Distributing EEO data internally
CarolL1999
55 Posts
I am engaging my company in a discussion about our Affirmative Action Plan data, and I can see people already wanting to get analysis of the race/ethnic breakdown in their own work groups in order to figure out utilization goals more immediately relevant to their work. The good news is they care enough to want to look more closely; the bad news is that I don't believe this is permissable (from HR) or advisable (for the groups), because the data is confidential, and because the smaller your group breakdown, the less you can shield yourself from accusations that knowledge of this data could have influenced an employment decision.
Does anyone have experience here that would be helpful?
Comments
I am engaging my company in a discussion about our Affirmative Action Plan data, and I can see people already wanting to get analysis of the race/ethnic breakdown in their own work groups in order to figure out utilization goals more immediately relevant to their work. The good news is they care enough to want to look more closely; the bad news is that I don't believe this is permissable (from HR) or advisable (for the groups), because the data is confidential, and because the smaller your group breakdown, the less you can shield yourself from accusations that knowledge of this data could have influenced an employment decision.
Does anyone have experience here that would be helpful?
[/quote]
Here are a few comments you may find helpful.
First, a person's self identified category is private. If you have someone who supervises a small group of people, all of whom appear and claim to be white, and one reported that she is of mixed heritage or of a heritage that clashes with the supervisor's idea about what people of that heritage should look like, that cannot lead to any productive place. If the supervisor harbors unknown racial animus, they may target someone based on their guess as to who the mystery member of their work group may be. The supervisor may foolishly simply ask people. Management is best left racially blind in my opinion.
My second comment is complicated. The purpose of affirmative action plans is to ensure that a company casts a wide net to increase the likelihood that a recruitment pool contains qualified minority and female applicants. Its purpose is not to set quotas or standards as to how many people of any particular classification you should have. Some companies are very aggressive about how they promote "meeting diversity goals" but I think it's only a matter of time before challenging some of these more aggressive practices becomes the norm rather than the exception. To be sure, such challenges have been made successfully. The law does not currently say that it's ok to prefer one race or sex over another, even in the remedial justice contemplated behind the policies underpinning AAPs. In fact, it says that race may not be used as a factor to discriminate in employment decisions. On that basis, I bristle at the term "reverse discrimination," because all forms of racial discrimination in employment decisions are illegal. So, essentially, I caution that dissemination of AAP information, the EEO data from which the AAP reports are generated, and the often flowery expressions of racial harmony and positive hiring hopes often found in the boilerplate of AAPS may be used improperly by hiring managers in such a way that creates exposure to the company. On the other hand, it's difficult to comply with the spirit of an AAP if you don't communicate any information to anybody. It's not easy to comply with the letter of your AAP requirements if you have decentralized recruitment.
Third, consider this question, under what circumstances do you give the nod to a non-white and/or non-male candidate rather than to a white male candidate? There is no easy answer unless there is a clear disparity of qualifications. The best answer I've ever heard from an attorney was, "You do everything you can to find a way to distinguish the better candidate without resorting to 'fit.' If they're truly equal in all relevant ways, you pick the minority/female applicant because that's the true purpose of an affirmative action plan: to make you find qualified female and minority applicants and then hire them because they are qualified." Reasonable minds can and do disagree on the precise details about this, which is the best reason for deciding how public you want to go with data and AAP ideals. Keep in mind that there's a whole category of diversity professionals within the overall area of HR. The good ones understand the complexities of the law here and the risk appetite of the company. I would read up on this from diverse sources and talk to counsel. As you may guess, different attorneys will have different ideas on this, too, and the end result should be based on your company's goals and risk appetite, not attorneys' guesses and philosophies.
I am engaging my company in a discussion about our Affirmative Action Plan data, and I can see people already wanting to get analysis of the race/ethnic breakdown in their own work groups in order to figure out utilization goals more immediately relevant to their work. The good news is they care enough to want to look more closely; the bad news is that I don't believe this is permissable (from HR) or advisable (for the groups), because the data is confidential, and because the smaller your group breakdown, the less you can shield yourself from accusations that knowledge of this data could have influenced an employment decision.
Does anyone have experience here that would be helpful?
[/quote]
Here are a few comments you may find helpful.
[/quote]
Thanks for this thoughtful and nuanced response. Your last statement especially resonated; I often find that with my company the right answer for us is not the standard "legal" response, althought obviously we don't ever want to go too far afield.
This conversation came from the question our staff raised, which is "how do we measure success, and what statistics establish our baseline?" Since we were discussing obtaining a diverse workforce, it lead me to the AAP. It seemed silly to develop a whole new rubric when we had one available to us, although as you can see I'm quickly reaching it's limitations. I do understand the focus of the AAP analysis is broadening the applicant pool rather than establishing quotas, but it is hard not to use the goal-setting exercise that is front and center in the plan as a way to determine if broadening the applicant pool, or the other outreach and professional development actions showcased in the AAP, is having an impact.
Any other thoughts on setting goals is welcome.
Normally, increases in applicant diversity are evidence of success in terms of reaching the right audience, particularly if you are hiring a more diverse set of applicants.
Development goals tend to relate to increased diversity in higher echelons of the organization.
Both of those are fairly easily tracked over time in the reports you do for your EEO-1 if you are large enough and, if not, in the reports you do for your AAP that are like the EEO-1 reports. People generally just write the reports and then file them.
In my own opinion, it's better to set goals for affirmative steps you will take than to set affirmative goals you will reach. The former is a way of promoting your duty to broadcast the message that you have opportunities and that you are committed to EOE. The latter is a rhetorical dance with quotas. I know of one Fortune 10 corporation that has always played a very dangerous game with this but, the fact is, they're too big to sue and big companies setting de facto racial quotas is hardly the crime of the century. Smaller firms make better targets both for disgruntled non-hires and government enforcement where they get equal headlines but do less damage to the retroactive justice historically sought by AAPs.
Do you mind saying the basis of your AAP obligation?
I would sit down and think about what the company is obligated to write down that it will do on a piece of paper whose purpose and requirements are a matter of considerable legal history. I would commit to doing exactly what is required of me.
Then, in a separate program that is not burdened by the same sort of politics and legal issues, I would consider other things I might want to do to promote the company's diversity interests like sponsoring minority professional development workshops with state employment agencies, the very organizations mentioned in the federal register (LULAC, etc.), local high schools and colleges. If you want to do outreach, you have to reach out. Setting goals in terms of the number of people you will serve with these events is a great goal that produces a more developed local workforce, provides opportunity to historically under represented groups, and has no entanglements with the hiring process.
Your AAP language and commitments should be reviewed at least annually by counsel imo.
"Do you mind saying the basis of your AAP obligation?"
===============
TXHRGuy:
I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean who is driving the request for using the data for goal-setting?
"Do you mind saying the basis of your AAP obligation?"
===============
TXHRGuy:
I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean who is driving the request for using the data for goal-setting?
[/quote]
As I understand it, you have an affirmative action plan. There are different reasons for having one and all of them are compulsory. I am curious about which compulsory reason causes your company to have an affirmative action plan.
But I think I found it here: http://community.blr.com/hr/forums/10055/ShowThread.aspx#10055
Your company is a federal contractor?
Oh, yes, we are a federal contractor.