There are three main stereotypes which cause bias in the selection of employees;
Sex-role stereotypes
This is the belief that differing traits and abilities make men and women particularly well suited to different roles. The idea of equal opportunity for women in the work place has been a continuing issue in politics for a number of years. Although progress has been made it is important to note that prejudice and discrimination is still evident. Indeed, in spite of the fact that women constituted 42% of the EU labour force in 1998 they continue to encounter the ‘glass ceiling.’ This is phrase used to describe the invisible barrier which blocks women and minorities from top management positions. Similarly, as of 1998 women were still paid less than man, and tended to earn less than man in all EU member states. According to the Industrial Society, the pay gap does not generally result from direct discrimination against women. Instead it has arisen from deeply held views about womens’ abilities, why women work, and the value of their work. These are biases which may influence employee selection to not employ a female. Indeed, Crombie argues that management jobs are closed to women by male bias and discrimination, not because women lack ambition, capability or the “right” personality traits.
This can be seen by gender stereotypes which work in favour of women. For example they are considered to be more expressive and more participative than men. A survey which tested personalities of students on a university management course showed results that there were few personality differences between the sexes. The female students had some strong ‘masculine’ personality traits. Therefore it could be argued that women exaggerate the masculine facets of their personalities to help them compete effectively with men. The fact that women feel the need to do this highlights the problem of gender bias in the work force.
However, the key question is whether these stereotypes influence the hiring evaluation and promotion of people at work. A meta-analysis of 19 studies comprising 1,842 individuals found no significant relationships between applicant gender and hiring recommendations. In other terms, there was no pro-male bias. However, there was considerable evidence of bias in the field of promotion decisions. In general it has been shown that men receive a more favourable evaluation in spite of controlling for age, education, organizational tenure, salary grade and type of job. Indeed, men are consistently judged to be better leaders than women. There is evidence to suggest bias against attractive female applicants also. In a study by Heilman and Saruwatari they argued that when we assess attractive people, we make the perceptual error of assuming that they conform to their gender stereotype. For this reason attractive females lose out as they are though to be more feminine and consequently not suitable for managerial positions. To avoid this type of bias this research implicates that good looking women should appear plain and masculine to avoid stereotyping. However, to offer this as a means of minimising bias against women seems ridiculous.
As the traditional image of the weaker woman is still entrenched among many employers it is important to discuss how it is possible to minimise this bias. We give more favourable judgements to people who have characteristics in common with us. These are the characteristics that we look for and recognise without difficulty in others. Therefore, it may be possible to reduce prejudice against women by having more female interviewers considering recruitment in a company. However, this may create problems of jealousy between the employer and the employee which could lead to greater bias against female candidates. The Bank of Montreal found that stereotypes were the primary obstacle to women’s advancement. They followed this up by improving career planning, increasing flexible scheduling and holding managers accountable for advancing women. These small changes have led to an increase of 6% in female senior executives in the Bank in five years. By encouraging women to apply for promotion and making it clear that they will not be discriminated against companies can achieve their aim of minimising bias.
Age stereotypes
There is a lot of age discrimination amongst the work force and it is generally more difficult for older candidates to gain employment. Long standing age stereotypes depict older workers as less satisfied, not as involved with their work, less motivated, not as committed, less productive than their younger co-workers and more apt to being absent from work. However, as with gender stereotypes, these prejudices about older members of the work force are often untrue.
Regardless of this, ageism is becoming a serious bias against prospective employees. Statistics show that only two-thirds of men over 50 are in the work force today, compared to 85% in 1979. This is due to demand for older works not being as strong anymore. Due to new technologies the need for skill gained over a number of years in employment is no longer necessary. This has created a bias against selection of older workers for new jobs. However, research has shown that older employees are not less productive. Indeed, age and experience predicted a better performance for more complex jobs and job experience had a stronger relationship with performance than age.
Biases towards older workers often stems from a belief that they will be absent more often and are more likely to quit. However, a meta-analysis revealed that age was inversely related to both voluntary and involuntary absenteeism. Older employees were also found to quit less often than younger employees. Therefore, contrary to stereotypes, older workers are ready and able to meet their job requirements.
Like gender stereotypes it is difficult to avoid pre conceptions of older members of the work force. By not collecting enough information about the potential employee the companies may be biasing against the candidates. For example, it would be unfair to assume an older candidate has a history of absenteeism without checking their employment history. By collecting and consciously using more information about that candidate the employer may be able to avoid prejudicing against them. This may lead to a greater percentage of older people being employed.
Race stereotypes
At least 20 per cent of the population of Europe’s major cities come from minority or migrant communities. However, there is not a large percentage of ethnic minority managers in Europe. A recent survey detailing the extent of racism in the UK building industry has revealed that more than half of the potential ethnic minority recruits in the survey thought they would not have the same chance of job success and get the same pay as a white person. It is clear to see that in employee selection there is a bias against ethnic minorities. Indeed, researchers have found a similar ‘glass ceiling’ for minorities as with women workers. Nearly four decades after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave legal equality to minorities, charges of harassment at work based on race or national origin have more than doubled, to nearly 9,000 a year, since 1990, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (charts). This is due to prejudices in the work force about ethnic minority workers.
The reasons for prejudices against ethnic minorities are historical. Due to slavery and poor inter country migration in the past. However, these deep rooted prejudices about ethnic minority workers are carried through to work places in current times. Before the 1980s, the idea that a minority could influence a majority was not a widely held view among social psychologists. However, more recently, due to a study by Moscovici, minority influencing has become an accepted and recognised aspect of decision making. Despite this, ethnic minorities are still not getting as much attention as their native counterparts.
A study, covering black and white managers examined the relationship of race to employee attitudes. The results showed that blacks, when compared to whites, perceived lower managerial discretion on their jobs, had lower levels of career satisfaction and received lower performance ratings. Negative findings like these led to investigations about whether race stereotypes actually bias performance ratings and hiring decisions.
It is important for employers to focus on developing ethnic minorities. To enable this to happen they could increase managers’ sensitivities to invalid racial stereotypes. By developing self awareness and learning to understand personal biases, managers could avoid discriminating against ethnic minorities due to their own dated views. It is crucial for employers to take their time before judging prospective employees and learning to not see what they expect or want to see. By doing this employers could reduce the bias against ethnic minority selection in the work place.
In conclusion the key managerial challenge is to make decisions that are impartial to race, age or gender. This is an extremely difficult process. However, companies can begin by educating themselves about the problems of stereotyping through employee training. Social scientists believe that interpersonal contact among mixed groups is the best way to reduce stereotypes because it provides people with more information about the characteristics of the other groups of people. Courses in social skills, self awareness and personal growth are widely available. They emphasise openness in personal relationships and the giving of non-evaluative feedback on how people on such courses perceive each other. Similarly, it is possible for organisations to create opportunities for diverse employees to meet and work together in groups of equal status. By bringing together groups that are prejudiced against in an atmosphere which does not allow one’s own characteristics to affect the way we perceive others the bias of selection of employees could be minimised. Another method to minimise bias is to decrease the differences in job experience across groups of people. If this was added to evaluation of performance managers may be able to achieve their aim of decision making free of bias.
Bibliography
Books
Case Studies in Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management - D Gowler, K Legge, C Clegg, 2nd Edition 1993 London
Case Studies in Organizational Behaviour - K Legge, C Clegg, N Kemp 1985 London
Psychology in Organisations, The Social Identity Approach - S. Alexander Haslam 2001 London
Organisation Theory, Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives - M Jo Hatch 1997 New York
Organisational Behaviour – Marc Buelens 2002, New York
Organisational Behaviour An Introductory Text – D Buchanan, A Huczynski 1985 UK
Websites
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_31/b3743084.htm
Journals
E Rana, ‘Construction employers vow to put house in order’ People Management, 20 May 1999
S Shellenbarger, ‘Work and Family: Shedding Light on Women’s Records Dispels Stereotypes’, The Wall Street Journal, December 20 1995
M Heilman, L Saruwatari, ‘When beauty is beastly: the effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs’, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1979, vol. 23, no.1
J Burns, ‘Gender Pay Gap Persists’ The Financial Times
R Steiberg, S Shapiro, ‘Sex differences in personality traits of female and male Masters of Business Administration students’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, vol. 67, no.3
J D Olian, D P Schwab and Y Haberfeld, ‘The Impact of Applicant Gender Compared to Qualifications on Hiring Recommendations’ Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, November 1994
Lievens, F. et al ‘Recent trends and challenges in personnel selection’ Personnel Review, 31
Robertson IT, Smith ‘Personnel Selection’ Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74
Marc Buelens - Organisational Behaviour –2002, New York, p41
Marc Buelens - Organisational Behaviour –2002, New York, p41
J Burns, ‘Gender Pay Gap Persists’ The Financial Times, 15 September 2000
R Steiberg, S Shapiro, ‘Sex differences in personality traits of female and male Masters of Business Administration students’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, vol. 67, no.3, pp 306-10
J D Olian, D P Schwab and Y Haberfeld, ‘The Impact of Applicant Gender Compared to Qualifications on Hiring Recommendations’ Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, November 1994, pp 180-95
M Heilman, L Saruwatari, ‘When beauty is beastly: the effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs’, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1979, vol. 23, no.1, pp. 360-72
S Shellenbarger, ‘Work and Family: Shedding Light on Women’s Records Dispels Stereotypes’, The Wall Street Journal, December 20 1995, pB1
Organisational Behaviour – Marc Buelens 2002, New York p44
E Rana, ‘Construction employers vow to put house in order’ People Management, 20 May 1999, p11
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_31/b3743084.htm