Affirmative
Action - Its Got A Bad Reputation
By Jason C. Nelson
WHAT
IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?
What
is affirmative action? Unfortunately, I would posit that most of us really don't
know. We all have some sort of vague definition or perception, but many times
this idea of what affirmative action dictates is contrary to reality. For
instance, many individuals associate affirmative action with mandated quotas;
hiring individuals based solely on race or sex, without regard to meritorious
qualifications. Others in society associate affirmative action with inequity,
where fairness is compromised because of a preferential selection process.
Whether or not these associations are true, these examples are not what
affirmative action intends. Few of us, if any, really understand what
affirmative action is, how policies relating to it are implemented, and how
those very policies meant to aid deserving individuals have in many instances
done more harm than good. Before proceeding further in this treatise, I would
like to pose a simple question: Will discrimination ever cease to exist?
If you think discrimination will end, then your views are more utopian
than mine, for I think discrimination will always exist in one form or another.
Thus, to assert an end to affirmative action after only three decades -
when women and minorities have faced discrimination since the birth of this
nation - is ludicrous.
By
now, I hope I've sparked some sort of emotional response in the reader. That
response is important because emotions are what impede us from understanding
reality as opposed to our own individual perceptions of reality. Interpret this
analysis with an open mind and set your emotions aside for the next several
minutes. My purpose is to present as clearly as possible a defense of the
affirmative action ideology by supplying a brief history and definition of
affirmative action, the ensuing consequences of it on self-view, attitudes, and
behavior, and my views on what society must do to eliminate the negative
consequences arising from affirmative action policies. Remember, I support the
ideology, but not necessarily the way it has been interpreted and implemented in
our society.
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION: DEFINITION AND HISTORY
The
phrase - affirmative action - was first used in a discriminatory context by
President John F. Kennedy in 1961 (Pasour, 1989). In Executive Order No. 10925,
President Kennedy indicated that federal contractors should take affirmative
action to ensure that prospective job applicants and federal employees were
treated in an equal manner without regard to race, creed, color, or national
origin (Pasour, 1989). In this order President Kennedy was asserting equal
access and treatment for all individuals, but nothing more. Subsequent civil
rights legislation mirrored President Kennedy's philosophy. In 1965, President
Lyndon B. Johnson created definitive affirmative action policy with Executive
Order No. 11246 (Hirsch, 1996). While speaking at Howard University, President
Johnson expressed a need to go further than the recently enacted passive
non-discrimination laws. He discussed how companies should go further in their
efforts to ensure that minorities and women would have real opportunities for
employment and promotions. Several years later, President Richard M. Nixon
expanded the Affirmative Action Executive Order by establishing goals,
timetables, and specific guidelines for companies to follow in order to comply
with federal regulations governing affirmative action (Hirsch, 1996). Without
continuing this history capsule, suffice it to say that today affirmative action
has expanded to include all members of society who have historically been
excluded from employment, education, or otherwise (Buchanon, 1996).
So
with all of the above said, what exactly is affirmative action? According to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission affirmative action is a policy that is
orchestrated to "...overcome the discriminating effect of past or present
practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity" (EEOC,
1979). The aim of affirmative action is to eliminate discrimination and increase
the representation of traditionally disadvantaged groups - primarily women and
ethnic minorities - by moving beyond simple sex or color blindness in employment
decisions (Heilman, 1994). The underlying assumption of affirmative action
policy is that nondiscrimination alone will not remedy the consequences of
prejudice and inequality in society (Heilman, 1994).
Today's
organizations use affirmative action many ways, including strategies to expand
the applicant pool, training, and promotional decisions, and in stated goals for
hiring individuals. Much of the confusion and rancor surrounding the present
debate on the merits of affirmative action originates from the manner in which
affirmative action is defined (Heilman, 1994). Despite the fact that the
successes of affirmative action programs are present in improved employment
opportunities (Bunzel, 1986) and in benefits arising from a diversified work
force (Jackson and Associates, 1992), there is a fair amount of resistance to
affirmative action programs (Heilman, 1994). Despite the many plausible
explanations that may account for this resistance, including traditional racism,
modern racism, aversive racism, and beliefs that affirmative action violates the
norms of distributive and procedural justice, there remains a fundamental
question as to why resistance exists among those individuals who are targeted to
benefit from affirmative action programs (Heilman, 1994).
THE
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Unfortunately,
resistance to affirmative action stems from its effects on self-view, workplace
attitudes, and behavior. A comprehensive investigation is presented by Madeline
E. Heilman in "Affirmative Action: Some Unintended Consequences for Working
Women" (1994). In order to present a factual background supporting my
recommendation for soft affirmative action programs, I would likely to briefly
summarize the important points in Heilman's experiments and analysis:
1.)
Self-View:
*
When using affirmative action policy to select women for traditionally sex-typed
jobs, preferential treatment can result in negative self-regard for the
individual (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987). Thus, it's likely that women
that are selected on the basis of sex, rather than merit, will invest less
effort in task accomplishment, will be less likely to persevere when they
encounter difficulty, and will choose easier tasks.
*
Women who are hired under preferential treatment appear to devalue and resist
hiring other women when the preferential treatment results in an undermining of
their own confidence.
*
Preferentially selected individuals rate the process as less fair than those
selected on a merit basis.
*
Preferentially selected candidates may face higher stress levels than those
selected on a merit basis (Heilman, Lucas, and Kaplow, 1990).
2.)
Work Place Attitudes and Behavior:
*
When there was no mention of affirmative action, women hired for positions were
rated lower in competence than men only when the job was strongly sex-typed.
However, when linked to affirmative action, women were rated as less competent
in both sex-typed and sex-neutral jobs, and were also rated less competent than
other women hires not associated with affirmative action.
*
The greater the role that affirmative action was believed to have played in a
coworker's hiring, the less likely qualifications were thought to have been an
important factor, and the less competent the coworker was thought to be, unless
explicit information was provided to suggest otherwise.
*
Inequity-based perceptions by others in the organization may result in lowered
motivation in addition to negative reactions to the individual who is believed
to have benefited undeservedly.
In
summary, Heilman illustrates that affirmative action results in a negative
self-view for the benefiting individual who lacks self-confidence, an overall
stigma of incompetence in the work place environment, and possible negative
behaviors both from and toward those individuals hired as a result of
affirmative action policies. However, affirmative action policies don't always
produce harmful effects on the individual or create negative outcomes (Heilman,
1994). The key to affirmative action policy is how it's implemented and how it's
believed to be implemented by others in the organization.
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION: EMPHASIZE A SOFTER POLICY STANCE
Affirmative
action efforts can be thought of as a continuum, ranging from soft efforts such
as expanding the applicant pool on one end, to hard efforts such as strict
hiring quotas of specific individuals on the other end (Seligman, 1973). In
between these two ends of the continuum are varying degrees of preferential
treatment that can be used in the hiring process, but not to the exclusion of
merit-based qualifications. Hard policies provide only a lose-lose situation,
where both the individual as well as those within the organization suffer
accordingly. For instance, in 1988 only 40% of the entering class at Berkeley
was selected solely on the basis of academic merit, with the remainder of
admissions operating on a sliding scale with decreasing standards for those of
minority status. The result was not impressive: 66% of Anglos and Asians
matriculated compared to only 27% of African-Americans. I don't support hard
affirmative action policies in any form, especially those involving quotas.
However, there are times when a court-ordered quota is necessary, such as when a
company has committed a particularly egregious discriminatory action or series
of actions against a specific race or sex (Hirsch, 1996). For example, in Haynes
et al. vs. Shoney's Inc., the court mandated quotas for Shoney's in various
store and corporate management positions as a result of blatant discrimination
against black employees (Watkins, 1993).
Soft
affirmative action policies, on the other hand, can be implemented with a great
deal of success. However, to implement these policies, organizations must
consider several implications. First, organizations must take care in
formulating policies and allow traditional merit criteria to play a role in the
hiring process (Heilman, 1994). Second, organizations must communicate exactly
what its stance is toward affirmative action to all employees in order to
educate and avoid detrimental consequences because of misperception. Third,
firms must supply merit-based information to the hire and respective coworkers
to avoid the stigma of incompetence. Finally, companies should recognize the
feelings of victimization that white males and others may feel in the
organization, which can often be remedied through a sensible affirmative action
policy emphasizing merit (Heilman, 1994).
CONCLUSION
Until
we can eliminate prejudices based on race, color, creed, religion, or sex, this
country will need affirmative action policy. Although the effects of a hard
affirmative action policy can be detrimental, a soft policy can provide great
strides in increasing opportunities without detrimental consequence for women
and minorities. The absence of affirmative action policy reaped havoc on the
Shoney's empire, thus proving that sexism and racism still exist in America.
The point to remember when dealing with affirmative action is that
reactions are psychological and emotional, and are based on perceptions of
reality, not on reality itself (Heilman, 1994).
SOURCES
Buchanon,
Marlon, "Affirmative Action: Now is not the Time for It to End",
Nubian Notions, 1996.
Bunzel,
J.H., "Affirmative Re-actions, Public Opinion, pgs. 45-49, February/March
1986.
Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), "Affirmative Action Guidelines,
Report No. 44FR444, Washington DC: U.S. Governments Printing Office, 1979.
Heilman,
M.E., "Affirmative Action: Some Unintended Consequences for Working
Women", Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 16, pgs. 125-169, 1994.
Heilman,
M.E., J.A. Lucas, S.R. Kaplow, "Self-Derogating Consequences of
Preferential Selection: The Moderating Role of Initial Self-Confidence",
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 46, pgs. 202-216,
1990.
Heilman,
M.E., M.C. Simon, & D.P. Repper, "Intentionally Favored,
Unintentionally Harmed?: The Impact of Gender Based Preferential Selection on
Self-Perception and Self-Evaluation", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
76, pgs. 62-68, 1987.
Hirsch,
Judy, "Affirmative Action", Affirmative Action Officer, 1996.
Jackson,
S.E., "Does Job Control Control Job Stress", Job Control and Worker
Health, pgs. 25-53, In S.L. Sauter, J.J. Hurrell, Jr., & C.L. Cooper (Eds.),
1989.
Pasour,
Ernest, "Affirmative Action: A Counter-Productive Policy", The Freeman
Ideas on Liberty, January 1989.
Seligman,
D., "How Equal Opportunity Turned Into Employment Quotas", Fortune,
pgs. 158-168, March 1973.
Watkins,
Steve, "Racism Du Jour at Shoney's", The Nation, October 18, 1993.
Jason
C. Nelson is a management consultant focusing on strategy, organizational
structure and design, and organizational change. He can be contacted at jcnelson@email.com