Transform or Conform? Essay Example

Introduction

The case example offers an examination of the challenges that are related to how different types of treatment of employees in the workplace setting may have a lasting impact on their employment and their self-confidence. In spite of the efforts made through regulatory means, oppression continues to evolve and expand in the workplace on many different levels. This requires an understanding of the dynamics of a specific situation and to recognize where a situation takes a turn into a negative place that is difficult to overcome. The workplace environment is challenging in many ways and individuals to aim to act as professional as possible, in spite of the conditions that exist. A discussion of some of the issues related to workplace conflicts, discrimination, and other issues will be addressed in the following paragraphs in order to provide a framework for achieving fair treatment in the workplace.

Body

Oppression is the ability to exercise authority in different ways in order to undermine an individual and to create a situation whereby he or she is overcome by a specific set of circumstances that impact one’s status, whether it is in the workplace or elsewhere. Oppression in the workplace is not uncommon and requires an examination of the causes of these actions, and whether or not management is able to grasp the consequences of a given situation without difficulty. Oppression is a challenging situation because it requires an individual to take a step back and to recognize that fairness in the workplace is not always the case and that other characteristics play a role in shaping an environment where it is possible that individuals who have presumably not done anything wrong face the blame for another situation or for actions that they are not essentially responsible for. Eliminating oppression from the workplace in its entirety is essentially impossible; therefore, it requires individuals to be professionals at all times and to take notice of actions that may be deemed suspicious or oppressive in nature and to exercise caution with these events.

Oppression emerges in many different forms and requires individuals to take notice of the different issues that may occur within a given situation, thereby creating an environment where it is necessary to state one’s case and to make sense of the circumstances. An organization must also be responsible for acting in the best interest of its employees and in taking action as necessary to address circumstances that may be out of the realm of professional conduct in one form or another. Oppression in the workplace requires management teams and other individuals to take notice of the actions that have occurred and to recognize how to best approach a situation with an open mind in order to effectively achieve the intended outcomes and to be fair to all employees as best as possible, even when the circumstances are suspect. Oppression also requires individual employees and managers to examine specific situations thoughtfully and with the appropriate mindset in order to achieve a fair result.

Scapegoating also reflects a situation in which an individual, who may at least partially responsible for a set of events, tries to place the blame on another person and to have the other individual pay the price for the actions that have taken place. This is a difficult situation and often leads innocent individuals to pay the price for the actions that have been taken, even when the true blame is on somebody else. This requires an examination of the different aspects of a given situation and to determine what is necessary to prevent an individual or a group of individuals from being the scapegoat in a given situation. Scapegoating is a challenging situation in which there is likely to be tension and reflects a need to further examine the circumstances in order to make an accurate assessment regarding these events.

Tyranny of the majority involves a situation whereby the dominating majority is in control of a given situation and does not act in the best interests of the minority, thereby contributing to oppression. This is an important reminder of the different situations in which the majority rules and this decision has a negative impact on the outcomes that are observed. This is a challenging set of circumstances and requires an examination of the entire situation in order to make decisions that will have a lasting impact on the situation. Most importantly, it is necessary to evaluate the conditions under which tyranny of the majority is observed and where the intent lies with this process, as it may reflect a need to observe a dynamic that will have a lasting impact on the minority over time.

A legitimizing myth is defined as follows: “attitudes, values, beliefs, stereotypes, and ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justification for the social practices that distribute social value within the social system” (Hodson, 2012). This set of behaviors requires an examination of the different areas that are impacted by decision-making and to determine what is required to manage a situation without aiming to legitimize any stereotypes that have been created. There is likely to be a difficult set of conditions that reflect a challenge for an organization to make sense of the stereotypes that exist in order to prevent making them legitimate within these walls, and to promote discrimination by the sheer nature of these beliefs within the workplace environment.

Intolerance in the workplace is a challenging phenomenon because it creates unnecessary tension and challenges the status quo within a given situation in many ways. It requires an understanding of the dynamics that exist among employees and supports a need to evaluate the conditions under which intolerance is observed and whether or not there is malicious intent associated with this practice. The workplace brings together individuals from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, skill levels, and experience levels; therefore, this requires an examination of the different areas that are likely to impact individual employees and what is necessary to manage intolerance on a more consistent basis. When employees become intolerant, regardless of the circumstances, it creates unnecessary tension and conflict that must be considered when making decisions that will impact the group and the organization as a whole.

In the example case, there are a number of factors at work against the manager because of his association with others, the general lack of respect that he receives from his employees, and the overall lack of confidence in his abilities. This case involves discrimination, oppression, and scapegoating, all of which contribute to a negative set of circumstances and reflect a need to further evaluate the situation more closely. The manager’s involvement with friends outside of work should have no impact on his actions within the workplace; however, others within the organization appear to disagree and appear to want to make him the scapegoat for their own actions, which are perhaps less than stellar. This is a negative situation in which there must be a greater level of tolerance for different belief systems and cultures, as well as a refusal to give into different stereotypes that often impact employees and their contribution to the workplace environment.

Addressing these issues may require a historical examination of other events that have created challenges for employees and for which it is necessary to recognize how discrimination is often subtle and creates significant problems when employees are deemed the minority (Van Laer & Janssens, 2011). This is an important requirement in this case, because it digs deeper into the reasons behind the scapegoating and in determining what is required to address a situation of this nature directly, rather than to skirt around the circumstances in order to avoid any type of confrontation.

These issues are discriminatory in nature because they reflect a lack of support and acceptance of the manager, even though he has not done anything wrong to the other employees. Therefore, they are acting in a discriminatory manner against him and have made an effort to make him the scapegoat in an already difficult situation. It appears that an excuse was made regarding his sales figures but that this is not the real reason why he no longer works for the company. Therefore, this type of circumstance requires a number of specific elements that impact a given situation and provide further evidence of the need to evaluate each situation with an outside perspective.

In general, minority groups often experience oppression for similar reasons, as they are different from the rest of the people within a given group, such as the workplace setting. This requires individuals to learn how to become more open to diversity and to address how to best transform their perspectives on a gradual basis in order to prevent further discriminatory acts (George, 2013). In addition, this requires individuals to take notice of the actions of others and to take a stand towards the acceptance of diversity in order to prevent situations of this nature. Employees who are deemed minorities already face an uphill battle and stress in coping with these situations; therefore, these circumstances must be addressed more fully and provide further support for these groups to improve productivity (Kollen, 2014).

Conclusion

In this case, legal action may be difficult to take, but it is possible to consider this action if the manager believes that his termination did not adhere to established legal requirements. This is a difficult situation and an uphill battle for the manager, but it might be worth exploring in this case. In response to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it is likely that discrimination remains in the military against these professionals, but that there is also likely to be some sense of support because of the ever-changing attitudes and beliefs of the American people as a whole in support of gays and lesbians. This an important breakthrough and reflects a need to further advance the agendas of these individuals and the support that is provided for members of the military.

In response to the changes since the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down, there has been a more significant focus on these individuals and the rights that they now receive in the workplace environment with respect to benefits and in other areas. Therefore, this has been a key breakthrough of sorts and reflects the importance of recognizing same-sex marriages in society as part of the new normal and to demonstrate a level of unity and support for these individuals moving forward.

References

George, K. E. (2013). Transform or conform?

Hodson, G. (2012). Stereotypes as legitimizing myths. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201212/stereotypes-legitimizing-myths

Köllen, T. (2014). A Review of Minority Stress Related to Employees’ Demographics and the Development of an Intersectional Framework for Their Coping Strategies in the Workplace. The Role of Demographics in Occupational Stress and Well Being (Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, Volume 12) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 12, 41-82.

Van Laer, K., & Janssens, M. (2011). Ethnic minority professionals’ experiences with subtle discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 0018726711409263.