Introduction
Many people face discrimination when applying for a job. This term, in this case, means a refusal to hire not related to professional qualities (Reskin, 2018). Most often, discrimination occurs based on age, gender, or race. There is also discrimination associated with personal rejection by the employer of other characteristics of the employee, for example, sexual orientation. Such behavior by companies is highly unethical but often challenging to prove. Changing the current situation is essential not only to improve the quality of life of people who are discriminated against but also to improve the work of companies themselves.
Unwanted Behaviour and Reasons for Change
Employment discrimination is a big problem not only for job seekers but also for businesses and the state as a whole. For example, such an attitude toward migrants increases unemployment, creates a criminal environment, and spends budget money on unemployment benefits (Dhalimi et al., 2018). Recruitment based on personal whims and prejudices leads to a decrease in the efficiency of companies. Suppose the problem of discrimination in the team is not solved. In that case, it can negatively affect people’s health and professional and personal lives and leave a negative imprint on organizational culture and work productivity (Kline & Walters, 2021). Thus, corporations themselves should also have an interest in eliminating discrimination.
Methods
Such an unwanted behavior is based on purely psychological features that can be influenced using Operant Conditioning and Motivation Theories. The first theory claims that people understand the cause and effect of their actions, which means that their behavior can be changed with the help of positive reinforcement or negative punishment (Blackman, 2017). The Motivation Theory suggests that every human action has its reason. Creating additional reasons to act in the desired way will correct the behavior.
Tasks and Resources
From the Motivation Theory, the first step is determining what causes employers to refuse employees in such cases. The most common cause is prejudice directed at a specific population group. For example, misconceptions about the greater or lesser suitability for certain professions of people of a certain gender or origin: supposedly “women drive cars worse” or “men who work with young children are latent pedophiles.” The other category includes rational but unethical factors affecting employee performance. Older people are often reluctant to hire because of fewer career prospects in the company, and women are because of the possible maternity leave (Reskin, 2018). It is more problematic for people with disabilities to find work due to the potential difficulties for the employer. Finally, the third reason for discrimination may be the whim of customers, also based on certain prejudices. For example, a Chinese restaurant may only hire Asian-looking waitpeople purely because of customer expectations. Each of the cases described above should be considered separately since different measures are needed to change the behavior of employers.
In the first case, the employer judges the professional qualities of the employee based on unrelated characteristics. This is an example of so-called “magical” or non-rational thinking. An understanding by the employer of the fallacy of his judgments would reduce the chance of discrimination (Planer & Sterelny, 2022). To do this, it is worth debunking prejudices and popularizing examples of “atypical” workers in popular culture — for example, female taxi drivers or male kindergarten teachers. In this case, social condemnation of such prejudices serves as a negative punishment.
The second case is more difficult: the problem lies in the preference given by the company to the financial rather than the moral aspect. The first solution is conscious refuse to work with employers who have been found to be discriminatory. In this case, companies will have additional motivation not to lose their reputation, forcing them to consider the ethical aspect. The second approach is the creation of governmental bonuses for firms that hire, for example, disabled or older people, which serves as positive reinforcement.
The third situation is connected not with the employer but with society’s attitude. The debunking of stereotypes here should be much more massive and not a point character. Companies can create additional bonuses for customers who prefer discriminated groups of employees. For example, retail chains may offer discounts for shoppers who choose to be served by a disabled cashier. In other words, companies should create motivation for customers to drop their prejudices. This will allow the employer to get rid of discrimination in hiring.
Progress Evaluation
In each specific situation, appropriate measures must be taken, as described in the examples above. A qualitative assessment of their effectiveness at each stage is necessary for the correct application of these approaches. Employment rejection data should be regularly collected and statistically processed for each company. Those methods that consist of changing motivation through debunking prejudice cannot be quick. Results should be expected for at least a few years. Techniques that create positive reinforcement or negative punishment should be evaluated from a shorter perspective.
Conclusion
Summarizing all of the above, it can be concluded that employment discrimination is a serious problem that needs to be solved. The reasons for this situation are cognitive distortions and peculiarities of the psychology of employers and clients. The proposed psychological methods appeal to the motivation that determines behavior and environmental conditions that force it to change. Such a rational, scientific approach to influencing the employer’s consciousness will significantly reduce the problem of discrimination, which is an essential step towards an equal society.
References
Blackman, D. (2017). Operant conditioning: An experimental analysis of behaviour. Routledge.
Dhalimi, A., Wright, A. M., Yamin, J., Jamil, H., & Arnetz, B. B. (2018). Perception of discrimination in employment and health in refugees and immigrants. Stigma and Health, 3(4), 325.
Kline, P., & Walters, C. (2021). Reasonable doubt: Experimental detection of job-level employment discrimination. Econometrica, 89(2), 765-792.
Planer, R. J., & Sterelny, K. (2022). The costs of magical thinking and hypervigilance: A comment on Singh 2021. Current Anthropology, 63(4), 454–455.
Reskin, B. F. (2018). Rethinking employment discrimination and its remedies in social stratification. Routledge.