Eliminating Indirect Discrimination in Business Organizations - Literature review Example

Indirect Discrimination Discrimination, both direct and indirect may be considered to be a thing of the past but sometimes they do crop up in situations where the company is not actually focused on diversity issues but more concerned with just fulfilling the legal requirements. In fact, as discussed by Connolly (2006), even though there have been many years since diversity initiatives were first created by companies in Britain, many unions and even government offices still struggle with the idea of non-discrimination especially when it comes to indirect discrimination. According to Alleyne (2005), the fundamental reasons for the problems in dealing with indirect discrimination are the changes in theoretical underpinnings that have come to the idea of discrimination. This is because instead of refusing people positions based on their colour, religion or disability, indirect discrimination takes place by creating employment requirements, situations or practices which have an adverse impact on one or more groups. Such requirements can be quite abstract in nature and it may be impossible to prove if direct or indirect discrimination is actually taking place. Further, discrimination itself may be based on deep rooted psychological biases that are difficult to control or manage (Crawford et. al., 2002). This becomes particularly true when it comes to placing women or other minorities in leadership positions. Further, the company or the organization may have issues beyond recruiting as indirect discrimination could give some individuals lesser opportunities for progress or promotions. Of course, non-discrimination laws can be enforced by the government but the concept of indirect discrimination is more difficult to prove and thus it becomes difficult to prevent a company from engaging in it. The concept of indirect discrimination is explained by Hunter (1992, Pg. 6) who says: The elimination of indirect discrimination and the achievement of substantive equality requires not just that biological differences between men and women, and between majority and minority groups, be acknowledged and accommodated. In practice, this means that remedial action must be taken where the existing ways of doing things produce disparate outcomes for different groups. With regard to indirect discrimination, while diversity itself may be seen as an advantage for business, indirect discrimination has not come to a point where the business advantages of removing it can be clearly seen. Companies in the UK may have HR personnel that seek to reduce any levels of indirect discrimination but the organisation and the culture prevalent in the company may become a hindrance (CIPD, 2006). For instance, institutes that have long standing traditions may find it difficult to change quickly. They may not accept too many young people working in top positions without them having put years of service with the institute and showing that they are a part of the ‘club’. The problem of indirect discrimination is not limited to small companies with single owners but also extends to large multinationals operating in the UK. Companies such as DuPont and GE have faced cultural issues while trying to eliminate indirect discrimination and create equality. To reduce indirect discrimination, diversity and the elimination of indirect discrimination are seen as business objectives that can give a company advantages over the competition. They are seen by Brown (2005) as tools that can help in building employee motivation and improving the productivity of the workers. While some companies may not readily agree to it, the idea of eliminating indirect discrimination as a business advantage has been taken to an extent that some institutes are making it an essential part of their overall strategic objectives (CIPD, 2006). The push for eliminating indirect discrimination also comes from the side of the government where fourth generation equality legislation comes into play. This legislation directly influences the HR management and the company policies which are concerned with hiring and firing decisions. Fredmen (2001) notes that: Fourth generation equality laws based on a positive duty to promote equality rather than simply to refrain from discrimination are being actively developed in several jurisdictions. At EU level, a powerful boost was given to the effectiveness of sex equality legislation by the adoption of the policy of ‘mainstreaming’. Mainstreaming means that equality is not just an add-on or after-thought to policy but it is one of the factors taken into account in every policy and executive decision (Fredmen, 2001, Pg. 27). However, despite the laws being present in place, the application of the laws remains difficult for most organizations even if they want to create diversity and equality. This is because the desire is not enough and it requires planning, investment and effort on behalf of the organization to get to a positive position with regard to equality and diversity. To help this process the HR department of needs to have a pivotal role in diversity management and it should try to build a culture that nurtures an inclusive environment (Folkes & Patrick, 2003). The focus has not remained on the HR department alone since the senior management of the company and even the CEO of an organisation is included amongst those who have a responsibility towards ending indirect discrimination. This is because the stakeholders of the company can be most satisfied with the actions of the CEO which promote equality rather than mere words which show that the company wishes to have equality (CIPD, 2006). Since the culture of the company itself will take a lot of cues from the person of the CEO, equality and transparency must be a part of the creed which the CEOs agree to without hesitancy (Lockwood, 2005). It can easily be understood why the managers of a company are blamed for indirect discrimination since it is they who set and create policies. However, in many situations they may do so unknowingly since Lockwood (2005) reports that some managers may not be fully aware of the laws or the issues concerning indirect discrimination. There seems to be a dire lack of proper training for managers on how they can avoid indirect discrimination which can not only harm the reputation of the company, it can also lead to costly law suits and claims for damages (Connolly, 2006). Daniels & Macdonald (2005) further suggest that training and development of management personnel should also focus on diversity training since they need to be aware of the law as well as the changes to the law which have been made in recent years. This perspective was also taken by Brown (2005) who suggests that equality and the elimination of indirect discrimination is the need of the time since the changing demographics of the country as well as the region will force businesses to come to terms with diversity issues. If such issues are managed without a conflict, the diverse human resources of a company would lead it to be in a better position to serve a diverse market. As a concept, indirect discrimination has changed with time to come into its own and is treated separately from direct discrimination. As described by Daniels and Macdonald (2005), direct discrimination comes more into focus when there are hiring decisions to be made or where promotions within the company are denied to a particular segment of the population i.e. women or minorities. However, indirect discrimination may be more subtle even in terms of how benefits are awarded as well as how information flows between co-workers. This is of particular concern to businesses since they may not be engaged in indirect discrimination but the groups of employees that form within the company may be engaged in the practice (Brown, 2005). This would certainly harm the business interests of the company since it would lose out the opportunities it could get from the free flow of information to all required parties. Employee empowerment and even the processes of management can suffer as a result of indirect discrimination which takes place within the confines of the office. While diversity related initiatives can be used to address the issue, Schuller (2005) suggests that most of such initiatives would fail because the targets set by the move to eliminate indirect discrimination may remain too vague and broad. If a company is serious about eliminating indirect discrimination, it has to use SMART objectives for creating an environment where diversity is not an issue that has to be managed, but rather a given fact of good business practices. Of course, it would not be easy not would it be financially cheap to establish such an environment but the long term benefits and the business advantages gained by the companies would certainly help in offsetting any costs incurred. In conclusion, it is easy to see that the business world simply presents a microcosm of the real world where both indirect and direct discrimination continue to exist. However, if we can force it out of the business environment and make it a thing of the past, the real world would be bound to follow the footsteps of the business world soon enough. Works Cited Connolly, M. 2006, Discrimination Law, Sweet and Maxwell. Hunter, R. 1992, Indirect Discrimination in the Workplace, Gaunt Inc. Alleyne, S. 2005, ‘But Can You Walk the Walk’, Journal of Black Enterprise, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 100-105. Brown, R. V. 2005, ‘The ROI of Diversity’, Mortgage Banking, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 111-113. CIPD. 2006. ‘Diversity and equality’, CIPD.co.uk, [Online] Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/dvsequl/ Crawford, M., Sherman S. J., and Hamilton D. L. 2002, ‘Perceived Entitativity, Stereotype Formation, and the Interchangeability of Group Members’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1076-94. Daniels, K. and Macdonald, L. 2005, Promoting Equality: challenging discrimination and oppression in human services, McMillan Eagly, A. and Karau, S. 2002, ‘Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders’ Psychological Review, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 573-98. Folkes, V. and Patrick, V. 2003, ‘The Positivity Effect in Services: Seen One, Seen Them All?’ Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 125-37. Fredman, S. 2001, Discrimination and Human Rights: The Case of Racism, Oxford. Lockwood, N. 2005, ‘Workplace Diversity: Leveraging the Power of Difference for Competitive Advantage’, HR Magazine, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1-14. Schuller, S. 2005, ‘Develop diversity culture through a sequential process’, Journal of Hotel and Motel Management, vol. 220, no. 14, pp. 13-15. Read More