networks and experience difficulties in the establishment of mentoring relationships.
These factors prevent them from reaching top positions, a phenomenon known as ‘the glass
ceiling effect’ (Ragins and Scandura 1994). Moreover, most diversity training
programmes reinforce norms, values and perspectives of the dominant organizational
culture (Tung 1993). Rabobank, a Dutch bank, has employed a relatively higher
percentage of ethnic minorities than other organizations in the community in order to
attract ethnic minority customers. However, employees in Rabobank with immigrant
backgrounds are mostly recruited only for lower positions and promotion for these
employees is very difficulty, if not impossible. Also, ethnic minority employees are not
allowed to express their culture and religions in the bank openly (Subeliani and Tsogas
2005). Furthermore, the context of some diversity training may be different enough from
the ongoing work context so as to make it difficult for trainees to exhibit behaviours
similar to those learned in training (Ford and Fisher 1996).
Performance appraisal
Many organizations, such as Digital, Esso and Westpac, take account of AA and EEO in
their performance appraisal systems (Kramar 1998). Australian companies largely draft and
implement objective criteria and are fair in the performance appraisal process
(Dagher, D’Netto and Sohal 1998). However, appraisal and performance-related pay
practices and techniques are often inherently gendered and against women (Rubery 1995).
Tsui and Gutek (1999) reported that there is consistent evidence showing that higher
demographic similarity between supervisors and subordinates on age, race or gender
correlates with HR outcomes, such as higher ratings on performance, organizational
citizenship, and lower role ambiguity and conflict. Other mechanisms of discrimination are
pointed out in the performance appraisal processes, in which women seem prone to get lower
ratings (Ohlott, Ruderman and McCauley 1994). Australian companies usually do not
involve culturally diverse employees in performance appraisal panels (Dagher et al. 1998).
Pay
Pay inequality is a main cause of job dissatisfaction and demotivation, and therefore a
major HR diversity issue (McLoughlin and Carr 1997; Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt and
Wilke 1997). EEO and AA have been integrated with compensation practices by many
organizations, again, like Digital, Esso and Westpac (Kramar 1998). Kramar has been
supported by Dagher et al. (1998) who also reported that diversity practices in
remuneration are widely used by Australian organizations. However, Dagher et al. (1998)
attributed positive remuneration practices to a ‘union effect’. These authors state that a
relatively strong trade union movement in Australia has prevented the occurrence of wage
discrimination among unionized employees.
While the implementation of equal pay has significantly reduced earnings differences
between men and women, gender income inequality still remains a global problem
(Blau and Kahn 1994; Katz and Autor 1999; Brainerd 2000). Globally, women earn 20%
to 30% less than men (Kossek et al. 2005). In France, the gap between men’s and women’s
pay stands at around 22% for those entering the labour market for the first time in the early
1990s, whereas this difference was 15% for people in the same situation in the late 1970s
(INSEE 2002). Gender wage inequality ranged from 10% to 54% in urban industries and
from 20% to 45.7% in the rural sector in the 1990s in China (Meng 1998; Gustaffson and Li
2000; Hughes and Maurer-Fazio 2002). The size of gender wage differential in China
is similar to that of Russia and other developed counties (Blau and Kahn 1994; Brainerd 2000).
Dostları ilə paylaş: