to diversity management would imply reorganization of the mentoring system, but only after systematic attention is given to promotional career lad­ders for women. Women need the opportunity to move into line positions. Thus effectively and efficiently ending the word-of-mouth form of internal promotion practices would definitely help. Attention to the subjec­tivity involved in the promotion decisions of some organi­zations is also warranted (Jandeska & Kraimer, 2005). Besides mentoring systems, organizations must address training opportunities for women. Training is seen as a necessity for women to move up the organizational hierar­chy; such programs should include management development activities (Chow & Crawford, 2004). Additionally, orientation to organization culture may also be appropriate. The diversity programs just reviewed incorporate the need to address attraction (recruiting), retention (chang­es in work scheduling and benefits), and development (mentoring, task force participation, and advanced educa­tion) needs of women. In conclusion, gender-based discrimination has been an integral part of the organizational structure since the advent of the workforce and its acceptance of women. Women have been systematically and categorically discriminated against. This is evident in the comparative disparity in wages earned by women when compared to men in the same fields of employment. Women continue to earn approximately eighty cents for each dollar earned by men in the same employment positions and with similar education and experience. This disparity has been changing over the course of time and can be explained by the increasing number of women who enter the workforce. Much of this has to do with the fact that the rate of women entering the workforce exceeds that of men. Additionally, the research indicates that women are receiving more advanced degrees than men. Essentially, what this means is that women are increasingly becoming more qualified than men yet they receive comparatively less pay. Will this trend come to an end? Only the passage of time will tell. References Bloomfield, B. P., Coombs, R., Knights, D., Littler, D. (eds.) 2000, Information Technology and Organizations: Strategies, Networks, and Integration, Oxford University Press. Oxford. Bouckaert, G. & Pollitt, C., 2000, Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Burke, R. J. & Cooper, C.L. (eds) 2004, Reinventing Human Resources Management: Challenges and New Directions, Routledge. New York. Chow, H.S. & Crawford, R.B. (2004). Gender, Ethnic Diversity, and Career Advancement in the Workplace: The Social Identity Perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(3), 22-36. Colgan, F. & Ledwith, S. (eds) 2002, Gender, Diversity, and Trade Unions: International Perspectives, Routledge. London. Copeland, L. (1988). Valuing workplace diversity. Personnel Administrator, 33(11), pp. 38-40. Crompton, R. (ed) 1999, Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment: The Decline of the Male Breadwinner, Oxford University Press, New York. Crompton, R., Gallie, D. & Purcell, K. 1996, Changing Forms of Employment: Organisations, Skills, and Gender, Routledge. New York. Denison, D. (ed) 2001, Managing Organizational Change in Transition Economies, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Fagan, C., Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J. & Smith, M. 1998, Women and European Employment, Routledge. London. Fagan, C., Rubery, J. & Smith, M. 1999, Womens Employment in Europe: Trends and Prospects, Routledge, London. Frank R.G. and Wong R. “Empirical Considerations for Models of Female Labor Supply and Fertility in Developed Countries,” In Research on Human Capital and Development Frank RG, Siragelden I and Sorkin A (Eds.), Greenwich CT: JAI Press 1990, 3-16. Giacalone, R.A. & Rosenfeld, P. (eds) 1989, Impression Management in the Organization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. HRM Guide. (2006). Childhood Aspirations May be the Key. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/career/childhood-ambitions.htm HRM Guide. (2002). Gender imbalance in State Bureaucracies. Retrieved December 1, 2006, http://www.hrmguide.net/usa/diversity/state_bureaucracies.htm HRM Guide. (2001). Workplace diversity is more rhetoric than reality Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/diversity/diversity_rhetoric.htm Institute for Employment Studies. (n.d.). Women in the Labour Market: Two Decades of Change and Continuity. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/summary/summary.php?id=294 Jandeska, K.E. & Kraimer, M.L. (2005). Womens Perceptions of Organizational Culture, Work Attitudes and Role-Modeling Behaviors. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(4), 461- 473. Kirton, M.J. 2003, Adaption-Innovation: In the Context of Diversity and Change, Routledge, New York. Manev, I.M. & Stevenson, W.B. (2001). Nationality, Cultural Distance, and Expatriate Status: Effects on the Managerial Network in a Multinational Enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2), 285-299. National Statistics Online (2005). All in employment: by sex and occupation, 2005, UK. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1654&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=1000 Noon, M. & Ogbonna, E. (eds) 2001, Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment., Palgrave, England. Riddell, S. & Salisbury, J. (eds) 2000, Gender, Policy, and Educational Change: Shifting Agendas in the UK and Europe, Routledge. London. Taylor, T. & Bennett, A. 2002, Strategic Development of Organisational Talent: The Use of Succession Management Approaches, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 10(2), 56-69. Warner, M. (ed), 2001, Comparative Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management. Volume: 1, Routledge, London. Read More