The paper "Human Resource Practice on Managing Workforce Discriminations" is a perfect example of human resources coursework. Eradication of discrimination and management of diversity in the workforce will remain a complex area of research for human resource managers. The problem has been complicated further by globalization which has created global demand for a human capital resource that has resulted in low retention levels. Studies claim that institutions that will initiate proper management practices to avoid discriminations and manage diversity workforce properly stand a better chance to excel in this competitive and dynamic global human capital resource market (Ongori & Agolla 2007). Diversity is defined as the variations among workers in terms of race, age, gender, experience, knowledge and skills (Morris et al 2001).
Subsequently, diversity management is defined as a planned and systematic commitment by institutions to employ, promote, retain and reward a mixed workforce (Ongori & Agolla 2007). This essay will identify discrimination types in the case study, correlate human resource management practices and theories to discrimination resolutions. Discrimination can be categorized according to Queensland health anti-discrimination policy into unlawful discrimination, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, vicious liability, discrimination in employment and the outcome which is the disciplinary action (Health Queensland 2008). According to the present case study, this essay identifies two forms of discrimination, which are indirect and direct discriminations.
Direct discrimination is when actions are taken that specifically denies a group or an individual from benefiting or reduces opportunities and chances of success due to lack of a certain personal attribute relevant to a given circumstance. In this category, sex can be given as an example (Health Queensland 2008). In contrast, indirect discrimination is where results of decisions, rules and practices that are supposed to support or be neutral, unreasonably reduce that person’ s chances to succeed or benefit.
These outcomes in selection include weight, height, and age as limiting factors for the candidate’ s roles. These factors actually are not essential or relevant to position on offer. In both direct and indirect discrimination an individual is subjected to unlawfully consideration which is biased or the candidate is harassed on particular issues pertaining to public life (Health Queensland 2008). Employment and job promotions are generally key areas where persons can be discriminated in an organization on the basis of their personal attributes or characteristics in comparison to other candidates in a similar capacity or circumstances. Discrimination in the workplace environment has a devastating impact both on the organization and on the affected employee.
Work efficiency and service delivery in the organization reduce which then lead to deterioration in production. Similarly, the affected person’ s work performance decreases due to low esteem and poor working relationships (Health Queensland 2008). Theorists have had a lot of studies on workplace diversity.
One of the theories which help management in resolving differences in an organization is a fairness and discrimination paradigm. This theory ignores all differences and claims among employees and adopts a fairness position. According to the theory, an individual’ s experience and background are treated to have no relationship on work performance and productivity in the company (Reeves 2009). However, this theory can not be applied universally because the reality is that people are different and so are their personal attributes (Reeves 2009). A more appropriate means of determining discrimination in the workplace is by applying scientific methods to provide evidence that can be quantified and proofed by statistical method.
This essay will compare two statistical approaches that draw semblance to the case study.
Baumle, AK & Fossett, M 2005, ‘Statistical Discrimination in Employment’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1250-1274, Viewed 20 April 2009,
Bennington, L 2002, ‘Age discrimination: Converging evidence from four Australian studies’, Employee responsibilities and rights journal, Vol 13, no 3, p.125, Viewed 21 April 2009,
Drogin, R 2001, ‘Use of statistical evidence in employment discrimination litigation’, American bar association, pp. 28-31, Viewed 20 April 2009,
Health Queensland, 2008, Anti-discrimination human resources policy. Viewed 20 April 2009,
Ongori, H & Agolla, E 2007, ‘Critical review of literature on workforce diversity’, African Journal of Business Management, pp. 072-076. Viewed 20 April 2009, Morris, D, Wood, G & Yaacob, A 2001, ‘Securing Diversity in Human Resources?: Lessons From Malaysia’, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 8, no.1, pp. 58-74 Reeves, C 2009, Diversity: Discrimination and fairness paradigm, Viewed 21 April 2009,
Morris, D, Wood, G & Yaacob, A 2001, ‘Securing Diversity in Human Resources?:
Lessons From Malaysia’, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 8, no.1, pp. 58-74
Reeves, C 2009, Diversity: Discrimination and fairness paradigm, Viewed 21 April 2009,