Dr. Annabelle Karnes
Global University
2222 Academic Lane
Riverton, VA 98625
3456 Student Drive
Riverton, VA 98625
Dear Dr. Karnes:
It is my pleasure to present to you the justification report you authorized on June 14, 2016 about the feasibility of alternatives to eliminate discrimination at Logistics Aviation Company.
An extensive analysis of the two options (implementing policy and creation of diverse groups and departments) revealed that even though both options will lead to elimination of discrimination in the company, implementing policy is the most feasible factoring in cost, time, efficiency and effectiveness. As such, I highly recommend implementing policy as a solution to discrimination.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to research on options to eliminate discrimination. I appreciate your consideration of my recommendation. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (909) 777-7777.
Sincerely,
Enclosure: Justification Report
Executive Summary
This report analyses the feasibility of two potential alternatives for eliminating discrimination at Logistics Aviation Company. The methods of analysis included an examination of the cost involved, time taken, effectiveness and efficiency as well as feasibility of the options. Additionally, an internet research was carried out to evaluate the options further. The results indicated that both options had the potential of eliminating discrimination in the company. Nevertheless, implementing policy was the option that met the criteria presented in terms of cost effectiveness, time taken to implement, efficiency, effectiveness and feasibility. It is therefore recommended that implementing policy to be undertaken by the company in its quest to eliminate discrimination.
Discrimination
In any workplace, discrimination is a topical issue, which staff members are experiencing; it ranges from the top management to junior employees here at the Logistics Aviation Company. Recently there have been numerous complaints of discrimination filed at the Equal Opportunity Office. This justification report presents the pressing need for a suitable solution to eradicate discrimination here at the Logistics Aviation Company. The report presents the extent of the problem, presents the two viable alternatives and evaluates them using five-step criteria to determine which is the most feasible. The report, however, does not include the limitations of the research such as time and budgetary constraints but instead focuses on the two alternatives which have been extensively used by other companies that faced a discrimination problem. The research mainly relied on secondary research as peer review journals and databases of companies were heavily reviewed.
Problem Statement
Employees in the workplace are facing discrimination based on sex, age, social origin, race, and political opinions (Chou & Choi, 2011). Logistics Aviation Company is facing a discrimination problem with a high number of complaints being filed at the Equal Opportunity Office. This issue must be immediately solved with the aim of facilitating the existence of a healthy working environment for each staff member. All levels of supervision will respond appropriately to prevent and eliminate possible cases of discrimination. This strategy will also increase cooperation and harmony among the staff members, which will positively affect the productivity of our company.
Terminology
Discrimination – unfair treatment of an individual because of their race, age, sexuality or any other personal feature.
Report Overview
This aim of this report was to help Logistics Aviation Company choose the method to eliminate discrimination. We were tasked to investigate two options (implementing policy and creation of diverse groups) and determine which one was the best to deal with the problem. The criteria used to evaluate the alternatives included: cost, time, efficiency, effectiveness and feasibility. Secondary research was used as we reviewed peer-review journals and consulted databases of companies that have had similar problems. An evaluation of the alternatives revealed that Alternative A, implementing policy, should be implemented as it was cost-effective, took less time to implement and was more feasible.
Overview of Alternatives
Alternative A - Implementing Policy
The company must start implementing the discriminatory policies for all staff members, which must be as understandable as possible (Odeku & Animashaun, 2012). The workforce must also carefully investigate the essence of the policies beforehand to make sure that each employee is updated. Afterward, all employees must take part in training on discrimination and sign a document agreeing to stick to the strict rules of the policy. Additionally, "the implementation process should come with disciplinary action plans to apply in solving discrimination complaints" (Odeku & Animashaun, 2012).
Alternative B – Creation of Diverse Groups and Departments
Another way by which the company can eliminate discrimination is through the creation of diverse groups and departments with the aim of encouraging productivity, cooperation and equality among all the staff members without any exceptions. This alternative involves first developing a recruitment strategy that stresses on diversification of the workplace. This first step may involve training the recruitment personnel on diversification to make them experts on the issue. A more diverse workforce may bring in different talents that the company may leverage on to increase productivity. Diversification of the workforce will mean that the different departments within the company have a diversified team. This alternative may also involve restructuring the company to ensure that the company’s departments reflect diversity. This may involve moves such as hiring new staff, staff transfers or training (Odeku & Animashaun, 2012). Additionally, this alternative involves organizing the staff into teams where the employees will be encouraged to work together to solve their conflicts.
Criteria
Cost –The cost needed to implement the proposed alternatives must be affordable to make sure the company does not suffer financially in solving the issue.
Time – This assesses the time that will be taken to implement each of the alternatives. The alternative to be chosen must take the shortest amount of time possible. Here the amount of time the alternatives will take to be implemented will be assessed.
Efficiency – This is a measure of how efficient the alternatives are in eliminating discrimination in terms of utilization of time, energy and resources.
Effectiveness – This is the degree of success of the alternatives in eliminating discrimination.
Feasibility – This is the state or the degree to which an alternative can easily and conveniently be implemented.
Research Methods
In finding out the best alternative approaches to recommend to the employers, an effective research methodology will apply. The research mainly relied on secondary research for data collection. I referred to a number of peer review journals and books covering the topic of discrimination and elimination of discrimination. Additionally, I searched over the databases of various company sites on their successful implementations of anti-discriminatory policies.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Cost
Alternative A - The implementation of discriminatory policies would require the processes of reviewing the existing policies, updating the existing policies or coming up with new policies; all of which may be costly (Newman, 2014). Training of staff on the policies will also require funds.
Alternative B – This move will require an overhaul of the recruitment strategy and training of the recruitment panel. This will involve a considerable amount of money. Additionally, the strategy also involves the hiring of new staff or the transfer of employees so as to create diverse groups and departments, which may be very costly. Also, the training of staff and creation of teams may consume large amounts of funds.
Time
Alternative A – This will consume the least amount of time as it only involves coming up with policies and training of the employees.
Alternative B – It will take much longer as it involves restructuring of the company to reflect diversity. This involves coming up with new policies (on hiring and discrimination) training of staff, training, hiring and transfer of staff.
Efficiency
Alternative A - Moderately efficient as it addresses the problem by preventing instances that would lead to the problem.
Alternative B - has a higher efficiency as it addresses all the fundamentals that relate to diversity such as recruitment, teamwork and organization policy. It also addresses the root causes (Paludi, Paludi & DeSouza, 2011).
Effectiveness
Alternative A – It is moderately effective as it addresses the problem at hand through policy, training and disciplinary actions.
Alternative B – Highly effective as it addresses discrimination through changing the organization to reflect diversity. It addresses the problem of hiring inefficiencies and ensures a diverse group of individuals in the company.
Feasibility
Alternative A - It is more feasible as it involves fewer processes and does not affect the company’s organization culture as much. Given that it consumes fewer funds and takes little time to implement, it is a much more feasible option.
Alternative B - Moderately feasible as it greatly affects organization culture, takes more time to implement and is costly.
Findings and Analysis
Figure 1 above shows Alternatives A and B analyzed by criteria. As it can be seen, Alternative A has low costs and takes the least amount of time to be implemented. This can be attributed to the fewer processes it takes to be implemented by the company. Studies indicate that workplace discrimination should be addressed immediately as it has the potential to greatly affect accompany performance (Paludi, Paludi & DeSouza, 2011). The more time it takes to address the issue, the more the company’s performance is negatively affected. Alternative B, on the other hand, is costly and takes more time to be implemented. This is mainly because it has more process and steps that greatly affect the organization culture. In terms of effectiveness/efficiency, Alternative A is moderately efficient and effective while Alternative B is highly efficient and effective. Alternative B affects the foundations of diversity in the company and hence has a higher chance of effectively addressing discrimination. According to Paludi, Plaudi & DeSouza, (2011), a company has a higher chance of success in addressing workplace discrimination if it approaches it from the root causes. With regards to feasibility, Alternative A is highly feasible due to its limited costs and shorter implementation time while Alternative B is moderate due to its longer process and huge funds.
Recommendation
Alternative A is the highly feasible option and hence I will highly recommend the option. It is not only a cheaper option but also takes the least amount of funds to implement. The option will also go a long way in addressing discrimination in the company and promote diversity.
References
Paludi, M. A., Paludi, C. A., & DeSouza, E. (2011). Praeger handbook on understanding and preventing workplace discrimination. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger.
Odeku, K., & Animashaun, S. (2012). Ensuring equality at the workplace by strengthening the law on the prohibition against discrimination. African Journal of Business Management, 6(12), 4689-4699.
