Introduction: When Equality Is at Risk. Organizational Culture
Discussed so far and wide that the issue should have been worn out the next day it was brought up, inequality in workplace still remains one of the greatest problems in the present-day world. No matter how hard it is to admit it, the instances of people’s rights infringement occur on a daily basis in some companies, which is why inequality I business organizations is worth bringing up once again.
Despite all the attempts to reach equality on all levels, whether cultural, social, or biological, people still have to face the harsh light of reality; according to the results of the recent researches, inequality is still on the agenda of the modern entrepreneurships. However, with the help of efficient management, the solution to the problem can be found. While avoiding inequality completely hardly seems possible, bringing its rates down is still within the powers of the company managerial.
Taking a Retrospective: Where Inequality Stems from
Before going any further, it is necessary to locate the root of the problem. In the given case, the inequality issue has been obviously spawned by a number of prejudices against a certain type of employees. By and large, inequality in the workplace is mostly a result of setting the wrong atmosphere among the staff and enhancing wrong attitudes.
Though occasionally stemming from a specific conflict or initiated by a specific person who consciously discriminates against a certain type of people (Banerjee, 2008), workplace segregation is usually a result of the lack of care towards building the right atmosphere within the team. Taking a closer look at the enhancers of segregation moods in a team of employees, one can possibly find the way to put a stop to workplace discrimination.
Leadership issues: taking the wrong turn
The fist reason for any discrimination is a very weak and insufficient leadership (Cooke, 2003). Left without a leader, a team is likely to structure their relationships in their own way. Depending on the type of relationships between the members, the need in a “scapegoat” might appear.
Organizational culture: it is the HRM to blame
One of the greatest problems of the HRM personnel is the inability to embrace the needs and wants of every single member of the staff. As Jackal (1988) explains, “Many managerial decisions are routine ones based on well-established and generally agreed upon procedures” (Jackal, 1988, 77).
When rivalry rates hit the roof: envy as the root of all evil
Another thing that is most likely to hinder the development of a more friendly attitude towards the social outcasts in the team of office workers is the result of the process defined by psychologists as the “mirror stage”: “The mirror defines an essentially competitive, rivalrous relationship both to self and others; and in this sense the mirror stage identifications found an interest in the control and domination of others” (Roberts, 2001, 110).
Thence, it can be considered that the relationships based on rivalry, which are inherited at an early age, rule people’s lives in the future and set the behavioral models for adults in their workplaces. As Roberts explains, “At the same time, with the mistaken identification of self with the image of self, a new vulnerability is created at the level of self-identity; a narcissistic preoccupation with the potentially ‘existence confirming’ (or annihilating) look of the other” (Roberts, 2001, 110).
The Means to Fight Inequality: The Right Thing to Do
Breaking the rules that have been set in a team unofficially is extremely hard. Therefore, it is clear that the process of eliminating any traces of discrimination within a team of employees is going to take a lot of time and effort. Hence, a good leader and a strong, well thought-out strategy must be developed to encourage the change and defeat inequality within a team of colleagues.
As it has been mentioned, a lot of resistance is expected because of two reasons. First, people are not prone to rapid changes, and, second, the fact that someone is being discriminated against is the fact that the rest of the team has already built a specific hierarchy. Destroying the latter means that a new one has to be created, which is a very hard effort to make.
Changing the leadership strategy: ruling with an iron fist
Though often taken for granted, the leader’s persona plays an immensely great role in the development of relationships within a certain group of employees (Fineman & Gabriel, 1996). As a matter of fact, a leader often does toned any legends to back his/her authority with – the mere fact of being the head of a department/office/any other working team makes people feel subordinate towards the person in question.
Indeed, according to what Gabriel (1997) says, “To many people in the lower echelons of organizations, top leaders do not appear altogether human, not at least in the sense that colleagues or immediate superiors are” (Gabriel, 1997, p. 316). Therefore, shaping the leadership strategy and changing it from merely establishing moral standpoints to actually sharing a positive attitude (Watson, 2003).
Setting an example: the power of authority
Enhancing morality within the team, however, can result in a complete failure unless the persona of the leader leaves an impact on all those involved. There are some issues with the given decision, however, which are worth being discussed. To start with, it is quite hard to believe that most people will follow the rules set by a person who has just recently become the company leader.
Moreover, even with a person who has been an authority for a considerable time, it is hard to believe that the employees will willingly accept the moral values that are going to be imposed on them instead of the traditional ones. However, Zimbargo et al. assert that a true leader can change not only the way people act, but also the way they think, thus, shaping their attitudes and behavior:
Although many participants dissented, saying that they didn’t want to give electric shocks to the learner, some even crying at the prospect of what they thought they were doing to that poor victim, only a minority of the participants actually disobeyed and stopped pressing the shock keys (Zimbargo et al., 2000, 219).
It is out of question that a leader can not only make people behave in a certain way, but also convince them that what they are made to do is actually for their own good. Thus, even in the place where certain discriminatory issues exits, with the right course set by the right person, any segregation moods will soon disappear.
Self-development as the ultimate answer
There is no need to explain that, unless the leader of a certain group shows an example, no one is ever going to change their attitudes. Therefore, the aspect of self-development is crucial for a manager who wants his/her team to overcome certain discrimination issues in the workplace.
According to the existing evidence, the importance of self for a leader must not be underrated. As Jackson and Carter explain, people are “adaptive and genious” (Jackson & Carter, 2000, 144) for the most part, which means that they can change if the leader wants them to.
At this point, however, it is necessary to reconsider the significance of self for the manager and for the team. While it is essential for the leader of the team to prove his/her point with the help of his/her influence, thus, reclaiming his/her authority, the self of the employees somewhat fades into the background.
On the one hand, the given phenomenon is quite undesirable, since it diminishes the significance of the employees for the organization. On the other hand, however, the given situation allows the company manager to solve the existing conflict and stamp his/her authority most efficiently to put a stop to any sort of discrimination among the employees.
The Probable Pitfalls: Breaking the Undercover Rules
However, as one might have expected, fighting the existing discriminatory attitudes in a company is quite difficult even for a company manager. However, knowing is half the battle – once the basic problems that a manager can possibly face while fighting discrimination among the employees are outlined, it is possible to fight them efficiently. Learning the key issues, one will be able to handle any conflict within the shortest amount of time.
Against the mob rule: when employees do not want change
Naturally, there will be quite a few people who will accept the changes willingly. Therefore, one of the greatest obstacles on the way for a manager to overcome the discriminatory attitudes in the team and set the course for cooperation and non-confrontational attitudes among the employees will be people’s unwillingness to change.
It can be argued that with a proper motivation, though, people will change their manner of treating the less fortunate members of the team in an appropriate way. Still, going against the power of the mob, one will have to use a proper leadership tactics, which only a person with appropriate leadership skills can handle. As Jackson and Carter stress,
Yet there is, within the theory and the practicing of managing organizational behaviour, an extraordinarily strong emphasis on the requirement for employees not to have instrumental attitudes but, on one hand, to be loyal and committed to the organization for itself and, on the other hand, to find gratification in this loyalty and commitment – to be, for example, satisfied by intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, rewards. (Jackson & Carter, 2000, p. 149)
Hence, there are reasons to believe that it is natural for employees to strive for their own intrinsic rewards; however, as Jackson and Carter stress, with the right motivation, a leader can inflict an immediate defeat to the existing discrimination moods in the team.
Organizational culture vs. company revenues
It is hard to ignore the fact that a company is headed towards getting revenues, while the relationships between the people involved in the business serve as a power enhancer in the business venture (Linstead, Fullop & Lilley, 2009). Therefore, the relationships are not a priority, but the tool with the help of which a company can help the employees reach mutual understanding and, thus, make sure that the production process is not hindered by misunderstandings of any kind. As Roberts (2001) commented on the issue,
In competing for the recognition of the value of the self in these terms, the person is individualized such that all relationships – with self, colleagues, and subordinates –come to be seen solely as means or obstacles to securing “success” in the eyes of the market. (Roberts, 2001, 110)
Therefore, the choice between introducing strong moral values and enhancing the efficiency of the employees is often rather hard. Once the emphasis is on the company morals and values, the efficiency of the production process might be hindered.
Conclusion: When Efficient Leaderships Tips the Scales
Taking into the account the fact that the personnel needs efficient guidance, as it has been shown in the previous paragraph, one can come to the conclusion that a strong leader can save the day, solving the existing conflicts. In the given case, the leader is supposed to face an especial challenge, both establishing him-/herself as a powerful authority and as a person who is going to represent the voice of morality in the team.
Hence, it must be admitted that the job of resolving inequality issues within a specific organization is an extremely challenging task. The management will have to go into great lengths to convince the staff to follow the newly established morality principles and to treat the ones who were discriminated against with due dignity and respect. However, once the measures described above are taken, one will be able to reduce the instances of discrimination to zero.
Reference List
Banerjee, S B 2008, “Neocapitalism,” Organization Studies, no. 29, pp. 1541-1563.
Cooke, B 2003, “The denial of slavery in management studies,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1895-1918.
Fineman, S & Gabriel, Y 1996, “The gods,” in S Fineman & Y Gabriel (ed), Experiencing organizations, SAGE, Stamford, CT, pp. 60-72.
Gabriel, Y 1997, “Meeting God: when organizational members come face to face with the supreme leader,” Human Relations, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 315-342.
Jackal, R 1988, “Looking up and looking around,” in Robert Jackal (ed), Moral mazes: the world of corporate managers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 75-100.
Jackson, N & Carter, P 2000, “Self,” in N Jackson & P Carter (eds) Rethinking organizational behavior: a poststructuralist framework, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 143-167.
Linstead, S, Fullop, L, & Lilley, S 2009, Management and organization, 2nd edn, Palgrave McMillan, New York, NY.
Roberts, J 2001, “Corporate governance and the ethics of Narcissus,” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 109-127.
Watson, T J 2003, “Ethical Choice in managerial work: the scope for moral choices in an ethically irrational world,” Human Relations, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 167-185.
Zimbargo, P G et al. 2000, “Reflections on the Stanford Prison experiment: genesis, transformations, consequences,” in T Blass (Ed) Obedience to authority: current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, pp. 193-257.