Workplace discrimination has turned out to be a big challenge today. This type of bias incorporates gender, racial, age, and disability bias that can create a toxic atmosphere and hinder the careers of people in the organization. This essay is targeted at three significant aspects of employment discrimination, namely the ethical, legal, and structural considerations. The approach is similar to the more commonly known ethical theory, which gives a comprehensive perspective. It aims to develop solutions, some of which can deal with this very problem.
Description of Pervasiveness and Systematic Nature
Job discrimination is pervasive; it is encountered in various industries, institutions, and established norms in our society. This type of discrimination can manifest in different forms, like gender, race, age, and disability discrimination, which can cause employees to be denied promotion, receive less consideration, and experience a very challenging job environment.
The research of Kanze, Conley, and Higgins (2021) demonstrates that organizational mission statements that are not set with destructive purposes can eliminate the effort to combat discrimination at the same time. The nature of a mission statement would either be promotion-oriented (which emphasizes progress and advancements) or prevention-oriented (which focuses on safety and responsibility), and it can also play a role in the level of discrimination employees display in the workplace, showing their research. This can be interpreted as the conscious or unconscious policies that will be implemented by an organization that can either build or prevent discrimination. This means that it is not just the individual bias of others but an issue too big to be blamed on individuals.
Except for the research of Panggih Kusuma Ningrum et al. (2020) on job discrimination in Indonesia by text mining, many pieces of evidence prove the appearance of job discrimination in the country. By identifying these words or phrases, the plaintiffs could confirm that the job postings had apparent preferences for specific ages, genders, or physical appearances. A discrimination tool is a tool that reveals that it is not a subject of direct discrimination but a case where such biases are normalized and built into the hiring process. The significance of this is that discrimination is not just a play of a cycle of individual forbidden acts but a more hidden and subtle phenomenon that manifests itself through the organizational structure and process.
Legal Implications
The current law providing workers protection against discrimination in employment offers necessary accountability and redress mechanisms but, at the same time, faces difficulties regarding enforcement and breadth. Laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act state that it violates the law to discriminate against others based on race, gender, disability, and other attributes (Iezzoni et al., 2022). On the other hand, these laws impart rights to individuals to fight against unfair practices and seek justice through legal routes.
The main advantage of legal remedies is that they provide a well-structured formality for addressing and resolving incidents of discrimination. Laws that legally define what is to be regarded as unacceptable behaviour create a clear standard and benchmark for organizational conduct. This, in addition, may act as a strong disincentive to many other overtly discriminatory acts. When people and businesses are given financial penalties or mandated corrective actions, it represents a strong belief in their minds that discrimination will not be accepted.
The uses of these legal remedies are manifold, notwithstanding their inherent shortcomings. In their study, De Clercq (2021) and Briegger (2021) point out that the onus of proof remains with the complainant, which in turn can be a very high bar due to the subtlety of the discrimination and the complexity of proving intent or bias. This complexity is furthered by the fact that legal options are mainly afforded to individuals once discrimination has occurred instead of preventing it. Furthermore, adopting legal frameworks encourages organizations to tackle particular cases of discrimination but not the underlying mindsets or cultural norms that still promote discrimination. According to the work of Kanze and others (2021), institutional mission statements and the regulatory modes they create can affect the discriminative tendency.
Ethical Theories and Applications
Utilitarianism
Humanize the sentence: According to the utilitarian theory of consequentialism, an action is correct if it generates the greatest happiness for the most significant number of people. The theory focuses on job discrimination and differs from the focused approach on the workers’ pleasedness or the organization’s utility by comprehensively evaluating the effects of discrimination on both the workers and the organization’s utility.
The biased behaviour can drain the joy and mental health of the workers, which further results in low job satisfaction, less productivity, and high absenteeism, with dire consequences for someone’s health and organizational health. To illustrate, the negative effect of discrimination in job advertisements made by Panggih Kusuma Ningrum (2020) was the discouragement many potential job-seekers experienced when they read them. The organization should aim for something other than this and promote it in their advertisements. It is not only a social problem for those who face discrimination but also a matter of economy, as it makes it more challenging to work with talented people and to have competent staff.
On the other hand, a purely practical approach, which puts the company’s benefit first, may even allow for discriminatory practices if they seem to work for most of the organization. For instance, in industries where customers’ biases affect purchasing selections, a company may defend itself by claiming that the person hired based on such biases will likely be. However, unconsciously, they make decisions that will result in overall happiness. This highlights a critical ethical dilemma: can it be argued that the majority’s benefit may be a justification for the bad treatment of some individuals? These moral dilemmas are investigated by Savulescu, Persson, and Wilkinson (2020) in the context of public health policy, with an appeal for responsible utilitarianism that considers not only the interests of the majority but also the rights of vulnerable groups.
Deontology
Deontology, one of the most common ethical theories, focuses on moral duties and obligations and provides a solid ethical foundation for fighting job discrimination. The theory further argues that discrimination is unethical in and of itself since it upsets the fundamental facet of fairness and equality among individuals. Deontology calls for complete compliance with these principles, notwithstanding the consequences. This type of ethics implies that the moral correctness of an action is judged independently of its consequences.
According to García (2021), deontology obliges professionals to apply ethical principles in the workplace, and decision-making processes should be primarily ethical in situations that can cause discrimination. This means the decisions should abide by legal standards and be conscious of human rights. In this respect, this approach is of utmost importance when dealing with the risk of discrimination, which makes the moral requirement to do justice the most important, and therefore, cost and convenience should be of secondary importance. Moreover, the ethical principles of deontology can be implemented by organizations through guidelines, such as the formation of mission statements that reflect them. The organizational culture is shaped by the fact that the stated values of diversity and inclusion are an expression of the moral standard and apply to all levels of the organization. These mission statements thus become a constant reminder of the organization’s adherence to ethical conduct and equality, making the organization’s culture one where discrimination is condemned and seen as a breach of the organization’s core ethical commitments.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics, which concentrates on character formation and the moral integrity of individuals and organizations, provides a compelling framework for dealing with and preventing discrimination in the workplace. This ethical perspective mainly concerns cultivating ethos qualities, including justice, empathy, and respect, which are fundamental in developing an inclusive and non-discriminatory work environment.
Based on the definition of professional ethics of virtue by Hugman et al. (2020), the ideal professional ethics in an organization is one where the virtues mentioned above are followed and practised daily. In the case of job discrimination, anti-discrimination policies at both social and individual levels have to be created in a way that not only condemns discriminatory practices but also encourages virtues such as justice and compassion. The core of these virtues gets to the heart of the decision-making and interactions of the organization’s employees. Hence, it affects the organization’s culture. De Clerque and Brieger (2021) consider independence and freedom vital in fighting against discrimination. The research reveals that the more people, especially female business owners, are empowered with a higher degree of autonomy, the more they become equitable in work-life balance compared to their female counterparts, who may be discriminated against at work. This brings about a sense of respect for one’s competence and contribution without considering gender, personal attributes, or anything else. This is done by setting the base to eliminate discriminatory acts and focusing on an environment that is celebrated and inclusive. Expressing the view that all a company’s members are to behave morally correctly is a way of achieving this goal—that is, every member of the organization, regardless of their position, will contribute to creating a work environment where diversity is appreciated and respected.
Recommendations
For organizations to adequately tackle and overcome job discrimination, holistic strategies that entail more than mere compliance with legal requirements must be implemented. The following proposals for real action can be made based on ethics theories and previous research: Organizations can set up more serious training programs that educate employees on the legal side of discrimination. Still, they will also help understand and accept diversity and inclusion. Per Kanze, Conley, and Higgins (2021), in line with ethical tenets such as fairness and respect, the organization’s mission statement and training programs must align with those. This can create a sustainable work culture that strives to eliminate discriminatory practices. The training should concentrate on the ethical repercussions and the personal influence of discrimination, strengthening the more significant comprehension of and the willingness to live by the doctrine of virtue ethics in daily intercourse.
In addition, designing and making noticeable reporting lines about discrimination is essential. Workers should have a comfortable and confident atmosphere to report incidents with a zero-tolerance retaliation policy. Transparency and accountability could be improved in these networks, leading to the timely and more effective identification and resolution of existing problems. In addition, as De Clercq and Brieger (2021) say, people can be empowered and self-reliant to challenge discriminative practices when they hear that their opinions are valued and acted upon. In addition, we must conduct regular audits of company policies and practices to ensure that the company follows ethical standards and fair practices. These audits should check for legal standards and whether company policies align with ethical standards such as justice and integrity. Through periodic reviews and updates, organizations can stay one step ahead, if not a few steps ahead, of potential issues, and they can thus consistently foster an inclusive working environment.
References
Dirk De Clercq & Brieger, S. A. (2021). When Discrimination is Worse, Autonomy is Key: How Women Entrepreneurs Leverage Job Autonomy Resources to Find Work-Life Balance. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(3), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04735-1
García, E. V. (2021). Ethics, Law, and Professional Deontology. ESIC Editorial.
Hugman, R., Pawar, M., Anscombe, A. B., & Wheeler, A. (2020). Virtue ethics in social work practice. Routledge.
Iezzoni, L. I., Rao, S. R., Ressalam, J., Bolcic-Jankovic, D., Agaronnik, N. D., Lagu, T.,… & Campbell, E. G. (2022). US Physicians’ Knowledge About the Americans With Disabilities Act and Accommodation of Patients With Disability: The study examines what physicians know about the Americans With Disabilities Act and what is done to accommodate patients with disabilities. Health Affairs, 41(1), 96–104.
Kanze, D., Conley, M. A., & E. Tory Higgins. (2021). The motivation of mission statements: How regulatory mode influences workplace discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 166, 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.002
Panggih Kusuma Ningrum, Tatdow Pansombut, and Attachai Ueranantasun. (2020). Text mining of online job advertisements to identify direct discrimination during job hunting: A case study in Indonesia. PloS One, 15(6), e0233746–e0233746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233746
Savulescu, J., Persson, I., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics, 34(6), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12771
write