Case Study: Affirmative Action in the Workplace
In the case of Smulderbaum, Hammers and Stein hiring a black woman, Susan, over Richard, a white man, there are differing opinions within the firm on whether Susan was hired due to her qualifications. Some in the firm believe she was hired to diversify the firm and to improve its image in the marketplace as an inclusive workplace. Others, while not commenting on the reason she was hired, are enthusiastic about her hiring and believe she will be an asset to the firm (Shaw). When qualifications and experience alone are compared, hiring Susan is the right thing to do, but there are matters of perception clouding the issue.
Diversity
There are good reasons to have a diverse staff in a law firm. In Brayley and Nguyen’s 2009 study, they found that “highly diverse law firms generate greater revenue per lawyer and turn higher profits per partner” (1-2). Also, a diverse workplace may improve employee morale, as employees’ beliefs about the variety of employees in a business are known to affect how they feel about their jobs (Stewart, …show more content…
A 2008 study by Berry and Bonilla-Silva showed that this attitude was affected by whether the minority applicant or the white applicant had the higher objective score when judged by the same criteria for suitability for a position. In the cases where the minority applicant had a similar score to the white applicant, he or she was generally favored, and the noble reasons alluded to above were often given as the reason to hire the minority applicant. When the white applicant had a higher score, however, the socially conscious reasons for hiring the minority applicant were described as less important (1). The bottom line is that while merit seems to be the most important factor, the race of an applicant does factor into hiring
In the case of Smulderbaum, Hammers and Stein hiring a black woman, Susan, over Richard, a white man, there are differing opinions within the firm on whether Susan was hired due to her qualifications. Some in the firm believe she was hired to diversify the firm and to improve its image in the marketplace as an inclusive workplace. Others, while not commenting on the reason she was hired, are enthusiastic about her hiring and believe she will be an asset to the firm (Shaw). When qualifications and experience alone are compared, hiring Susan is the right thing to do, but there are matters of perception clouding the issue.
Diversity
There are good reasons to have a diverse staff in a law firm. In Brayley and Nguyen’s 2009 study, they found that “highly diverse law firms generate greater revenue per lawyer and turn higher profits per partner” (1-2). Also, a diverse workplace may improve employee morale, as employees’ beliefs about the variety of employees in a business are known to affect how they feel about their jobs (Stewart, …show more content…
A 2008 study by Berry and Bonilla-Silva showed that this attitude was affected by whether the minority applicant or the white applicant had the higher objective score when judged by the same criteria for suitability for a position. In the cases where the minority applicant had a similar score to the white applicant, he or she was generally favored, and the noble reasons alluded to above were often given as the reason to hire the minority applicant. When the white applicant had a higher score, however, the socially conscious reasons for hiring the minority applicant were described as less important (1). The bottom line is that while merit seems to be the most important factor, the race of an applicant does factor into hiring