Sanders BHR 3352 DB 3 4
cwilia
Timmerman_AffirmativeAction_PPT_FINAL3.pptAffirmative Action–Or Not
Thomas A. Timmerman, Ph.D., SPHR • 2010
Teaching note: [Click] will reveal additional information on the slide. Some of the information is intended to be surprising, so the custom animation triggered by each click is important.
[Slide 1]
I know we’re supposed to talk about affirmative action today, but I’ve had a change of heart. I’d like to spend class time talking about things that help organizations perform better. As we all know, affirmative action is more about politics than anything else. So let’s talk about helping organizations perform better.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
AA Fishing
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 2]
In fact, I own a business that needs your help. In my spare time, when I’m not teaching, I have a fishing business, AA Fishing.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
20% good fish $5/lb
30% mediocre fish $2/lb
50% worthless fish
©SHRM 2010
*
[Slide 3]
I started the business when I found a lake with many good fish. I found that I could sell these good fish for $5 per pound [Click].
The lake also has some smaller, mediocre fish. I can sell these for $2 per pound [Click].
The lake also has some very small fish that are worthless [Click].
I also happen to know (don’t ask me how I know, I just know) that 20 percent of the fish in the lake are good fish, 30 percent are mediocre fish, and 50 percent are bad fish. You can also make this assumption: I’m a good fisherperson. So, on average, as long as they’re available, I know how and where to catch the best fish. I occasionally catch some mediocre and bad fish, but for the most part I usually catch the good ones.
With such an amazing opportunity, what do you think eventually happened? Competition [Click]
What will this competition do to my business? It will make it harder for me to catch the good fish. As they disappear, I will eventually have to settle for more mediocre fish. As the mediocre fish disappear, there will only be worthless fish left in the lake.
But I may have an idea. I found another lake.
©SHRM 2010
*
20% good fish $5/lb
30% mediocre fish $2/lb
50% worthless fish
Lake 2
AA Fishing
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 4]
The lake is smaller and has only half as many fish as the first lake (don’t ask me how I know, I just know), but the proportions are the same. Twenty percent of the fish are good, 30 percent are mediocre, and 50 percent are worthless. The question I have for you is: How can my business best use Lake 2? [Wait for answers after each question.]
Should I ignore Lake 2 because it’s smaller? Doesn’t seem right to completely ignore a source of good fish.
Should I abandon Lake 1 for Lake 2? Lake 1 is still the biggest source of fish.
Should I fish Lake 1 and Lake 2 on alternating days? If I try this, I might lose my prime spot at Lake 1.
Or should I hire someone to fish in Lake 2? As long as my expenses are less than my revenues, this makes sense. Everyone agree? Good.
What if the fish in Lake 2 prefer a different kind of bait? As long as my expenses are less than my revenues, I should be willing to do whatever it takes to catch the good fish in Lake 2. Correct? Good.
What if I face competition in Lake 2? Should I hire someone to pursue the good fish in a third lake? [Wait for answers] As long as my expenses are less than my revenues. Correct? Good.
One more question about strategy. I’ve discovered that the three lakes are actually connected by a stream.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Lake 1
Lake 3
Lake 2
AA Fishing
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 5]
Occasionally, fish from Lake 3 and Lake 2 swim upstream to Lake 1. One of my competitors told me that instead of hiring people to fish in Lakes 2 and 3, he’s just going to wait for the fish to swim upstream to him in Lake 1. What do you think about this strategy? [Wait for answers]. I can beat my competitors if I am proactive and pursue the good fish more aggressively. Right? Good.
Last question. How will I know if the people I hire to fish in Lake 2 and Lake 3 are actually doing the best job possible? Remember what I said earlier. Lake 2 has half the number of fish than Lake 1. Lake 3 has half the number of fish than Lake 2 (Don’t ask me how I know, I just know). So if I catch 100 fish from Lake 1, the person I hire to fish in Lake 2 should catch about 50. The person I hire to fish in Lake 3 should catch about 25. In fact, if I have less competition in the smaller lakes, I should easily catch 50 from Lake 2 and 25 from Lake 3.
Assuming that these people are motivated to catch as many fish as possible, what if we only get 30 from Lake 2? [Wait for answers after each question.]
Do we blame the fish? No, they’re hungry and need to eat just like the other fish.
Would it help if the person fishing in Lake 2 caught some mediocre or bad fish to try and make up the difference? No. Bad fish are bad fish regardless of which lake they come from.
The answer is: We need to try something different. We might need to try a different bait, or a different place, or a different time. The key is, if we’re not catching as many as we should from the smaller lakes, we need to try something different. Everyone agree? Great.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Conclusions From the Fish Story
- We want good fish regardless of which lake they come from.
- If we concentrate on one lake only, we will eventually run out of good fish and have to settle for mediocre or bad fish.
- We are willing to spend money to pursue good fish in other lakes.
- It makes no sense to wait for the good fish in other lakes to swim to us.
- We won’t be satisfied with our catch from the smaller lakes until we catch them in proportion to their availability.
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 6]
So let’s review what we’ve decided is good for the organization:
We want the good fish regardless of which lake they come from.
If we concentrate on one lake only, we will eventually run out of good fish and have to settle for mediocre or bad fish.
We are willing to spend money to pursue good fish in other lakes.
It makes no sense to wait for the good fish in other lakes to swim to us.
We won’t be satisfied with our catch from the smaller lakes until we catch them in proportion to their availability.
Does anyone disagree with any of the above? Anyone…Last chance…
If you haven’t guessed by now, we really are talking about affirmative action. If you agree with these five principles, you will agree that affirmative action is good for organizations.
Before we talk about the details of affirmative action, let me give you a real-life example that mirrors the fish story.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Affirmative Action in Action
Affirmative Action’s First Victim
Ed Stevens
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 7]
One of the first victims of affirmative action in the United States was Ed Stevens. Does anyone know Ed Stevens? Ed Stevens already had two years of work experience when he was let go to make room for an African-American with no experience at the same level. Several of his co-workers were so upset that they started a petition to present to management. The co-workers argued that the new African-American employee would upset the organization’s “chemistry” and drive away customers. Upper management rejected the petition and threatened to fire those who refused to work with the new employee. One of the employees refused and was fired. How does this make you feel about affirmative action? If you’ve never heard of Ed Stevens, maybe you’ve heard of his replacement [click].
Ed Stevens was replaced by Jackie Robinson.
In case you’ve never heard of Jackie Robinson, he’s one of the greatest baseball players who ever played. Until 1947, the owners of major league baseball teams had an unwritten agreement to fish from one lake only. In 1947, Brooklyn Dodgers owner Branch Rickey decided to fish from a different lake because he knew that by concentrating only on one lake, he was settling for mediocre and bad fish (like Stevens).
Larry Higbe (a mediocre fish at best) was the player who refused to play with Robinson. Interestingly enough, the other good fish on the Dodgers’ team (like Duke Snider and Pee Wee Reese) were happy to have Robinson on the team. By replacing the bad fish with good fish, the Dodgers won the National League Championship in 1947 and recorded the highest attendance in the team’s history. Apparently, the customers cared more about a winning team than the racial make-up of the team.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Affirmative Action in Action
- Rickey wanted the most talented players regardless of where they came from.
- By concentrating on white players only, mediocre and bad players were filling out the rosters.
- The Dodgers spent money sending scouts into the Negro Leagues to find the most talented players.
- The Dodgers didn’t wait for African-American players to knock down the doors demanding equal treatment.
- Robinson was the first, but not the only, good fish landed by the Dodgers from the African-American pool.
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 8]
Notice the parallels with the fish story:
Rickey wanted the most talented players regardless of where they came from.
By concentrating on white players only, there were mediocre and bad players filling out the rosters.
The Dodgers spent money sending scouts into the Negro Leagues to find the most talented players.
The Dodgers didn’t wait for African-American players to knock down the doors demanding equal treatment.
Robinson was the first, but not the only, good fish landed by the Dodgers from the African-American pool.
So how long do you think it took for other teams to imitate this innovation? The last team to integrate was the Boston Red Sox. They stuck with Lake 1 until 1959 when they finally found an African-American good enough for their team; Pumpsie Green. They finished in fifth place that season.
Do you know why you’ve never heard of Pumpsie Green? Because he was a mediocre fish from the African-American pool. By 1959—12 years after Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers—there was a tremendous amount of social and political pressure on the Red Sox to integrate. The owner finally gave in and selected Pumpsie Green. Green filled a quota. While all of the other teams were integrating and getting better during the 1950s, the Red Sox never finished above third place.
And that’s the problem that ignorant organizations face. When they view affirmative action as the filling of quotas, they’re more willing to settle for mediocre and bad fish. The Dodgers did affirmative action the right way.
Incidentally, another reason that the integration of baseball is a good example of affirmative action is that no government intervention was required. In 1947, it was still perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of race. Good affirmative action occurs when an organization voluntarily examines its staffing practices and realizes that it’s missing out on a pool of talent. Then they proactively pursue that talent pool.
Does anyone think that the Dodgers were wrong in replacing Ed Stevens with Jackie Robinson? I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that people are more enlightened today than they were in 1947 and that anyone in their right mind would rather have Jackie Robinson than Ed Stevens.
That could be true. Let me ask you. How many of you would rather have less-talented white employees than very talented African-American employees? No one? Wonderful! Racial harmony has finally been achieved!!
But maybe we should ask if that’s really happening beyond our classroom. That’s exactly what two economists did a few years ago.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Bertrand and Mullainathan Study
- 5,000 resumes mailed for entry-level jobs in Boston and Chicago.
- Resumes designed to be a good fit or poor fit for job.
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 9]
In 2001 and 2002, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan mailed out 5,000 resumes in response to entry-level job advertisements in Boston and Chicago. They set up voicemail accounts and e-mail accounts to record which resumes received invitations to interview. Half of the resumes were designed to be a good fit for the jobs. They had the appropriate levels of education and experience. Half of the resumes were designed to be a poor fit for the jobs. They lacked the appropriate education and/or experience.
So the first question we can ask with this study is: Are resume screeners good at choosing people based on their fit with the job requirements? [Click]
Among the resumes designed to be a good fit for the job, 9.2 percent received invitations to interview. Among the resumes designed to be a poor fit for the job, 7.6 percent received invitations. Right off the bat, this tells us that there may be some subjectivity in the selection process, even the seemingly simple process of screening resumes.
But that’s not what the study was really about. The resumes were manipulated in another way as well. Half of the resumes in each group were given female names and half were given male names. So who do you think got more invitations to interview? If you think this class is too predictable, you’re predicting that males will get more invitations. Some of you might be thinking (but not willing to say) that the diversity movement in the United States has turned the tables. You’re thinking that women got all the breaks. So let’s go to the data.
*
Chart1
| Good Fit |
| Poor Fit |
Sheet1
| Good Fit | Poor Fit | |
| East | 9.20% | 7.60% |
©SHRM 2010
*
- Resumes also designed to reflect gender of applicant.
Bertrand and Mullainathan Study
©SHRM 2010
*
[Slide 10]
Among the resumes with male names, 7.7 percent received invitations to interview. Among the females, it was 8.6 percent. Ah hah! Females are getting all the breaks!
Before you get all excited about this difference, remember that these were entry-level jobs advertised in the newspaper. There was an abundance of clerical and administrative jobs. So does this finding mean that men were being discriminated against? Or does it mean that women were seen as more appropriate for low-paying jobs? We really can’t tell.
But that’s not what the study was about either. There was one more manipulation of the names on the resumes.
©SHRM 2010
*
Male
Brad, Jay,
Matthew, Todd
Tyrone, Leroy,
Jamal, Rasheed
Bertrand and Mullainathan Study
- One other name manipulation:
Female
- Kristen, Laurie,
Meredith, Jill
- Ebony, Lakisha,
Keisha, Latoya
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 11]
Half of the male names were names like Brad, Jay, Matthew and Todd. The other half were names like Tyrone, Leroy, Jamal and Rasheed. Half of the female names were names like Kristen, Laurie, Meredith and Jill. The other females names were names like Ebony, Lakisha, Keisha and Latoya. So what was the difference between the names in Group 1 and Group 2?
The names in Group 2 were predominately African-American names. By the way, it doesn’t mean you’re a racist if you automatically associate those names with African-Americans. In fact, the names were chosen by looking at data from the U.S. census. The names in Group 1 were names chosen more often by whites. The names in Group 2 were names chosen more often by African-Americans.
So which group was more likely to get an invitation to interview?
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Bertrand and Mullainathan Study
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 12]
If you believe that white males were at a disadvantage, you would expect that (just like earlier) African-Americans were more likely to receive an interview. So let’s go to the data.
Among the resumes with white names, 10.1 percent received invitations. Among the resumes with African-American names, 6.7 percent received invitations. In other words, in these particular labor markets, if you had a white name on your resume, you would have to send out 10 resumes to get one interview. If you had an African-American name on your resume, you would have to send out 15 resumes to get one interview. Those with African-American names had to work 50 percent harder to get the same opportunity as those with white names.
There’s one more way to slice up the data.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Bertrand and Mullainathan Study
©SHRM 2010
*
[Slide 13]
Remember that half of the resumes were designed to be a poor fit for the job. Among the resumes with white names and designed to be a poor fit for the job, 8.8 percent received invitations to interview. If the resume was designed to be a good fit for the job, this number increased to 11.31 percent. Among the resumes with African-American names and designed to be a poor fit for the job, 6.41 percent received invitations to interview. What about highly qualified African-Americans? If you believe the radio talk-shows, these were the most highly desired candidates in the labor force. But only 6.99 percent of them received invitations to interview.
There are at least two implications to this study. First, if you’ve got a white name, having a good resume does make a difference. If you’ve got an African-American name, however, having a good resume doesn’t really help that much.
The second implication is this: Even in 2002 in Boston and Chicago, poorly qualified whites were more likely to get interviews than highly qualified African-Americans (8.8 percent vs. 6.99 percent). In other words, Ed Stevens was more likely to get an interview than Jackie Robinson.
There is a bit of good news in all of this. It shows that there are still untapped talent pools. People who are willing to proactively pursue those talent pools can still find Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays.
Now would be a good time to point out that underutilization might occur because of conscious racism or sexism. That’s pretty easy to spot. But underutilization might also occur because of unconscious and unintentional processes. I don’t think those people screening resumes were necessarily racist. I think that stereotypes are so ingrained that we can accidentally discriminate. That is why counting is so important to determine if affirmative action is needed. The only way we can tell if we’re doing a good job is to count what we have and compare it with what’s available. In a few minutes, we’ll talk about how to find out what’s available.
Teaching Note: More details about the Bertrand and Mullainathan study can be found in:
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991-1013.
By the way, other studies have found similar patterns of discrimination. Around the same time, sociologist Devah Pager conducted a similar study. Instead of sending out resumes, Pager sent white and African-American accomplices to apply for 350 entry-level jobs in the Milwaukee, Wisc., area. Half of the applicants told the employers that they had been convicted of drug possession. Among the white applicants with drug convictions, 17 percent were offered interviews. Among the African-American applicants with drug convictions, only 5 percent were offered interviews. More surprising, however, was the fact that 14 percent of the African-Americans WITHOUT drug convictions were offered interviews, compared to 34 percent among the whites. In other words, employers were more likely to interview whites with drug convictions than equally-qualified African-Americans without such convictions.
Teaching note: More details about the Pager study can be found in:
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937-975.
©SHRM 2010
*
Affirmative Action Summary
- The fish story demonstrated what affirmative action is really about. It’s about noticing underutilization and proactively addressing it.
- The baseball story demonstrated that affirmative action done well leads to better organizational performance.
- The Bertrand and Mullainathan study demonstrated that underutilization still happens, even across the labor market.
- So far in our discussion, the government hasn’t forced anyone to engage in affirmative action.
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 14]
So let’s summarize what we’ve seen so far:
The fish story demonstrated what affirmative action is really about. It’s about noticing underutilization and proactively addressing it.
The baseball story demonstrated that affirmative action done well leads to better organizational performance.
The Bertrand and Mullainathan study demonstrated that underutilization still happens, even across the labor market.
So far in our discussion, the government hasn’t forced anyone to engage in affirmative action.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
What Is Affirmative Action?
- Attempt to ensure that the organization is attracting and selecting the best talent from every available source.
- Only mandated by law for:
Federal contractors and subcontractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of at least $50,000.
Required by Executive Order 11246.
Organizations found guilty of illegal discrimination.
For everyone else, it’s just a good idea.
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 15]
So which organizations are legally required to have affirmative action plans?
Federal contractors and subcontractors with at least 50 employees and at least $50,000 in federal contracts. This requirement was created by Executive Order 11246 signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.
www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fs11246.htm.
Sometimes, a judge will order an organization to have an affirmative action plan if it has been found guilty of illegal discrimination.
As we saw in the baseball example, for everyone else it’s just a good idea.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
- Utilization analysis:
Are there any pools that are not being tapped?
Compare your workforce to the relevant labor force.
- Establish goals and timetables for tapping underutilized pools.
Goals should match availability in the relevant labor force.
Timetables should consider anticipated growth and typical turnover rates.
- Develop plans to reduce underutilization:
Recruit in nontraditional areas.
Examples….
What Is Affirmative Action?
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 16]
So what, exactly, are employers required to do and what should organizations voluntarily do? You’ll notice that the steps have largely been addressed in our previous illustrations.
Implementation:
First, conduct a utilization analysis where the organization’s labor force (job-by-job) is compared with the relevant labor force. So what does “relevant labor force” mean? It means that the organization compares its workforce to the make-up of the labor force from which it recruits. If the employer is recruiting secretaries, it might recruit from the city, so it needs to find the racial and gender make-up of the secretaries in that city. If it is recruiting college faculty, it might recruit nationwide. Usually, data regarding the relevant labor force are available from the U.S. census or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/census/index.html
If the workforce matches (within 80 percent) the relevant labor force, the organization can stop there. If there is underutilization (based on race or gender), the employer should establish goals and timetables. The goal should come from the relevant labor force. The organization’s goal should be to adequately tap the relevant pool (just like in the fish story).
Going back to the fish story, if I catch 100 fish from Lake 1, I should catch 50 from Lake 2. What if I’m only getting 45 from Lake 2? Is that close enough? The guideline that most organizations use is that 80 percent of the target is close enough. Using this guideline, 40 fish from Lake 2 would be close enough (.8 x 50).
Appropriate timetables depend on anticipated growth in each job. If the employer plans to add new jobs to its existing workforce, it will have an opportunity to quickly address its goals. Timetables should also consider the typical turnover in a job. The organization should be able to meet goals faster in jobs with high turnover than in jobs with low turnover.
The third step is where the organization changes its recruiting and selection practices to pursue the goals. Most often, underutilization can be addressed with better recruiting efforts in nontraditional areas. Since this is really where the rubber meets the road, let’s look at a few examples from real companies.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Recruiting in Nontraditional Areas
- SAS Institute, Inc.
Family-friendly work environment.
- Raytheon
Finding new untapped pools.
- Sempra Energy
Building social networks.
- Goldman Sachs
Educating women in underdeveloped nations.
LEAD program.
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 17]
SAS Institute is a software company based in Cary, NC. Its work environment is legendary, and affirmative action played a big part in its early success. Company founder, Jim Goodnight, realized during the late 1970s and early 1980s that female computer programmers were being ignored by most companies. He knew that this pool would be a good one in which to fish. He soon found, however, that young female programmers often left SAS when they got pregnant. Many of them wanted to return to work, but their skills quickly became obsolete. He decided to make it as easy as possible for his talented programmers to return to work by opening one of the first on-site day care centers. This, and many other family-friendly policies, helped SAS earn the reputation as the premier workplace for talented programmers, male or female. Notice that SAS proactively pursued talented programmers in a neglected pool and made the organization attractive to them.
Teaching note: More information about the family-friendly work environment at SAS can be found in the company’s Corporate Social Responsibility Report:
www.sas.com/corporate/corpgovernance/csr-report.pdf .
Raytheon Company (based in Waltham, Mass.) realized that underutilization could occur in pools beyond race and gender. In response, Raytheon established relationships with Gallaudet University (Washington, D.C.), the National Resource Center for the Disabled (Washington, D.C.) and the Rochester School for the Deaf (Rochester, NY). The company is finding tremendous amounts of talent where others have neglected to fish.
Teaching note: More details about Raytheon’s Opportunity Award from the Secretary of Labor can be found at:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/media/reports/ofccp/07eve_opp.htm.
Half of San Diego-based Sempra Energy’s employees are minorities. This fact alone sends the powerful recruiting signal that minorities are welcome in the organization. The organization has also established relationships with historically black colleges like Howard University. These relationships help create social networks that help the organization recruit talented minorities.
Teaching note: Details about Sempra’s diversity initiatives can be found at:
http://www.sempra.com/diversity/diversity.htm.
Financial giant Goldman Sachs has earmarked $100 million to educate women in Africa, India and the Middle East. Goldman Sachs realizes that talent is being wasted around the world because of historical and cultural norms against educating women. These women may not end up working for Goldman Sachs, but they will contribute to economic growth, which is good for the women, good for their countries and good for organizations like Goldman Sachs. Closer to home, Goldman Sachs is one of the corporate sponsors of Leadership Education and Development Program in Business (LEAD). This program identifies talented minority high school students and invites them to participate in Summer Business Institutes at top-tier universities. At these institutes, students interact with high-ranking corporate officers and cultivate relationships that may eventually turn into internships and full-time jobs. Notice how Goldman Sachs pursues talented employees in neglected labor pools before they ever become job applicants.
Teaching note: Details about Goldman Sachs’ diversity initiatives can be found at:
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/careers/our-firm/diversity/index.html.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
- Utilization analysis:
Are there any pools that are not being tapped?
Compare your workforce to the relevant labor force.
- Establish goals and timetables for tapping underutilized pools:
Goals should match availability in the relevant labor force.
Timetables should consider anticipated growth and typical turnover rates.
- Develop plans to reduce underutilization:
Recruit in nontraditional areas.
Selection practices that reduce subjectivity.
Examples….
What Is Affirmative Action?
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 18]
Underutilization can also be addressed by changing selection practices. As we saw in the Bertrand and Mullainathan study, underutilization may occur because of subjectivity in the selection process. We’ll cover more of this when we talk about selection, but let’s take a look at how one organization reduced underutilization by changing its selection process.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
- Changing Selection Practices
Home Depot:
Changes driven by growth and class-action lawsuits.
Job Preference Program (JPP) automated the selection process.
Number of female managers increased by 30 percent.
Number of minority managers increased by 28 percent.
Selection Practices that Reduce Subjectivity
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 19]
Home Depot is a chain of home improvement stores. From the outset, the founders created a masculine culture, and as the chain grew, few women were hired or promoted. The women who were hired were typically placed in cashier positions instead of sales positions. Not only were the sales positions more lucrative, but promotions were typically drawn from employees in sales positions. Facing a class action lawsuit and tremendous growth during the mid 1990s, Home Depot created an automated hiring and promotion system known as the Job Preference Program (JPP). Under this program, applicants for new jobs took standardized tests administered by a computer. This system would objectively identify the most qualified applicants and pass their names on to the hiring managers. The JPP removed managerial discretion early in the process and broadened the pool of people considered for jobs and promotions. Use of the JPP increased the number of women managers by 30 percent and the number of minority managers by 28 percent.
Teaching note: More details about Home Depot’s Job Preference Program can be found at:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/04/03/277088/index.htm.
Before we go any further, I should point out that everything we’ve talked about so far shouldn’t be controversial. No one should be opposed to recruiting and selecting the best employees. The selection process, however, is where affirmative action may become controversial.
Imagine this scenario: Suppose we conduct a utilization analysis and discover that our organization is underutilizing females. We do a good job of recruiting more female applicants, and we end up with two final candidates who appear to be equally qualified. One is female and one is male. If they are equally qualified, should we hire the woman or flip a coin? Organizations that discover underutilization and decide to engage in affirmative action are allowed (but are not required) to hire the female in this situation because of her gender. The whole purpose of an affirmative action plan is to correct previous discrimination (that’s how underutilization analyses started in the first place). Courts allow organizations to discriminate based on sex and race, but only if there is demonstrated underutilization and the person being hired is qualified to perform the job. If the woman in this case was not qualified for the job, the organization could not legally favor her over the male.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
Utilization analysis:
Are there any pools that are not being tapped?
Compare your workforce to the relevant labor force.
Establish goals and timetables for tapping underutilized pools:
Goals should match availability in the relevant labor force.
Timetables should consider anticipated growth and typical turnover rates.
Develop plans to reduce underutilization:
Recruit in nontraditional areas.
Selection practices that reduce subjectivity.
Monitor progress.
What Is Affirmative Action?
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 20]
The fourth and final step in an affirmative action plan is monitoring progress. Employers must continuously count and measure their progress against their goals. If they are not making progress, they must figure out why. If members of underutilized groups are not applying, then the organization probably has a recruiting problem. If members of underutilized groups are applying for jobs but are not being selected, then there may be bias in the selection process. Just like in the fish story, they may need to fish in different spots at different times and with different bait. They can’t blame the fish; they need to do something differently.
Hopefully, our discussion so far shows that affirmative action done well is aimed at maximizing organizational performance. However, let’s talk about what affirmative action is not.
*
©SHRM 2010
*
What Affirmative Action Is Not
- Not a government mandate for many employers.
- Not reverse discrimination.
Court rulings have placed limits on affirmative action programs:
Affirmative action plans must be temporary.
The purpose must be to correct underutilization.
The plan may not completely ban the hiring/promotion of majority members.
The plan may not cause the termination of majority members.
Preferences may only be given to qualified minority members..
- Not quotas.
Specifically forbidden.
- Not diversity for the sake of diversity.
Evidence is not clear.
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 21]
We made this point earlier, but remember that few organizations are legally required to develop affirmative action plans.
Many people are concerned that affirmative action results in reverse discrimination–or discrimination against the majority group members (usually white males). It is true that some organizations have pursued affirmative action goals too aggressively. Various court rulings have established these guidelines for affirmative action plans.
The plan must be temporary. Once goals are met, the plan is over because the organization is adequately tapping neglected pools.
The purpose of the plan must be to correct documented underutilization. An organization cannot favor one group over another unless there is demonstrated evidence of underutilization.
It is illegal to increase the percentage of a minority group by banning the hiring of majority members until the goal is met.
It is also illegal to increase the percentage of an underutilized group by firing a bunch of majority members.
Finally, one of the biggest concerns is related to the competence of the minority members. Preference may be given only to qualified minority members. It is illegal to hire an unqualified minority member in the interest of affirmative action. Are there organizations that would hire Pumpsie Green instead of Mickey Mantle in the interest of affirmative action? Probably. But they are doing affirmative action a disservice, and organizational performance will suffer.
Teaching note: As these guidelines develop, they are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The specific regulations regarding affirmative action plans can be found at http://www.dol.gov/DOL/allcfr/ESA/Title_41/Chapter_60.htm.
Why might an organization hire Pumpsie Green instead of Mickey Mantle? Many people misinterpret affirmative action as requiring quotas. Federal guidelines, however, specifically forbid strict quotas. The guidelines also stipulate that organizations will not be punished for failing to meet their goals. Just like in the fish story, failing to meet a goal simply means that the organization needs to try something different. Substituting bad fish doesn’t help.
Affirmative action is not diversity for the sake of diversity. You may hear that diversity is good for organizations because demographic diversity brings diverse perspectives to an organization and diverse perspectives lead to better decision-making and organizational performance. Another assumption is that diverse employees are needed to serve diverse customers. Believe it or not, very little research has actually tested these assumptions. The research that has been conducted does not support the idea that simply increasing diversity will increase organizational performance. Employee diversity is also related to conflict, for example. This conflict may end up hurting organizational performance if it’s not properly managed. For these reasons, I can’t support the argument that diversity for the sake of diversity is good for organizational performance, but I will argue that organizations perform better when they replace Ed Stevens with Jackie Robinson.
Teaching note: One of the rare efforts to investigate the effects of diversity on business performance was supported by SHRM. The details of this research can be found here:
http://www.shrm.org/foundation/kochan_keyfindings.asp.
*
Wrap-Up
- What Affirmative Action IS:
An attempt by an organization to actively recruit and select talented employees from traditionally undertapped pools.
- What Affirmative Action IS NOT:
A government mandate that forces organizations to hire unqualified employees.
©SHRM 2010
*
©SHRM 2010
[Slide 22]
So let’s wrap this up with a simple distinction between what affirmative action is and what it is not. Affirmative action is an attempt by an organization to actively recruit and select talented employees from traditionally under-tapped pools.
Affirmative action is not a government mandate that forces organizations to hire unqualified employees.
Any questions?
*
7.70%
8.60%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
10.00%
11.00%
%
Receiving
Call
Backs
MaleFemale
10.10%
6.70%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
10.00%
11.00%
%
Receiving
Call
Backs
WhiteAfrican-
American
8.80%
11.31%
6.41%
6.99%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
10.00%
11.00%
%
Receiving
Call
Backs
WhiteAfrican-
American
Poor FitGood Fit
