Introduction
Over the years, the workplace culture and landscape have attracted much attention and research following increased harassment at work. Although local and international authorities have established clear guidelines on workplace conduct, many workers have been bullied and subjected to sexual and non-sexual harassment to various degrees. The human resource department is one of the key players in mitigating this vice in the workplace. Workplace harassment can be attributed to the silence of victims, lack of accountability on the side of HR managers, and poor workplace cultures. Notably, the solution lies in developing long-term solutions that will mitigate the vice and limit the chances of future recurrence. This paper focuses on a case study involving sexual harassment at work to analyze the necessary course of action and develop HR policies for future workplace relations and cultural changes.
Affirmative Action
Individuals have different capabilities in an ideal workplace environment, calling for employee protection, equality, and inclusivity. Affirmative action is a state strategy intended to enable underrepresented groups to gain access to academic, workforce, and governmental opportunities. In 1961, John F. Kennedy’s executive orders established the policy, which declared that candidates and workers must be treated equally regardless of color, race, or nationality (Mushariwa, 2020). By 1967, the list had expanded to include religion and gender, intending to promote anti-discrimination and equitable opportunity for all individuals who had previously been oppressed. The policy’s goal is for companies and educational institutions to implement affirmative action and stop discriminating based on race, religion, or gender when allowing admission and recruitment decisions. According to Mushariwa (2020), the policy was created to ensure that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was followed. The role of affirmative action in workplaces can best be understood through the arguments raised for and against it.
Arguments for Affirmative Action
The main argument in favor of affirmative action is that it can improve workforce diversity while eliminating prejudice against some demographic groups or ethnicities. Affirmative action supporters say that if it helps minorities join or advance in a field more frequently, it will result in more people believing the area is accessible to them. As a result, the sector may gain from a more diversified applicant pool and leadership group (Mello, 2019). Second, advocates of affirmative action say that it can help companies overcome deeply rooted biases. For example, if a firm’s corporate leadership is from the same population, they will be less likely to hire someone from different demography. Mushariwa (2020) asserts that a hire-like-me prejudice entails a company’s hesitancy to hire applicants who do not fit its demographic profile. Therefore, adopting affirmative action minimizes the probability of discriminatory recruitment practices.
Third, supporters of affirmative action realize that some categories suffer a systemic barrier, meaning they lack the resources and chances to enter and participate in specific sectors. According to proponents Mushariwa (2020), the only way to overcome such impediments is to take affirmative action. Notably, many persons who were previously oppressed have the potential to contribute significantly to organizational growth. Therefore, allowing such individuals access to these sectors can result in industry growth and expansion. Lastly, affirmative action is believed to contribute to a better working environment (Mello, 2019). This results from having different racial groups collaborating to enhance a rich cultural background that supports equality and inclusion.
Counter-Arguments
The primary point against affirmative action is that it compels positions to be allocated only on the basis of demographic criteria, which could lead to artificial bias, including sexism. Since very few women had gotten to the upper ranks of academia in fall 2009, several institutions may hire more women (Mushariwa, 2020). Opponents contend that gender has little or no bearing on a leader’s ability to function. This implies that affirmative action could lead to the same problem it was established to eliminate- gender discrimination. If an organization hires more women and minorities to bridge the equality gap, it may end up discriminating against qualified men, eventually resulting in a poorly constituted workforce.
In addition to sexism, opponents of affirmative action believe that it is unfair to judge candidates based on any other attribute outside their abilities to accomplish the needed tasks. If institutions focus on gender, racial, and demographic constitutions, they may fail to achieve their goals due to inefficiencies in the workforce. Lastly, diversity is multifaceted, and focusing on multiple opinions is more important than simply aiming for racial diversity (Mushariwa, 2020). Therefore, opponents feel that affirmative action should not be applied to every setting as it may diminish important institutional values.
Addressing Workplace Harassment
One of the central roles of human resource managers (HRM) is to ensure that employees work in an environment devoid of harassment, including sexual discrimination. The first step in handling workplace sexual harassment is engaging in an unbiased investigation. According to Mujtaba and Senathip (2020), HRM should endeavor to unravel the effects and the causes of workplace harassment and address them accordingly. In the case presented, the harassed woman reported the issue to HRM for follow-up, which was found to be genuine. Although she is in a low employment position and has not been employed for a long time, she deserves to be protected under the affirmative action policy. In this regard, HRM should follow the laid-out procedures to ensure that the man found guilty of sexual harassment is charged according to the law. This will send a clear message to all employees regarding the company’s adherence to the law and its observance of healthy workplace culture.
The HRM should hold separate meetings with the victim and the accused to grasp the weight and implication of the matter fully. This is a necessary step because it may help prevent such behavior in the future. By establishing rapport with the accused, HRM will understand the root cause of sexual harassment as the man opens up on why he harassed the woman (Mujtaba &Senathip, 2020). Whether it was the lack of understanding workplace relationship policies or a disregard, the answer will facilitate the development of future control measures and enable HRM to decide the suitable punishment. According to Mello (2019), HRM should collaborate with employees and senior executives to develop effective and lasting solutions. Therefore, in this case, HRM should initiate discussions involving senior and junior employees to understand the underlying causes and trends of workplace harassment and brainstorm on viable control measures.
HR’s Role Future Harassment Solutions
Workplace relationships are significantly affected by organizational values and culture. Therefore, HRM should focus on changing aspects of their company culture that facilitate employee harassment. This may include analyzing the respective roles of senior and junior employees to determine the influence of power and positions on equity and equality. Mello (2019) argues that strategic human resource management goes beyond role allocation and spans all areas of the corporate culture. According to Perry et al. (2020), workplace culture should serve as the reference for everyone’s conduct at work, regardless of the position held. In essence, all workers should be made to understand the values to which they are expected to subscribe and the repercussions of failing to do so.
In addition to the culture, HRM should expand their knowledge on workplace harassment by benchmarking in other organizations. This will enlighten them on new trends and enable them to update organizational values accordingly. Since junior employees are more likely to adopt the behavior propagated by senior staff, the executives should be motivated to lead by example (Perry et al., 2020). In reference to the case given, the senior worker should be severely punished, possibly demoted, or fired. This will serve as a relationship guide to all workers in similar positions and prevent the recurrence of employee harassment.
Conclusion
The most critical and urgent challenges that most firms’ workers, managers, and leaders can confront in their daily activities are workplace harassment and discrimination. Although local and international laws have been formulated to mitigate employee harassment, this vice has still been ongoing. HRM ensures that the established workplace cultural practices are successful and that employees are protected from abuse and oppression. The affirmative action policy should be adopted in organizations to limit the discrimination of minority groups. HRM should deal with all harassment cases objectively and formulate clear guidelines, including updating the workplace culture and values to minimize the probability of future employee harassment.
References
Mello, J. A. (2019). Strategic human resource management (5th ed.). Cengage Learning
Mujtaba, B. G., & Senathip, T. (2020). Workplace mobbing and the role of human resources management.Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(1), 17-34. Web.
Mushariwa, M. (2020). The cycles of affirmative action in the transformation of the workplace. SA Mercantile Law Journal, 32(1), 99-112. Web.
Perry, E. L., Block, C. J., & Noumair, D. A. (2020). Leading in: Inclusive leadership, inclusive climates, and sexual harassment.Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 40 (4), pp. 430-447. Web.