Journal Questions for Both Last Week’s and This Week’s Classes:
“Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination” ~ Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan
What are the implications of the Bertrand and Mullainathan study?
Bertrand and Mullainathan’s study, from the paper published back in 2003, suggests significant discrimination against African-American names. The researchers, performed an experiment where they responded with fictitious resumes to help wanted ads in Boston and Chicago papers. According to their study, white names received 50% more callbacks for interviews. Their study suggests that discrimination plays an important role in why African Americans do poorly in the labor market. In all circumstances, applicants with African American names received far fewer callbacks for each resume they sent out. This study implies that employers still discriminate against African Americans during their hiring process. There is still in bias in employer’s minds regarding the performance and commitment of an African American candidate to do the job even though he or she is as qualified as someone of another race.
How can business, government, and society address the issues raised in the study?
The government can set new laws and regulations to address the issues raised in this study but that won’t help resolve the unconscious bias amongst hiring managers. A way for authorities to mitigate this issue could be to reserve a specific number of job positions for minorities. This could help force inclusion in companies and result in acceptance of other races in society. There could be drawbacks to this. In India for example, reservation based on the caste system was introduced in 1947. It was a great idea to start with to help give underprivileged communities and minorities an opportunity to education and employment. Today, this same reservation system exists and has become a political agenda. People who don’t require these opportunities still take advantage of the system that was established over 70 years ago. This could be one of the risks of enforcing a reservation system for minorities in the U.S.
I believe this issue can be more effectively addressed by companies themselves. They could enforce methods like:
- Training – Can be carried out by the company to ensure hiring managers do not fall prey to unconscious bias. Frequent and in depth trainings in avoiding bias and overcoming discrimination to achieve set goals of diversity within a company could help resolve hiring discrimination.
- Software to screen candidates – Currently some companies have already started doing this to ensure only the best candidates will get an opportunity without any form of bias. Artificial intelligence can be used as technology advances to make even better decisions to secure eligible candidates.
- Blind hiring – This process could involve just resumes where managers would not be able to determine the race or gender of the candidate. Even interviews could be held virtually with voice modulating software to prevent any form of discrimination in the hiring process.
Related to the mini-case discussed in class today: Is non-discrimination on the basis of classifications such as those protected under in the EEOC reading a fundamental universal right, regardless of the country/location/culture/religious context of a business or its home country? Or is such non-discrimination variable as a right, depending on culture, etc.? What if customers in a particular country or culture have a discriminatory preference-for example, if customers in a particular industry or culture statistically have a greater preference for interaction with someone of a specific gender, race, nationality, etc.? Should companies be permitted to consider such a customer preference in their hiring and employment practices? Why or why not?
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. I believe that this should be enforced regardless of the country/location/culture/religious context of a business or its home country.
In the case, “Protecting Against Birth Defects”, discussed in class, the company had policies that prohibited women without proof of infertility from working with chemicals associated with birth defects. I disagree with the policy of this company because it discriminates on the basis of gender. Although the risks associated with the children of women working around these chemicals was higher, the offspring’s of men also faced similar risks. It is unfair to have this policy in place only for women. A fair policy would have been demanding proof of infertility irrespective of gender. The company will need to protect itself from future litigations if a child was born with defects. Although the company could have clearly stated the risks involved to all employees regarding birth defects, it does not protect the company against future lawsuits by the offspring’s of these workers.
Discrimination against gender or race in any culture should be legally prohibited regardless of country or culture. When it comes to customer preference, as seen in the second case where the less qualified man was considered to be hired over the more qualified woman, the question for the company lies in who will create greater value for the shareholders? In Japanese culture, women are not typically seen as sales personnel and this could have led to a loss in sales for the company. I believe that since this isn’t a common occurrence, it wouldn’t be fair for the qualified woman to lose the opportunity for the job just due to her gender. If customers did in fact not respond well to the fact that she was a woman and the company lost sales due to this, it would be fair for the company to hire the man. In this case, I would suggest hiring both the candidates on a trial bases and the better performer should get the job. The woman would definitely have to overcome more hurdles than the man, but for the company, the bottom line would matter. A company’s duty is to its shareholders, but it cannot ignore other stakeholders in the process. I also believe that perceptions and customers preferences evolve, and hiring a woman might lead to a short term loss, but if the woman is given enough time to prove herself and change customer preferences, this could lead to the long term benefits of having a more qualified employee.
I do believe customer preferences should be considered in the hiring practice but only if it has proven effects on the economic value generated by the decision. Discrimination based on gender, race, color, sex or national origin should not be permitted anywhere in the world. Education is the key to changing customer preferences, perceptions and culture to enable people all around the world to treat every human equally. This starts with a change in mindset and I believe this will eventually be instilled in the generations to come. As Sheryl Sandberg famously said “In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders.”
This essay was originally at: https://www.essaysauce.com/sample-essays/2018-3-18-1521402855/