Diversity in the Workplace versus Affirmative Action

Name:

Course:

Institution:

Tutor:

Date:

In most cases, the terms “diversity in the workplace” and “affirmative action” are used interchangeably. This should not be the case. Although both deal with workplace issues and are more concerned with the rights of the employees, they are different in definition and application. Affirmative action first appeared in the executive order in 1925. It was signed by the late President John F. Kennedy in 1961. Federal contractors are required to perform affirmative action in ensuring that the applicants receive employment, and that the treatment of the employees is not based on their origin, race, religion or creed (Katel, 2008). Women were included in this order in 1967 by Lyndon Johnson. On the other hand, diversity works under the concept that organizations profit most when they take advantage of all their employees’ abilities. This concept includes people of all color, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, economic status, amongst others (Canas & Sondak, 2011). The affirmative action and diversity should be implemented to compliment each rather than being used in competition of each other.

It is right to say that the both diversity and affirmative action deal with discrimination issues. However, they deal in different ways thus making different impacts. By the definition of both terms, the affirmative action is superior to the workplace diversity as it is enforced legally. In as far as the workplace is concerned; the impact made by both concepts has raised debates in a number of cases. It is the organizations’ role to know the significance of each of the concept should be implemented.

The affirmative action is proven to be adhered to when an organization implements the equal opportunity policy. This also includes analyzing the workforce in order to assess whether there are possible areas that have been not represented equally either by the minority groups or by the women. It is also developing an action plan in order to eliminate any unequal representation and show an effort that the execution of the plan is underway.

When it comes to diversity, the organizations are responsible of making sure that the workplace has a diverse workforce for its own productivity and profit. For example, if an organization notices that there are few or no applicants of a certain race such as African Americans and more of the other races, the organizations can come up with techniques of encouraging more qualified African Americans to apply. This can be done by recruiting graduates from colleges where the African Americans occupy the majority. They can also start branches in states that have an African American majority. Unfortunately, the desired impact to be made by the diversity at the workplace has yet to be fully realized.

According to Shirley Wilcher, who is the executive director at the American Association of Affirmative Action, this diversity is only talked about, but its intended impact is yet to be seen. Organizations, especially those in the private sector, seem to talk about workplace diversity, have different diversity programs, but their actual impact is yet to be seen (Canas &Sondak, 2011). Wilcher further comments that organizations’ failure to deal with issues concerning hiring and promotions will just make the programs marketing strategies (Canas & Sondak, 2011). Some companies only make such programs in order to please the employees. They even go ahead and implement one or to of the many programs. Since it is only a cover up, such programs do not last.

As one analyses the workplace conduct in different organizations, the impact of the affirmative action is more evident as compared to the workplace diversity impact. Organizations are taking the role of ensuring that women are employed, giving equal opportunity to people of all races, religion and origin, but doing below what is expected of these organizations in ensuring there is growth in the individual workers. For example, an organization might employ as many women and men as it can accommodate but be restrictive when it comes to promotions, salary increment and other employee motivation devices. This is how the affirmative action is seen to be of more impact as compared to the workplace diversity impact.

Diversity benefits the organization directly. Although the federal contractors are not directly involved in this area, it is significant that the organization understands its impact. It is not only about bringing in employees who are of a diverse gender, color, religion, creed and origin, but also about bringing employees who are valued for their knowledge, skills, abilities, talents and other qualifications. Both physical and psychological aspects of an employee motivate him/her (Ocon, 2006). It is the role of the organization to make sure that these aspects are taken care of in order to ensure that the productivity of these employees is at its utmost.

Diversity is of effect at this point of intersection. The affirmative action makes sure that an employee of a diverse nature are in the organizations while the diversity policy ensures that the organization find these diverse employees and retain them by treating then right (Ocon, 2006). The effect of workplace diversity can be more realized than it already is. Ensuring that the diverse employees are treated in the right way will give the diversity impact is visible to the outside world.

So far, it has been understood that the affirmative action is well implemented as compared to the diversity in the workplace. Organizations are more obliged to follow what is lawfully abiding as compared to what will benefit them directly. The policies put in place in order to promote diversity are talked about more than they are acted upon. Although this monotony mostly affects the private sector, the public sector cannot be ignored. An organization that was founded by a white American is most likely to have the top management ranks filled with Caucasian managers while the lower ranks and the normal workers are of other races. It is true, that the organization has included people of a diverse nature at the workplace but not fairly.

The affirmative action and diversity at the workplace are meant to compliment each other rather than compete with each other or one be used in place of the other. Diversity encourages the organization that the diversity in nature of each and every individual is not only beneficial to the organization but it also of benefit to the whole society. A high ranking Asian American in a prominent organization will encourage the other young people in school to put more effort in class as it pays.

As mentioned earlier, it is not a matter of competition or preferring one for the other. In some organizations, there are diversity officers who are paid more that the affirmative action officers or the other way round. This is more so if the work of the diversity officer to find plans of increasing the minority group and making sure that it is implemented while the affirmative action officer’s work involves much more duties (Segal, 2003).

In other cases, the officers may be required to report to different authorities. For example, the affirmative action may be required to report to the company’s president while the diversity officer reports to the human resource manager (Segal, 2003). This segregation of remuneration and duties will not only shake the employees’ confidence in the organization, but it will also pull back the organization through arguments and dissatisfied officers.

It is not a matter of which is greater than the other but a matter of the most appropriate for a given purpose. Wilcher feels that both should be implemented appropriately and that they should be given the priorities they deserve (Canas & Sondak, 2011). The impact of diversity in the workplace compliments the impact of the affirmative action. Preferring one for the other or interchanging one for the other will only destroy the organizations as it will destroy the workforce that keeps the organizations running.

References

Cañas, K. A., & Sondak, H. (2011). Opportunities and challenges of workplace diversity: Theory, cases, and exercises. UpperSaddleRiver, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Katel, P. (2008). Affirmative action. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

Ocon, R. (2006). Issues on gender and diversity in management. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Segal, J. A. (January 01, 2003). Diversity: Direct or Disguised – Supreme Court affirmative action decisions yield hints but no blueprint for achieving workplace diversity. Hr Magazine, 48, 123-132.