Question

Discussion Questions:

A. How should we live?

1. What responsibility does the HR manager have for paying equally qualified employees?

2. If the manager pays the female less, would you characterize him as sexist? Is this decision unfair workplace discrimination?

3. Imagine now that the HR manager is a woman? Would this change your judgment?

4. How particular social contexts can shape decisions and, despite the best intentions of individuals involved, result in socially undesirable consequences.

B. Ethical Leadership

1. How might a HR manager or the CEO who seeks to end unequal salary structures change the work environment to address the dilemma of unequal pay resulting from unequal salary expectations among male and female candidates?

Solution

Case#2, HR Decision

Part A: How should we live?

Question 1: Responsibility of HR Manager for paying equally qualified employees

Globally, the issue of pay equity has been a significant issue in contemporary business environment. Specifically, in the current COVID-19 pandemic, Huq (2021) note that there has been an increased issue of pay equity for employees with similar qualifications. Further, in different jurisdictions, the Equality Acts and roles of trade unions inform on the need for organisations HR professionals to ensure that they pay equally for the qualified employees. This is by ensuring they are not discriminatory and appropriate for legal requirements. The need for this among the HR manager is guaranteeing them in increased solution to harnessing the productivity and efficiencies, lowering the employee’s turnover and attracting the most successful employees. It is a core function of the employers and staff not to condition the gains achieved by the employees for accruing since the employees are the core resource for any successful organisation. As evidenced in CIPD (2022), organisations represent the core asset with equal pay being a main factor in managing the risks and opportunities in the equal pay.

Question 2: Paying female less; characterized as sexist or unfair workplaces discrimination

As a best practice, when the male and female have equal qualifications, assigned roles and inputting same efforts, the HR should not offer unequal remuneration for executing their functions. Further, as evidenced in Stamarski and Son Hing (2015), at the recruitment phase, the demands for the employees in terms of the salaries, if acknowledged, this should not a situation of noting presence of sexism. For instance, in the case study, the female potential employee had offered a lower pay as opposed to her male colleague who was being resourced. This is the case since the problem of HR practices in policy making, decision-making and implementation is instrumental for their success in their operations. Often, the HR practices have been noted to priorities on male-typed jobs with female candidates being evaluated more negatively recommended for employment less. This phenomenon cannot be noted as a discrimination of the employees or unfair workplaces. Nevertheless, when the female and male employees are being recruited, if the offer is a certain amount, this should be honoured and equally granted.

Question 3: HR Manager being a woman; changes to judgement

As evidenced in Singh et al. (2018), favoritism in workplace has been prevalent in the recent times have been prevalent in the contemporary business environment. In the past, what has been a common practice is the HR managers offering the employees with tasks despite of not performing in optimum. In the case study nevertheless, the issue is nevertheless regarding the woman being paid more less than the other male employee. In this situation, the judgement should be changed. There ought not to be unfair compensation of the male and female performing similar hob roles. Also, the woman should be equally facilitated as the male counterparts in order to be able to execute their roles holistically and for optimum organisation satisfaction.

Question 4: Specific social contexts shaping decisions and, best intentions of individuals involved, result in socially undesirable consequences

Please click the icon below to download this assessment for only $10