HRM Role in EEO: Sheep in Shepherd’s Clothing?

Abstract

Despite a plethora of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, supporting and enforcing equal employment opportunity (EEO) principles has proven to be an enormous challenge for those charged with this responsibility. The question often asked is who should exercise this role in organizations. Not surprisingly, there has been a call for HRM to become the guardian of EEO in organizations but should human resource managers be male or female, and/or would line managers be better positioned to assume this responsibility? This paper overviews the literature and then summarizes an empirical study that attempted to address the possible impact of these options as they exist in organizations. One hundred and eighty respondents who met the criterion of having interviewed one or more job applicants in the previous 6Â months were systematically selected from business telephone listings. Based on self-reported behaviors, no significant difference was found between the expected and actual distributions of HR and line managers in respect to whether decisions were made on unlawful grounds. The percentage of each respondent category that asked unlawful questions varied from 1% to 36% depending upon the attribute (unlawful ground of discrimination) under consideration. This begs the question as to what value HR managers contribute to EEO in the selection process. The second finding was that significantly less female managers admit to making decisions on the basis of unlawful questions than male managers. Thus, support was found for female line managers as guardians of EEO but no clear justification for HRM in this role. Copyright Springer 2006Discrimination in employment, equal employment opportunity, human resource managers, illegal/unlawful behavior,

A Comparative Study of Ethical Perceptions of Managers and Non-Managers

“…Some studies have focused on particular countries outside the US, such as India (Monga, 2007), Kuwait (Ali and Ali, 2005), China (Fryxell and Lo, 2003), Malaysia (Rashid and Ho, 2003), Iran (Ali and Amirshahi, 2002), Singapore (Koh and Boo, 2001), Thailand (Singhapakdi et al, 2000), Finland (Lämsä and Takala, 2000), New Zealand (Alam, 1999), and Japan (Nakano, 1997). There have also been studies examining the ethical orientations of managers in different functional areas such as information technology (Jin, Drozdenko and Bassett, 2007), human resources management (Bennington, 2006), accounting (Shafer, 2002), and marketing (Chan and Armstrong, 1999;Mengüç, 1998;Murphy, 1999).…”

HPWS and climate for inclusion: a moral legitimacy lens

“…Inclusion-oriented HPWS have a unique status in organizations because the adoption of HR practices can serve as symbolic meanings to employees (Galang and Ferris, 1997). Indeed, HR practices have the most direct moral association with the welfare of employees (Bennington, 2006). This association implies HR’s moral obligation to organizational stakeholders, including but not limited to the welfare of its employees (Manroop and Harrison, 2016).…”