AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1

Affirmative action in regard to human resource (HR) practices refers to plans or programs focused on removing barriers to employment or eliminating historical discrimination in employment against certain groups of people. More precisely, affirmative action does not encompass decisions or actions aimed at favoring certain groups of people or to establish rigid quota systems; rather, it refers to actions and decisions meant to support people who have historically been victims of discrimination in employment practices have equal opportunities as individuals from other groups (Martín-Alcázar, Romero-Fernández, & Sánchez-Gardey, 2012). Implementation of affirmative action has been, in the past, highly supported and implemented in multicultural societies, such as South Africa and United States, where discrimination in employment practices has been perpetrated in the past against individuals from perceived minority groups. In such countries, affirmative action has been made a public policy, although most private organizations are not mandated to implement affirmative action plans.

In the US, the intention of affirmative action has been to support employment of individuals from groups that have been victims of discrimination in the past, including disabled persons, certain veterans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, Asians, Latinos, African Americans, and women (Martín-Alcázar et al.,  2012). Empirical studies have shown that affirmative action has led to removal of barriers to equal employment opportunities and enhanced workforce diversity in both public and private organizations in societies where it has been supported in the past, such as in United States. Scholars have shown that where affirmative action is implemented well to eliminate barriers to employment of individuals from previously-discriminated groups, the program has led to improvement in overall organizational performance. However, some studies have shown that efforts to implement affirmative action plans in some countries have not led to elimination of discrimination in employment; it has led to more harm than good (Martín-Alcázar et al.,  2012). In this regard, the aim of the current paper is to explore various issues surrounding the debate on implementation of affirmative action, with regard to HR practices.

Discussion

            Before exploring issues surrounding the debate on implementation of affirmative action, it is essential to understand how it is implemented. Affirmative action plans contain policies meant to increase representation of individuals from groups that have been victims of discrimination in organizations. One of the ways of implementing the program is through opportunity enhancement, in which individuals from the groups that have been victims of discrimination are offered assistance prior to recruitment process, such as through training (Shena et al., 2009). In this approach, the employers do not concentrate on demographic characteristics on individuals from the targeted groups during selection. For instance, while an organization may be hiring individuals who are aged 30 years and above, they may not focus on such demographic variables when dealing with individuals from the groups that have been victims of discrimination (Shena et al., 2009).  Another approach is elimination of discrimination or enhancement of equal opportunities by all candidates (Shena et al., 2009). In this approach, people who are involved in selection and recruitment are forbidden from applying any strategy that may lead to exclusion of individuals based on their demographic characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, race, and nationality (Shena et al., 2009). In some cases, decision-makers involved in recruitment and selection may apply weak preferential treatment, also known as tiebreak. The approach involves giving preference to the targeted beneficiaries in case all candidates for employment have equal qualifications. As such, the decision-makers make some positive consideration to demographic characteristics of the targeted group (Shena et al., 2009).  Last, decision-makers involved in recruitment can apply strong preferential treatment, which involves assigning large weight to demographic characteristics of individuals from the targeted groups. Preferential treatment, whether weak or strong, has been viewed as a source of controversy, since it is viewed as a way of filling quotas. On the other hand, equal opportunity and opportunity enhancement approaches are perceived as “soft” strategies, and have been recommended by most scholars supporting implementation of affirmative action (Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006).

            Different scholars have shown that affirmative action through implementation of strategies meant to enhance equal opportunities or opportunity enhancement is beneficial in various ways. First, different studies have proved that affirmative action enhances workplace diversity, which can be quite valuable to an organization. A meta-analysis conducted by Harrison et al. (2006) on studies focusing on the impact of affirmative action found that the programs has enhanced representation of people from groups that have been victims of discrimination in workforce. As Harrison et al. (2006) noted, discriminating against some groups during recruitment, promotion or other HR practices blocks opportunities to hire individuals who are talented and can be quite valuable to an organization. Giving preference to men over women during promotion, for instance, has been a common practice in the past (Harrison et al., 2006). A woman in a given organization can have better leadership qualities than her male counterparts. As such, giving preference to men during promotion involves blocking a talent that can be quite valuable to an organization, and ultimately limits an organization’s performance (Harrison et al., 2006). On the other hand, an organization that does not consider demographic characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity during promotion, but gives equal opportunities to all candidates, benefits from the output of talented individuals, which ultimately leads to performance improvement. As Harrison et al. (2006) found out from previous studies, enhancing workplace diversity at all levels enhances an organization’s innovativeness, ability to solve problems, and quality of decisions made by managers and leaders. A study conducted by Islam and Zilenovsky (2011) found that workplace diversity enhances an organization’s cooperative behaviors, effectiveness, efficiency, output, and profitability. In addition, the results derived from the study indicated that workplace diversity enhances the reputation of an organization in the surrounding community as socially responsible firm, which is vital to success of almost all organizations in the current business environment (slam & Zilenovsky, 2011). An organization in which discrimination against certain groups during HR practices such as recruitment, remuneration, and promotion may need to enhance its workforce diversity status through affirmative action, among other strategies.

            Further, Block et al. (2011) noted that affirmative action played a major role in correcting historical inequalities in employment practices in the United States during the second half of the 20^th century. Prior to establishment of affirmative action programs, the blacks, women, and other minority groups were discriminated against during practices such as recruitment and promotion, in both public and private organizations. However, establishment of policies meant to enhance affirmative action in public organizations by the federal government played a major role in elimination of the discrimination. In addition, advocacy for affirmative action by scholars and activist groups raised the awareness of private organizations regarding the need for fair treatment of all individuals, without favoritism based on demographic background (Block et al., 2011). As a result, most organizations in the United States today take proactive approaches to enhance diversity of workforce at all levels. A good example is IBM, an organization b that deals with computers and electronic equipments. According to Block et al. (2011), IBM’s key objective during recruitment and promotion of workers has been to give equal opportunities to all candidates, without giving regard to demographic characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity and religion. As such, Block et al. (2011) argued that in societies where organizations have been discriminating certain groups of individuals, affirmative action is one of the best approaches for correcting such historical inequalities.

            Despite the fact that some studies have found affirmative action to be beneficial, others have shown that affirmative action may have several adverse effects, especially when preferential treatment to the targeted groups is applied. A study conducted by Linton and Christiansen (2006) found that affirmative action often leads the beneficiaries to be viewed by other workers as less qualified, which ultimately lowers the self-esteem of the beneficiaries. Linton and Christiansen (2006) found that in most cases, the beneficiaries of affirmative action are stigmatized by fellow workers when they are perceived to have been recruited simply because of their minority statuses, yet they would not have been recruited without that consideration. The study revealed that the beneficiaries of affirmative action in most organizations in the US received lower ratings than their counterparts. Linton and Christiansen (2006) also noted that in comparison with their counterparts, the beneficiaries of affirmative action had higher levels of negative self-perception and lower self-confidence. Linton and Christiansen (2006) noted that as a result, even the beneficiaries of affirmative action program showed little support for it.

However, some studies have shown that there is no significance difference in job performance between the beneficiaries of affirmative action and other workers. A study conducted by Holzer and Neumark (2000, as cited in Harrison et al., 2006) that involved investigating the qualifications and job performance of affirmative action hires found that despite having lower qualifications than their counterparts, the beneficiaries of affirmative action did not have lower job performance. The researchers, however, pointed out that in order for the affirmative action hires to have equal performance with their counterparts, they ought to be undertaken through continuous training and/or other employee development practices. Another study conducted by Aquino et al. (2005, as cited in Harrison et al., 2006) indicated that the beneficiaries of affirmative action in American public organizations, who were promoted to senior positions, were not stigmatized, whereas those in lower positions experienced stigmatism. This implies that offering opportunities for employee development and giving promotions to the qualified beneficiaries for affirmative action helps to reduce or eliminate stigmatism or negative perception from the counterparts.

As Harrison et al. (2006) explained, stigmatization of beneficiaries of affirmative action usually emerges from stereotyping. In the past, for instance, African-Americans used to score, on average, lower than their white counterparts in cognitive tests (Harrison et al., 2006). Consequently, some employers may rely on such marker to make predictions that the performance of all African-Americans at workplace is likely going to be lower than the performance of whites. Such notion is likely to influence the employer to discriminate against all African-Americans during recruitment, promotion or other HR decisions and actions, instead of relying on an individual’s ability (Harrison et al., 2006). Another cause of stigmatization is communication. A study conducted by Allen et al. (2005, as cited in Son Hing et al., 2011) showed that White students rated their black counterparts higher when they “sounded white,” and lower when they “sounded black.” An employer relying on such markers may regard African-American candidates for employment as less competent than white counterparts just because the “sound black.’ Therefore, there a need to train HR managers to refrain from relying on stereotypes when rating workers or potential workers.

            Empirical studies have shown that there is increased resistance for affirmative action, arguing that it leads to reverse discrimination. In other words, the reason for opposing affirmative action emerges from the notion that the approach involves discriminating against individuals from groups that were perceived to be given favors in the past, even though they may be more qualified than individuals from the targeted perceived minority groups. The study conducted by Linton and Christiansen (2006) showed that, although Americans support fight against discrimination of individuals from minority groups, most of them do not support affirmative action mainly due to the perception that it leads to reverse discrimination.  According to Son Hing et al. (2011), the notion of reverse discrimination emerges from misconceptions. Son Hing et al. (2011) noted that there is common belief among Americans, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, that affirmative action only involves preferential treatment of certain groups or favoritism. The notion that the approach only involves favoring under-qualified individuals against qualified persons enhances entrenchment of stigmatization of beneficiaries of affirmative action. Although there are cases in which affirmative action involves weak or strong preferential treatment, such cases are common in public companies that are directed to do so by the government. In most cases, preferential treatment in public organizations is politically instigated, with the intention of increasing representation of certain groups of individuals in workforce (Son Hing et al., 2011). As Son Hing et al. (2011) noted, effective implementation of affirmative action through offering equal opportunities to all candidates, without giving regard to demographic variables, is the most common strategy undertaken by most private organizations in the United States and multinational firms. The misconception of about the meaning and approaches involved in implementation of affirmative action leads to difficulties in implementing it, especially in cases where there is a need to implement opportunity enhancement approach to correct historical inequalities (Son Hing et al., 2011).

            Some opponents of affirmative action have argued that it increases the gap that exists between minority and majority groups as well as between men and women. A meta-analysis conducted by Crosby et al. (2006) revealed that some scholars who oppose affirmative action believe that classification of certain groups in the society as protected and others as unprotected leads to increased separation and polarization, which ultimately leads to further discrimination. As Crosby et al. (2006) noted, some scholars believe that when people feel that they are classified as unprotected, yet there are others who are protected, they tend to react by developing negative attitudes towards individuals from the protected groups. This makes them feel unsafe in comparison to individuals from the protected groups. Ultimately, such individuals tend to react through favoring people from their own groups, with the intention of enhancing their safety. For instance, when an American public organization gives preferential treatment to Black Americans over their white counterparts, senior white leaders in the same organization or others might respond through granting favors, such as promotions, to white workers. This may occur especially when individuals from the unprotected groups feel that they are being punished for historical discriminations that they did not perpetrate, but were perpetrated by their ancestors in the past. As such, some scholars believe that affirmative action eventually leads to increased separation between groups that are treated differently. However, as Crosby et al. (2006) argued, the notion may not hold in the case of affirmative action that involves giving all groups equal treatment, rather than giving preferential treatment to some groups.

Conclusion

            Overall, affirmative action with regard to HR practices involves eliminating all barriers that lead to unequal opportunities to individuals from all groups in the society or increasing representation of individuals from groups that have been discriminated in the past in workforce. As indicated in the above discussion, giving equal opportunities to all candidates without considering demographic variables such as ethnicity, race and gender is recommended since the approach does not lead to further discrimination. On the other hand, preferential treatment with the aim of increasing representation of individuals from a certain group in workforce may be perceived as reverse discrimination, and thus, many people oppose it. Although effective approach to implementation of affirmative action is beneficial, misconceptions about the meaning of “affirmative action” has led many people to oppose it. The problem is entrenched by the fact that stereotyping is used as a base to stigmatize the beneficiaries of affirmative action, which makes them ultimately suffer from negative self-perception. The negative perception of affirmative action has led to difficulties in its implementation. There is a need for managers, workers and the public to learn the meaning and benefits of affirmative action so that they can support its implementation.

References

Block, C., Koch, S., Liberman, B., Merriweather, T. & Roberson, L. (2011). Contending with the

stereotype threat at work: A model of long-term responses. The Counselling Psychologist, 39(4), 570-600.

Crosby, F., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review

Psychology, 57(1), 585-611.

Harrison, D., Kravitz, D., Mayer, D., Leslie, L. & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes

toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and Meta-Analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1013-1036

Islam, G., & Zilenovsky, E. (2011). Affirmative action and leadership attitudes in Brazilian

women managers: The moderating influence of justice perceptions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(3), 139-143.

Linton, L., & Christiansen, N. (2006). Restoring equity or introducing bias? A contingency

model of attitudes toward affirmative action programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36(7), 1617-1639.

Martín-Alcázar, F., Romero-Fernández, P. M., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2012). Transforming

Human Resource Management Systems to Cope with Diversity. Journal of Business Studies, 107(4), 511-531.

Shena, J., Chandaa, A., D’Nettob, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human

resource management: an international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235–251.

Son Hing, L., Bobocel, D., Zanna, M., Garcia, D., Gee, S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of

meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 433-450