The Effects of Racial Prejudice in the Hiring for Employment, Essay Example

Introduction

Persistent racial prejudice in employment especially the process of hiring organization employees has renewed interest in the role of discrimination (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). Unlike in the pre–civil rights era, times when racial prejudice was overt and widespread, today racial prejudice is less and readily identifiable (Carl, Mark & Cooper, 1974). However, it is not clear on social scientific, conceptualization as well as measurement of the effects that the practice has on organizations as well as individuals who fall as victims (Stewart et al, 2005). There is difficulty in addressing racial prejudice in any form in the event of employment because it is hidden in most cases. The vast majority of employees in various organizations globally express disapproval of racial prejudice (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998), and in fact, most of the same employees pride themselves on the absence of racism in employment yet it is the existence in the respective places (Greenhouse & Parsuraman, 1993). In most organizations, there are relentless efforts to conceal discriminatory practices in pursuing to avoid criticism on the external world and still hold on the enormous reputation of the company on the side of consumers and pertinent shareholders (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000).

This article paper reviews the relevant literature on racial prejudice with an emphasis on racial prejudice in the hiring for employment. It has a complete definition of racial prejudice and ways through which it functions giving an overview of its effect on individuals and organizations.

What is racial prejudice?

Dovidio & Gaertner (2000) describes racial prejudice as a sinister social and moral disease affecting peoples and the general populations globally. Its diagnosis is by the cataloguing of its symptoms as well as evaluating its manifestations including fear, intolerance, discrimination, separation, segregation, and hatred. While the respective symptoms of racial prejudice manifest, the underlying and a major, cause of racial prejudice is perpetual ignorance.

How does racial prejudice feature?

Racial Prejudice features in many organizations in the event of hiring for employment (Stewart et al, 2005). The prejudice under these circumstances is systemic, that is, it builds within organizational processes and structures (Mayer et al, 2003). Prejudice in employment often involves informal activities as well as cultures making its nature one of the most complicated and difficult to identify. Because of this, there is no patent consensus on racial prejudice prevalence, policy remedy or even its practical significance within organization. Existent enforcement and policies regarding racial prejudice on the issues of employment do exist at the level of the federal laws, defined only through the Human Rights Act (HRA) as well as the Employment Equity Act (EEA); however, there is no agreement on how effective these policies apply in the employment situation.

Stewart et al (2005) argues that historically, racial prejudice hails in describing people within identified population groups holding distinguishable biological features. It is the parent that, all humans are of the same species, that is, Homo sapiens but divisions separate them through describing characteristics for instance hair texture and color, eye color, skin color, physical shape and other facial organs. Indeed, human beings are outwardly different; the problem arises in prejudice against one another creating levels of separation and hatred (Carl, Mark & Cooper, 1974).

Stark et al (2006) adds that, racial prejudice takes advantage of the uniqueness of the different races and takes the view that the respective differences separate persons further into groups, with the groups holding varying positions (Petersen & Seidel, 2005). Racial prejudice affects almost everyone in a particular society. In as much as prejudice manifests itself, every individual holds some level of discriminatory minds against other people from a distinct race.

Greenhouse and Parsuraman (1993) say that it is common for human beings to characterize other people consciously or unconsciously when they are not familiar with them, basing on what we see. Again, this is because of individual’s ignorance of the real personality or the character of a person. Most of the times, the opinions formed the base on stereotypical lines for instance, “people of a particular race are. . .” in the context of racial prejudice applications, it happens almost in every entity of human life bringing forth some elements of discriminations in groups. Workplaces and other social places are the most vulnerable areas where racial prejudice is prominent.

Hidden Racial Prejudice

Covert or hidden racial prejudice in employment comes in several but different forms (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). In some situations, the employer simply keeps racially prejudiced views well under wraps. In others, there are many attempts by an organization to rationalize discriminatory decisions through referencing negative characteristics allegedly applicable to the prejudiced racial minority (Stark et al, 2006). In this situation, it acts as a cover up to the racial prejudice and plays down any assertion of discrimination in employment. Many of the stereotypes are false, derived from ancient folklore or from some outdated beliefs that do not apply to the individual’s competence. The stereotypes hold their strength in unconscious association of the members in a particular group, to justify their disqualifications in particular post (Stewart et al, 2005).

Systemic Racial Prejudice

The term systemic prejudice within an employment setting came to being with the first introduction from the Abella Commission (1984). The commission was relating and comparing the issue to racial minorities mostly women and several other potential targets of racial prejudice. Institutional discrimination is also another term referring to almost the same thing. Both terms mainly refer to situations in which members are denied opportunities because of established procedure and practice in an organization (Mayer et al, 2003). The procedures and practice may include the organization’s formal rules for instance height rules tending to exclude some groups yet they have no correlation to the capacity of the job in question. Another notable example is the uniform rules that forbid all organization’s members from wearing turbans therefore, ruling out the Sikhs in such organizations (Stewart et al, 2005).

Other applicability of racial prejudice?

Systemic prejudice is also applicable to many other informal practices attached to the normal organizational life that have literally become part of the organizational system. This include the complex means in which employment systems constitute several barriers that prevent the hiring, promotion or retention of racial minorities (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). The barriers include informal selection basing on unnecessary qualifications for the job or a preference of long-term employees. Many of the respective organization’s practices are not discriminatory in the preliminary stages of implementation but facilitate prejudice with the frequent changing racial composition of the organization’s labor force (Petersen & Seidel, 2005).

Negative racial stereotypes and discriminatory systemic practices exist together, and in fact, they reinforce each other. When employment practices develop discriminatory effects, they go unnoticed most of times because of the blinded spot reinforced by negative racial stereotypes that usually stand as an unstated justification. Negative stereotypes on the other hand, enjoy reinforcement from the exclusion of minorities (Stewart et al, 2005). This is because the systemic exclusion of the minorities seems to be a confirmation on the set beliefs that they do not have qualifications for the job therefore, do not deserves a plan in the organization. This propels the issues of racial prejudice and makes the practice stronger within organizations.

How prejudice manifests in the hiring process

When going for interviews, many individuals tend to improve their efforts into their appearance and clothing, because of a prevailing belief that the physical appearance has an effect on the employer’s choice either increasing or decreasing the probability of being hired (Greenhouse & Parsuraman, 1993). Although overt racial prejudice expressions declines with the new enlightened age and over the past period of 20-35 years, there are still evidenced cases of modern employment compromise following racial prejudice (Kim et al, 2006).

Stewart conducted a meta-analysis in 2001 and found a variety of results on effects of racial prejudice in hiring and other fields of college admissions decisions. Some studies confirm that there is assuredly no effect but in reality, a substantial effect features in the field of employment. Stewart advanced that racial prejudice has been the key challenge that leads to a fall in an organization’s production (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). Many organizations hire people based on familiarity friendship and other racial ties without considering qualifications therefore, bringing down the level of innovativeness in the organizations. The worst part of racial prejudice in hiring institutions applies when the routine becomes a disease. That is why many organizations tend to continue the trend because the disease grows and spreads within the organization therefore, compromising justice and effective hiring of employees (Kim et al, 2006).

How does it affect the organization?

Racial prejudice in the hiring process denies organizations an element of workforce diversity. Work force diversity is the existence of varying composition of employees within the organization’s operating system or a particular department of the organization (Blair et al, 2002). The diversity measures upon psychological, organizational structure or demographic domains (Stewart et al, 2005). Diversity is relevant in any organization to enhance innovativeness and cohesion within groups working for the organization. Racial prejudice in the organization raises issues of differences in behaviors, perceptions and attitudes all contributing to features of unequal power relationship in the work place among the existent diverse groups (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). Prejudice manifests in stereotypes that are apparent in the work relations therefore, distorting and limiting individual perceptions of attributes and power regarding influence sources. The result is discrimination against the minority of sidelined groups in the work place causing a division and therefore, posing as a great enemy of cohesive productivity (Hanges et al, 2005). Racial prejudice in hiring hinders individual group members from the marginalized groups to contribute to the goals of the organization or even achieve full potential. It introduces elements of bias at the work place including gender, nationality, race, age and levels of departmental affiliation. The result if ineffectiveness of the individuals lowering their output and causing an effect on the overall production within organizations.

Additionally, in the hiring process, racial prejudice expressions are through subtle nonverbal, behaviors for instance vocal attributes, facial expressions, and body movements. Cooper et al. (1974) research repeatedly shows that there is a tendency of whites expressing racial prejudice towards blacks when it comes to hiring (Stewart et al, 2005). Most of the discriminations feature through interpersonal “coldness” that include less eye contact, more physical distance, fewer smiles, and interpersonal threat for instance frequent blinking (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). It is apparent that nonverbal cues, including interpersonal distance, gaze aversion and less smiling are all features of avoidance featuring in the hiring process (Blair et al, 2002). It is prominent in many interviews that many employers have perceptions in their minds regarding individuals coming in to seek for opportunities and this develops into racial prejudice leading to a dislike of some individuals in the selection process (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998).

Psychological principles for instance associative learning suggest that an individual can learn and develop an effect of disliking novel categories of humans or objects through observation and pairing of the individuals or objects to evaluative attributes. In the process, the individual learns to hate of like certain individuals or objects (Blair et al, 2002). This is a common phenomenon within workplaces, where the hiring processes experiences effects of such kind (Stewart et al, 2005). The employers generalize on particular groups through a continued experience of particular groups. Some of the groups might be named “lazy or industrious” without considering individual attributes (Franz, 2002). In this context, racial prejudice features in the hiring process forcing employers to discard or not consider individual members of particular groups (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000).

Other psychological phenomena for instance social proof suggest that individuals have evolved to an facet of referencing each other in making decisions regarding what is acceptable or bad as this is the only efficient way of navigating and thriving in the complex social world (Greenwald, 1998). Referencing others in the employment field has powerful effects that lead to irrational choices when hiring and recruiting individuals in an organization (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998).

In a social world where interactions are of the essence from time to the other, racial prejudice is contagious. There is always a level of argument that observing events of cheating and dishonesty increases individual’s own unethical behaviors. The idea in this argument explains such behaviors as equally contagious, transmitted through social referencing (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). The social tuning hypothesis is a strong supporter of this argument in explaining racial prejudice within organizations. It is apparent that many hiring process engage judgments in the selection criteria biased by elements of racial prejudice learnt through social referencing (Drake et al, 1985).

Challenges in controlling racial prejudice

Employment equity policy has been of use in many organizations globally. However, its effectiveness experiences draw backs in the sense that individuals find it difficult to overcome racial prejudice. It’s a disease infringed in the social system and spreads from generation to the other (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). Policies in employment equity are generally not particularly effective; they ask the same employers who run the recruitment process to look systematically at the bottom line of the matter and promote representation of designated groups for instance the minorities within a workplace compared to the supply of labor and to look into problem areas (Hanges et al, 2005). This in turn, is taken lightly and has no ground because the employers still have the upper hand bringing down any attempts of controlling racial prejudice in employment (Blair et al, 2002).

Human rights complaints on racial prejudice in employment have been difficult in the pursuit of sustenance, because many tribunals require clear proof of all kinds of discriminatory activities in the process of hiring for employment on the part of employers (Blair et al, 2002). This makes it a compromise process because some of the events are unrecorded and cannot be accounted for meaning that the discriminatory practice go down in drains without any justice (Carl, Mark & Cooper, 1974). Racial prejudice therefore, holds a stronger position and continues to thrive among communities including organizations. There exist difficult situations in proving racial prejudice cases in organizations making the complaints process frustrating and extremely ineffective in address the issue (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998).

In order to curb or control racial prejudice in the hiring for employment there is a need to develop a developmental approach. Dovidio & Gaertner (2000) contributes to the idea that an amicable solution to racial prejudice can be possible through drafting and implementing policies at the workplace against any form of discrimination (Hanges et al, 2005). However, he contends that these policies can only be manageable and applicable if there are external organizations to facilitate them and not the same employers in the organization (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). Employers who have not set these clear policies need urgency in developing several anti-discrimination policies with clear standards on what should be done to enhance cohesiveness and fairness in the organization recruiting process (Franz, 2002). In this context, there is a need for organizations to put down in writing these discrimination policies and stated as a requirement for all employees across all departments (Blair et al, 2002).

Conclusion

All the same, racial discrimination features prominently in the hiring process (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). As discussed, it has negative effects on the organization as well as on the individuals, all which are destructive to the effective running of the organization as well as its productivity in the present and most harmful in the future. In the hiring for employment process, there are connotations describing smart individuals in not only brain wise but also the physical appearance. Individuals therefore, tend to comply with the connoted looks of smart individuals when seeking for opportunities in organizations (Stewart et al, 2005). To curb the menace it is good to formulate the policies as laws governing the organization in the recruitment process (Greenwald, 1998). Thoroughly investigate particularly on all reported allegations of discrimination is of the essence in any given organization to prevent future repetitive behaviors. The allegations need serious handling including incorporating the laws on punishments and penalties set for such discriminative practices (Frazer & Wiersma, 2001; Blair et al, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Drake et al, 1985; Greenwald, 1998). The claimant also needs respectful treatment as well as understanding to facilitate a better hiring process for the organization in the subsequent times. There is a need for substantial progress for all organizations to facilitate effective approaches to control and reduce any cases of racial prejudice and advance fairness in the hiring process (Stewart et al, 2005).

References

Blair, I.V et al (2002). The role of Afro centric facial features in person perception: Judging by features and categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 5–25.

Carl O.W., Mark P.Z. & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Volume 10, Issue 2, March 1974, Pages 109-120.

Dovidio, J.F. & Gaertner, S.L. (2000). Aversive racism in selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315–319.

Drake, M.F. et al (1985). Influence of applicant’s dress on interviewer’s selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 374-378.

Franz, M.M. (2002). Latino phenotypic discrimination revisited the impact of skin color on occupational status. Social Science Quarterly, 83(2), 612-623.

Frazer, R. & Wiersma, U. (2001). Prejudice versus discrimination in the employment interview: We may hire equally, but our memories harbor prejudice. Human Relations, 54(2), 173-191.

Greenhouse, J.H. & Parsuraman, S. (1993). Job performance attributions and career advancement prospect: An examination of race and gender effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273 – 297.

Greenwald, A.G. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.

Hanges, P. J. et al. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 553-562.

Kim, C. et al. (2006). The Continuing Significance of Race in the Occupational Attainment of Whites and Blacks: A Segmented Labor Market Analysis. Sociological Inquiry, 76(1), 23-51.

Mayer, J. D. et al. (2003). Demographic shifts and racial attitudes: How tolerant are whites in the most diverse generation? Social Science Journal, 40(1), 19-31.

Petersen, T. & Seidel, M. (2005). Getting hired: Sex and race Industrial Relations. Journal of Economy & Society, 44(3), 416-443.

Stark, C. P. et al. (2006). The influence of physical appearance on personnel selection. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 613-624.

Stewart, L. D. et al. (2005). Applicant race, job status, and racial attitude as predictors of  employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 259-275.

Annotated Bibliography

Blair, I. V et al (2002) discusses role of Afro centric facial features in person perception. It explains how individuals judge people through what they see physically and therefore explains why people prefer some people to the others in their choice.

Carl O. W, Mark P. Z. & Cooper, J. (1974) describes the way people relate and make contacts with others of their choice using nonverbal mediations. It discusses the verbal similarities that make people choose who to prefer and in what circumstances.

Dovidio, J.F. & Gaertner, S.L. (2000) is a discussion on racism and the way it affects individual selection decisions with a preference to other people of the same race.

Drake, M.F. et al (1985) reviews some of the biases including physical appearance (dressing) also how it relates with success in interviewer.

Franz, M.M. (2002) is a study on Latino phenotypic discrimination highlighting the impact of skin color especially on occupational status and choice.

Frazer, R. & Wiersma, U. (2001) is an argument on prejudice and the way it facilitates discrimination in the employment situations especially in the hiring process.

Greenhouse, J.H. & Parsuraman, S. (1993) examines the race and gender issues pertaining to an influence in job performance and possibilities of career advancement

Greenwald, A.G., (1998) is a discursive argument on individual differences and the way they affect preferences especially on person-to-person relations.

Hanges, P. J. et al. (2005) reviews elements of employment discrimination highlighting some aspects of attitudes, climate for racial bias and motivation as the main propellers of racial prejudice.

Kim, C. et al. (2006) is an argument on how race dictates the occupational attainment for varying individuals between whites and blacks.

Mayer, J. D. et al. (2003) highlights the demographic shifts, racial attitudes, and their effect on occupational status as well as preferences in choices.

Petersen, T. & Seidel, M. (2005) is a study on how sex and race and human attributes affect the hiring process within organizations.

Stark, C. P. et al. (2006) is a review of the influence of physical appearance on matters pertaining personnel selection dictating what individuals prefer over others expounding on why it happens.

Stewart, L. D. et al. (2005) reviews issues of job application success being affected by racial attitude of employers therefore having to face employment discrimination.