There are three main issues in sex discrimination against women and they deal with; sexism, sexual abuse and harassment and sexual stereotyping.
Sexism is stated as Boehkle (2001, page 208, 8) as “denoting a breach of the humanist conviction that all individuals ought to be recognized as unique personalities”. Sexism is an issue that can affect the career progress of a woman trying to establish themselves on a higher hierarchical position especially having a position at senior management.
A recent article in the Observer newspaper titled “Top jobs for the girls? Far too few in our lifetime” (2003, The Observer, 4) states how women occupy fewer seats in boardrooms of large FTSE 100 organisation. This year there has been a slight increase of the number of companies with women on board which rose from 61% to 68% which has been a biggest annual jump seen since 1999. However, there is noticeable pressure on companies to break this “Glass ceiling” attitude on how women who are prevented from entering this high level position of authority in the private and profit seeking companies. It is a frustrating subject for women as they can see a barrier as an indirect discrimination on the deep-rooted sexist culture that is present in such well known organisations.
The article shows how companies (2003, The Observer, 4) “say that there is not enough talent around” and are unwilling to let them have senior managerial posts instead what they are trying to establish is that by allowing women to enter the barrier will cause a change within the sexist culture already present and therefore there is a reduction in the power of supporters within the company. Marks and Spencer has a third of the total of women present as executives and two non-executives on their board, which is one of the highest numbers of women present.
Another factor which contributes to sexism is that there is a ‘fear of success’, as women’s traditional expectations have got them into practicing ‘success avoidance’ and therefore prevents them from believing that it is possible to take the role of an executive. Another factor which is related to this article is the notion of “a woman’s culture” this shows that women aren’t ‘fearful’ of success instead they are aware of what constitutes achievements, which is critical of leading market driven society (2001, page 206, 8).
The article also states how various countries such as Norway have taken the pressure of having more women recruited at top levels. The Government wants 40% of board seats to be occupied by women and it is threatening legislation if companies do not comply. However, protests have lead to complaints that good male candidates are being ignored in the panic to comply.
With the consequentialist approach and the utilitarianism analysis shows how a group of individuals are affected as the result of the decision not to allow women to have positions in higher level restricts company performance and efficiency and effective running. The organisations benefits aren’t maximized as the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people aren’t increased. The costs and benefits for the employees are decreased as women are offended and don’t have the opportunity to show their capabilities. The utilitarian theory can help resolve such conflicts and encourage an objective way to approach to such a moral- decision making. The teleological ethics systems take on a results-oriented approach therefore calculating the greatest good can be difficult. Discrimination here is seen as unethical.
The Golden Rule which states ( 2001, page 91, 7) “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” signifies the company did not think that their decision to be discriminating an individual or group can happen to them at anytime. Therefore as stated by Freeman’s Stakeholder (2001, page 328 to 329, 8) theory narrow definition stakeholders should be treated fairly and the doctrine of fair contracts should be employed, with the rules of ‘veil of ignorance’ being followed. Therefore other directors should have a duty of care towards stakeholders including women executives. Aristotle (2001, page 27, 7) believed that “everyone can learn how to behave from experience and that we become moral by working at it”.
Sexual abuse and harassment is the second main issue of sex discrimination, Taylor defines sexual abuse and harassment as (2001, page 209, 8) “any interaction between two or more individuals with sexual implications or overtones in which at least one of the individuals involved is a devalued person. However there must also be a distinction between the perpetrator(s) and victim(s), which indicates that the interaction is neither solicited nor wanted by the victim(s)”. Many ethical issues are raised as the victim is seriously affected and their right and values are degraded by such harassment.
An article from (2003, The Guardian, 11) which has shown an individual who was affected by such sexual abuse as directors allegedly drove her close to a nervous breakdown. Men on board of the Healthcare recruitment company: Match Group sent her sexually explicit e-mails, “treated her with a mixture of ridicule and contempt”. Two other city investors appointed a new chairman also treated women as “sex objects”. She was later unfairly dismissed because they “did not like working with a woman”. She lost her £190,000 a year post as a chief executive. This type of sexual abuse and harassment lead to Ms Beadle becoming an “outsider” despite being a major shareholder of the company, as the distribution of power and control was seriously threatened with this incident as she had no power even as a CEO to do something about it in the environment that she worked in. She as an individual was devalued and lost all dignity and moral worth as an individual with feelings and emotions. Her personal freedom was invaded as she was unable to successfully pursue her daily work.
By following the consequential approach to analyse this situation by use of utilitarianism which shows that it had a damaging impact on the individual as she had lost her job, and suffered at work by living a lower standard in the working environment. The consequences that the company had were a destruction and negative image portrayed by their treatment to women. The individual’s self interest was seen to be maximized as egoism endorses moral rightness. The performance of the organisation was also affected and productivity was affected as the individual could not perform to the standards that she may have been capable of completing. This incident showed direct discrimination in which it was a deliberate form of discrimination and is ethically wrong.
A Kantian approach to sexual abuse and harassment analysis signifies that respect of persons should be taken place and therefore it is a duty within the workforce to show equality. The duty of the organisation was not carried out effectively as they did not respect all employees equally and an employee was discriminated and unfairly dismissed. The organisation did not give her rights however they did not fulfill their duty to obey company policy by treating everyone fairly in the organisation. Her employee rights (Article 23 paragraph 1) were destroyed as she was unable to “work in a just and favorable condition of work” and lost her “protection against unemployment”. The organisation was therefore morally wrong and unethical as they did not analyse carefully the reasons and it was a biased decision.
Kant states (1993, Pg 99, 2) “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity... never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end”. This shows that the organisation treated the woman merely as “a sex object” and not as a human with feelings, emotions and capable of aims which they believe so deeply in. The cost for the organisation by acting unethically totaled to a compensation of £2.2 million, which was very high and therefore gives an example to other organisations not to act in these unethical manners and it is essential for employees to understand a.
Sexual stereotyping is the third main issue in sex discrimination, Vandendorpe (2001, page 210, 8) defines sexual stereotyping as “the assignment of emotional and ability characteristics to all men and women, solely on the basis of their physical sexual identity”. This shows that it occurs when certain characteristics on the foundation of gender are allocated. In one article the stereotype for female ‘executive are as single, childless and driven’. However women are usually stereotyped that childcare and nursing is a women's work, where as the man’s work is out on the building site. However, perceptions are changing and have considerably changed as an article (2003, The Guardian, 2) on how a male nurse was paid less than his female colleagues and he was the only man in a 12 strong team of theatres nurses at Walton hospital, Liverpool. He completed the same work but was paid less than the women.
During selection and recruitment selection of a potential employee must be carried out on an equality bases (2000, page 144, 10). Therefore stereotyping can occur in this type of situation as women may be perceived as passive and too dependent.
Men and women should not be looked at their stereotype roles instead should be promoted on experience, academic knowledge and be able to fulfill the criteria that the job requires. The Kantian approach again signifies that humans should be treated with respect and “good will is the only thing that is good in itself” (1991, page 75, 9) and therefore it is morally wrong to discriminate against certain candidates on grounds of unrelated to their fitness for the job. Kant’s ethics gives us standards that do not depend on results; instead it helps moral decision making and acting on a principle and from a sense of duty. The employee was concerned with justice and gaining his basic human rights. Josephson (2001, Pg92, 6) suggests people behave unethically because they are insensitive and unaware of others therefore selfishness and defective reasoning leads to such unethical behaviour.
Policies and legislations are in force to protect employees and the organisation in certain situations. Affirmative action is a policy that acknowledges certain individual and groups that have been disadvantaged and therefore try to readdress the balance. Special schemes can be set up to assist the disadvantaged groups; a company may launch a publicity drive to attract individuals from different ethnic groups.
Legal actions are there to guarantee firstly that negative rights aren’t suspended from any individual or groups within an organisation and for an organisation to show that positive rights are reinstated within the workforce by demonstrating that equal opportunities are being provided between men and women.
As with the case of Littlewoods (1994, Page 298, 1) John Moores initiated an affirmative action programme to allow staff from minority backgrounds to be employed in the Liverpool, Church Street. The rethinking of the firm’s policies with staff training allowed staff to have understood the meaning of equality and allowing other minorities to work together on the shop floor and not be discriminated because of the colour of their skin. The balance of the workforce was restored and customers from other backgrounds shopped there more. This signifies the Kantian belief that humans should have more respect within the workforce no matter the colour of their skin. They should have equal rights during recruitment and the duty to make changes to ensure that the ends are better.
Contract Compliance is a policy which tackles unfairness by discriminating in favour of enterprises which accomplish equal opportunity targets that show contemplation of equality during employment and recruitment selection.(2003, Government Website, 12)
The Equal Opportunities Commission and The Commission for Racial Equality were established to promote and maintain equality opportunity within the workplace and as part of this responsibility; they produce codes of practice which provide guidelines to employers and employees on the meaning of the legislation. It ensures the compliance of the law, The Sex Discrimination Act (1975) Equal Pay Act (1974) and many other acts are broken up into certain segments which provide the employers and employees the protection within the organisation. (2003, Government Website, 11).
In conclusion the examples shown in this essay provide evidence how discrimination affects an individual or a group of individuals within a workforce. Unethical behaviour carried out by organisations affects individuals greatly and therefore they believe that their basic human rights have been breached and by taking organisations to court also shows the public how companies operate therefore companies are liable to pay compensation and readdress the shareholders grievances.
Bibliography
- Cannon, T. (1994) Corporate Responsibility. Pitman.
- Carter, H. (12/07/03) “Male nurse wins bias pay claim”, The Guardian.
- Chryssides, G D. (1993) Kaler J H. An Introduction to Business Ethics. International Thomson Business Press.
- Connon, H, (16/11/03) “Top jobs for our girls? Far too few in our lifetime” The Observer.
- DesJardins, J, R, McCall, J J, (2000) Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics, 4th Edition Wadsworth Publishing Company.
-
Hoffman, W M, Frederick, RE. (2001) Business Ethics 4th edition, McGraw –Hill.
- McEwan, T, (2001) Managing Values and Beliefs in Organisations, FT Prentice Hall.
- Shaw, W H, (1991) Business Ethics, Wadsworth.
- Sternberg, E. (2000) Just Business, Oxford University Press.
- Vasagar, J, (15/11/03) “£2.2 million for woman frozen out of her own company by “sexist” directors”. The Guardian.
-
Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1657, The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2003.
- Sustainable Development in Government, (2003)
.
