Gender and Racial Diversity in South Africa’s Companies:

An Exploration of Barriers and Solutions in the Literature

Modi Hlobo

University of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT

South Africa’s Apartheid regime deeply entrenched racial and gender inequalities amongst

South Africans, which negatively affected all spheres of the economy, the working

environment as well as society.

However, since the dawn of democracy more than two decades ago, South Africans have

experienced changes in the landscape of employment. This has been mainly due to numerous

legislation that were implemented to redress previous unfair discrimination in the workplace.

Recently, researcher have identified slow progress in transformation of the working

environment. This article is based on a literature analysis on the state of gender and racial

diversity in the workplace, the barriers that are hindering the progression of women and blacks

in the working place as well as the strategic methods adopted to retain women and blacks in

the working environment.

The results from the analysis indicate that legislation on its own is not sufficient to efficiently

achieve diversity in the working environment. Organisation and countries need to also

implement other strategic programs in order to achieve this goal.

The outcomes from this study are significant for South African regulators, as they provide

justification for increased efforts to transform or diversify the South African working

environment, particularly since some studies have recognised that diversity can have a

positive impact in an organisation.

Key words

Discrimination, Diversity, Apartheid, Gender, Race,

INTRODUCTION

Over the years companies have embraced diversity and as a result they have realised

significant increases in workforce productivity and job performance. It has been said that a

diverse workforce drives economic growth, as more women and racial minorities enter the

workforce (Burns, Barton & Kerby, 2012)

According to Maznevski (1994), Milliken and Martins (1996), Pelled (1996), Boeker (1997) and

Timmerman (2000), demographic diversity includes gender, age, race and cognitive diversity,

which encompasses knowledge, education, values, perception and personality

characteristics.

Diversity can broadly be defined as variety amongst the employees with regard to

characteristics such as different kinds of expertise, managerial background, personality,

learning style, age, gender, education and values (Swartz & Firer, 2005). Diversity advocates

suggest that to make managers and board members act ethically; there should be support for

diversity on the boards of directors (Fields & Keys, 2003). In addition, there have been

numerous contemporary studies on demographic diversity and its effect on performance

(Randy & Carson, 2005).

In South Africa, gender and racial inequalities in the workplace are still a major concern. The

2014-2015 Commission for Employment Equity (Department of Labour, 2015) reported on the

employment distribution of the various population groups in terms of their representation at

the top management levels of organisations. The representation of white people decreased

marginally by 2.6%, dropping from 72.6% in 2012 to 70% in 2014. Black representation

increased slightly by 1.3%, rising from 12.3% in 2012 to 13.6% in 2014. The representation of

coloureds remained the same at 4.7% whilst the representation of Indians increased by 1.3%,

rising from 7.3% in 2012 to 8.6% in 2014. The representation of foreign nationals increased

by 0.3%, rising from 3.1% in 2012 to 3.4% in 2014. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a

steady but slow decline in the representation of whites, their domination remains as they

maintain more than a two-thirds majority in terms of representation at this level in

organisations. It is worth mentioning that there has been a slight drop (0.9%) in male

representation at top management level. This is an indication that significant interventions are

required to help women and non-whites break through the ‘glass ceiling’ in the work place.

Based on the above it is clear that in order to diversify, organisations need to address the

different barriers that are obstructing the advancement of minorities in the workplace.

A study by Orlando, Kirby and Chadwick (2013) reveals that most companies have now

implemented diversity policies in order to counter discrimination. Such companies have come

to realise that having a diversified working environment provides a competitive advantage. A

2008 study by the European Business Test Panel (EBTP) indicates that 63% of their

companies recognise the link between diversity and innovation, as compared to 26% in 2005.

A study by Dickens (2012) illustrates that voluntary agreements are more effective in ensuring

fair employment outcomes as compared to legal agreements and programmes such as

affirmative action.

In 2015, the South African Commission for Employment Equity reveals that in spite of

affirmative action programmes, progress with transformation has been very slow Department

of Labour (2015). This slow progress was also registered by the 2009 (EEOC) report in the

United States, which states that although some progress has been made in the composition

of the workforce over the last ten years, the progress however has been slow in transforming

the workplace (United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, 2009).

This slow progress in transformation is an indication that legislation on its own is not adequate

to encourage racial diversity in the work place; there is a need for a more integrated approach.

GENDER DIVERSITY

Although women have been active in the workforce for several decades, their representation

at senior management level is still alarmingly low. In the UK in 2002, there were only 5% of

women at senior level management while in Malaysia only 5.4% of women held management

positions (Burke & Nelson, 2002).

The 2013 Grant Thornton International Business Report (IBR) on women in business revealed

that women filled just over 25% of top decision-making roles in South Africa’s businesses.

Since 2009, only 28% of South African senior management positions were filled by women

and this figure had remained static, even in 2013. Of even greater concern is the fact that 21%

of South African businesses surveyed in 2013 had no women at all in senior management

positions (Grant Thornton, 2013).

The 2013 IBR survey further revealed that only 15% of board members in South Africa were

women, compared to 19% globally and 26% in the BRICS economies. It is encouraging to

note that the statistics showed a significant improvement in terms of women in Chief Financial

Officer (CFO) positions in South Africa. According to the survey, the number of women CFOs

in South Africa has more than doubled in 2013 when compared to 2012, up 128% from 14%

to 32%. The number of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) continues to be low, although slightly

up from 2012, rising from 8% to 10% in 2013 (Grant Thornton, 2013).

These statistics raise questions as to why there is such a low representation of women in

senior-level management, particularly as there is no supporting evidence that women are less

efficient managers compared to their male counterparts (Carli & Eagly, 2001).

It is therefore evident that there is an intangible “glass ceiling” preventing women from

advancing in the workplace. In order to shatter this glass ceiling and permanently remove the

barriers that prevent women from progressing in the corporate world, it is important to identify

and understand these barriers and formulate strategies that could be used by corporate

organisations to assist women in moving up the corporate ladder (Powell & Graves, 2003).

In 2012, Ernst & Young conducted a survey of 1 000 UK working women between the ages of

18 and 60. The report resulting from this study was entitled “The glass ceiling is dead as a

concept for today’s modern career”. In the Ernst & Young study, women confirmed that they

had faced multiple barriers throughout their career. The following section discusses some of

these barriers to the progression of women in the corporate world (Ernst & Young, 2012).

Barriers to the Progression of Women

Research reveals that there are tangible and non-tangible barriers that could be deterring the

advancement of women in the business world. These barriers make it difficult for women to

progress and they prevent both women and minorities from moving up the management

hierarchy (Powell & Graves, 2003). The following section explains some of these barriers:

A. Family barrier (family duties and motherhood)

The 2012 Ernst & Young survey revealed that the impact of becoming a mother was identified

as one of the key barriers to women’s progression in the workplace. Traditionally, a woman’s

primary role was her domestic responsibilities and anything else distracting her from this role

would cause conflict. This traditional role therefore meant that men were freed from any

domestic or childcare responsibilities (Charles & Davies, 2000).

A study of the comparative roles of men and women in America and Europe conducted by

Williams and Cooper in 2004 indicates that women are responsible for between 65% and 85%

of childcare work. This practice has resulted in women spending less time in the workplace,

receiving a lower salary and lower benefits, as well as not progressing in the corporate world.

Similar studies conducted in the science and engineering field by Rosser (2004), Maskell-

Pretz and Hopkins (1997) and Miller (2004) confirm that one of the significant barriers for

women attempting to advance in the business world is the pressure that they face in balancing

career and family life. This study indicates that women failed to reach senior positions as they

were not willing to spend long hours at the workplace at the expense of spending time with

their families.

Most organisations are still male-dominated. These organisations view ideal employees as

those working long hours and spending limited time with their families (Lewis & Cooper, 1999).

The majority of women in the 2012 Ernst & Young survey rated family commitment very high

and found it hard to strike a balance between career and family life. Organisations wishing to

benefit from gender equality need to move away from their “masculine” style of running the

business and start embracing females and their requirements (Burke & Nelson, 2002; Konek

& Kitch, 1994; Schuck & Liddle, 2004).

Experience or qualifications barrier

In the 2012 Ernst & Young survey, the lack of experience or qualifications was rated as the

second highest factor that constrained women from progressing in their careers. According to

Simpson, Sturges, Woods and Altman (2004), improving one’s qualifications and experience

is an individual responsibility if one wishes to progress in one’s career. Education and skill,

when supported with equal opportunities in the workplace, lead to an individual’s career

progression (Simpson et al., 2004). This is a global principle, whether in South Africa or

internationally.

B. Persistence in gender salary or wage gaps

Another barrier identified was the persistent gender pay gap. A report submitted to the

International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 2009 noted that in most countries, women’s wages

for work of equal value represent an average of between 70% and 90% that of men’s’.

A 2014 study by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) points to an international

overall average gender pay gap of 26% in favour of men. According to this report, the gap is

even higher at 32% for women with children.

An article in The Guardian newspaper dated 27 January 2014 reveals that South Africa has

an overall gender pay gap of 33%. ‘This means women effectively earn in a full year what men

earn in eight months,’ writes Sandra Burmeister, CEO of executive search firm Amrop

Landelahni. Even with such a high gender pay gap from a global perspective, South Africa

was doing well. It remains among the top 20 in the World Economic Forum overall gender gap

rankings.

C. Society perception barrier

According to a 2013 study by Adkins, Samaras, Gilfillan and McWee, societies’ perception of

women is another barrier that deters the advancement of women in the corporate environment.

There exists a societal perception that women are not modelled for executive positions.

Ridgeway (2001) describes a “good mother” as one who spends more time at home and less

time in the workplace. In contrast, an employed father is considered to be a “good father” and

more professionally competent (Fuegen, Biernat, Haines & Deaux, 2004). These belief

systems create barriers preventing women from advancing in the workplace since women

employed full-time are seen as violating the perceived norms while employed fathers are seen

as the providers. This type of societal pressure of work-life balance is also visible in South

Africa despite affirmative action principles, which stipulate that women should be given more

employment opportunities compared to their male counterparts (Booysen, 2007).

D. Barriers stemming from a lack of female role models

The 2012 Ernst & Young survey also disclosed that 75% of the women that were questioned

indicated that they had few or no female role models within their organisations, which hindered

their career development. Okurame (2007) and Burke, Vinnicombe, Singh and James (2006)

believe that women in senior positions should take on the personal responsibility of mentoring

younger women and acting as their role models. Women in senior-level positions should drive

the implementation of policies empowering women in their organisations (Burke & McKeen,

1994). Other studies point to women in senior positions who were reluctant to promote other

women because of fear of competition for positions or “the queen bee syndrome” (Staines,

Tavris & Hayagrante, 1973). This was particularly evident in situations where opportunities

were limited (Davidson & Cooper 1992).

E. Organisational culture barrier

Another factor identified as a barrier to women’s advancement in the work place is

organisational culture. Lord, Brown, Harvey and Hall (2001) define organisational culture as a

‘system of shared meanings, values, beliefs, practices, group norms of the members to

produce behavioural norms with regard to the working conditions of the organization’. A 2000

study by Charles and Davies points out that these cultural norms are so well adhered to by

employees, that they often supersede formal organisational policies. Even though

organisations promote a neutral gender environment in the workplace, the male dominance in

the workplace is validated daily as a cultural norm. Therefore, these cultural associations of

power and masculinity make it difficult for women to progress because their gender challenges

masculine power.

In South Africa, despite changes in legislature, white male dominance (“the old boys club”)

which is prevalent in corporate culture is still largely visible in organisations. This leads to

significant barriers to those outside this group, as business deals are concluded in gentlemen’s

clubs or sports clubs and the boardroom is a mere formality. This practice still poses a

challenge for both women and black employees who are not part of these inner circles

(Rosener, 2003).

It is therefore evident that there are barriers that hinder the progression of women in the

workplace. If organisations wish to benefit from a diversified working environment, they need

to embrace women and implement policies and strategies that promote transformation.

Strategic Methods Adopted to Achieve Gender Diversity

Even to this day discrimination against women persists in many aspects of employment and

includes the type of jobs that women can obtain, their remuneration, their benefits and working

conditions as well as their access to decision-making positions. This discrimination continues

despite legislative and policy initiatives (Powell & Graves, 2003).

The 100th International Labour Conference Report of 2011 notes that discrimination against

women has deep social roots, which cannot be removed simply by legislation or any one

specific measure (International Labour Organisation, 2011).

According to Moser and Moser (2005), the Association for Women’s Rights Development

identifies “gender mainstreaming” as a globally accepted strategy for promoting gender

equality. The Organisation defines gender mainstreaming as ‘a strategy which aims to bring

about gender equality and advance women’s rights by infusing gender analysis, gender-

sensitive research, women’s perspectives and gender equality goals into mainstream policies,

projects and institutions’.

Moser and Moser (2005) indicate that mainstreaming is not the only approach that is required

to achieve gender equality. The strategies discussed below by other researchers have been

identified as other effective methods of reducing gender discrimination and improving

women’s progression in the work place.

A. Balancing work and family responsibilities

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention

No. 156 of 1981 and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 165) provide guidance on

drafting policies that enable male and female workers with family responsibilities to advance

in their employment without discrimination. One such policy is flexible working conditions,

which is aimed at reducing absenteeism, attracting and retaining skilled staff as well as

improving productivity and time management.

According to a report on incidence of flexible work schedules increases from US Bureau of

Labour Statistics, flexible work arrangements have increased over the years. In the United

States between 1991 and 1997, the percent of full-time wage and salary workers with flexible

work schedules increased from 15.1% to 27.6%. Nearly 29% of married workers were working

flexible working hours and approximately 30% of workers with children under six years were

working according to a flexible schedule.

The 2011 International Labour Conference Report discusses other family-friendly policies that

are gradually being introduced in some organisations, notably, job sharing and teleworking.

These are all presented with the intention of reducing discrimination in the labour market faced

by workers with family responsibilities.

According to this conference report, some countries have introduced a free public nursery to

assist employed parents with young children. In Chile, the number of free public nurseries for

children aged three months to two years increased from 14 400 in 2005 to 64 000 in 2008.

The introduction of affordable, high-quality childcare can reduce structural barriers for many,

particularly those who are low-paid and unable to afford alternative childcare options

(International Labour Organisation, 2011).

In Hungary, the “Start Plusz” Programme, was introduced in 2007. The programme provides

employers who employ women a subsidy for social security contributions. A lack of sufficient

support for employees with family responsibilities can make organisations unattractive for

some parents, as they are forced to choose between employment and caring for their children

(International Labour Organisation, 2011).

B. Maternity and paternity status

Even though developed economies such as that of the European Union comply with the ILO

maternity standards, the 2011 International Labour Conference Report notes that most

countries do not provide pregnant women with sufficient benefits. In Africa, only 39% of

countries reviewed provided benefits in accordance with ILO standards. Some countries,

including Lesotho, New Guinea and Swaziland provided no cash benefit for pregnant women.

According to the 2011 International Labour Conference Report, there was still discrimination

against women on the grounds of maternity in spite of established legislation and standards.

In 2009, the United States received 6 196 cases, compared to 3 977 cases in 1997. The

majority of these cases related to dismissals for pregnancy, dismissal while nursing, failure to

grant time for nursing and the non-payment of pre- and postnatal benefits.

The Maternity Protection Convention 2000 (No. 183) stipulates that it is vital to provide women

with benefits whilst they are pregnant so that they can maintain their children and are not

disadvantaged in the labour market as a result of pregnancy. (International Labour

Organisation 2000).

The 2011 International Labour Conference Report also revealed several new pieces of

legislation that have been introduced to improve the situation of women in the workplace. For

example, the government of Costa Rica has issued a teleworking pronouncement on certain

job profiles. In Europe, some companies are implementing policies which grant women

additional weeks of maternity leave with wages fully paid by the company. There have also

been improvements in paternal leave legislation. Since 2010, fathers in Finland have been

entitled to an additional 24 days of paternity leave. In Slovenia fathers are granted up to 90

days of paternity leave, while in Kenya fathers get two weeks’ paid paternity leave.

Organisations in these countries and other organisations that offer maternity benefits to

women are therefore able to attract women who seek a balance between work and family life.

In South Africa, women are given up to four months’ paid or unpaid maternity leave, however,

fathers are only allocated three days’ paid paternity leave.

C. Girls’ access to education

As indicated earlier, the second highest barrier that affects women’s progression in the

workplace is a lack of education. In most developing countries, girls are at a disadvantage

regarding access to education when compared to boys. According to the 2010 World

Development Indicators published by the World Bank, 64 developing countries have achieved

gender parity in enrolments at primary school level and another 20 are on track to do so by

2015. However, 22 countries are lagging far behind, the majority of these being in sub-

Saharan Africa.

In secondary level education, 73 countries, mainly in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe

and Central Asia, have succeeded in achieving gender parity whilst another 14 are well on

track. The majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, however, are lagging far behind and

are unlikely to achieve parity if current trends continue (World Bank, 2010).

In 2003, the South African Minister of Education launched the Girls’ Education Movement

(GEM) in Parliament. UNICEF supported the National Department of Education to roll out

GEM in all of the country’s nine provinces. GEM is an African childdriven grassroots movement

where children and young people in schools and communities work to bring positive changes

in the lives of African girls and boys. GEM aims to:

Give girls equal access to education

Improve the quality of education, especially in disadvantaged rural schools

Make the school curriculum and school books gender responsive

Create schools that are safe and secure for children, especially girls

Work with boys as strategic partners

Reduce gender-based violence

Abolish harmful cultural practices such as early marriage for girls

Affirmative action

The 2011 International Labour Conference Report states that since 2007, numerous

affirmative action programmes have been implemented to foster transformation in the

workplace. In Spain, companies were required to meet gender quotas of between 40% to 60%

for boards and executive positions by 2015. In 2008, the Norwegian government required that

boards should have 40% of people from each gender. In pursuing its quota system, Norway

saw growth in female company board members, increasing from 7% in 2003 to 39% in 2008.

In South Africa, the constitution’s objective is to ensure that its citizens enjoy equal rights, and

that the social imbalances that were created by the Apartheid Laws are re-dressed. The

Economic Empowerment Act (EEA Act) was a necessary step towards the transformation of

the South African working environment. This Act is seen as a tool to ensure the progression

of women and black people in the labour market and to break the glass ceiling that had

prevented these groups from advancing and enjoying the same access to job opportunities as

their male counterparts (Mdladlana, 1999).

Narrowing the salary or wage gap

The salary gap between men and women is another cause for concern. In the United Kingdom,

for example, data contained in the 2008 Labour Force Survey (LFS) revealed that the majority

of women were paid lower salaries compared to their male counterparts. The survey shows

women occupying two-thirds of jobs in lower-paid categories and two-fifths in other categories.

Over the years, there have been various strategies and policies adopted by different countries

to narrow this discrepancy in remuneration. For example, Rubery, Grimshaw and Figueiredo

(2005) indicate that in 2003, the European Council of Ministers agreed to new guidelines for

European member states to pursue the European Employment Strategy (EES). These

included adopting policies that aimed to achieve a substantial reduction in the gender pay gap

in each member state by 2010.

In 2008, the Low Pay Commission study revealed that in the United Kingdom, the minimum

wage increase affected jobs held mostly by women. According to the study, it affected a total

of 5.6% of women compared to 3% of men. Since the introduction of the National Minimum

Wage in 1999 in the United Kingdom, salaries at lower pay rates have become more equal

between men and women, however, the gender pay gap for high earners has remained

unaffected by the national minimum wage policy.

The 2016 European Commission report on gender equality indicates that Cyprus adopted a

regulation in 2009 that promoted equal pay for work of equal value as a way forward. As at

2016, there was equal pay between men and women in the public sector and semi-

governmental organisations. In the private sector, however, the wage gap between men and

women remained high (15.6%).

In South Africa, Employment Equity was introduced in 1998 to address the pay gap between

men and women as well as between whites and blacks.

RACIAL DIVERSITY

Globally, gender and racial discrimination continue to exist in the workplace and these

practices are negatively affecting the progression of racial minorities and women and fair

remuneration (Bartlett, 2009; Hirsh & Lyons, 2010)

According to Ibarra (1995) and Westphal and Stern (2007) in the United States, racial minority

groups receive fewer opportunities and career benefits when compared to their white

counterparts. Katz and Stern (2008) concur with this view that African Americans receive far

lower incomes when compared to their white counterparts. In 2004, the average income of an

African American family between the ages of 30 and 39 was 48% less than the average

income of a white family within the same age group. The situation for African American women

is even worse, as they experience both racial and gender discrimination in the workplace

(Browne, 1999).

In the United Kingdom in 2002, Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) maintains that where

ethnic minorities made up 8% of the total UK workforce, there was a 6% representation of

ethnic minorities in management positions.

In the United States, in the science and engineering field, DiTomaso, Post and Parks-Yancy

(2007) reveal that United-States-born white males are viewed as more competent than their

black counterparts and, as a result, are more favoured and receive greater benefits and

promotions.

Rosette, Leonardelli and Phillips (2008) add that white leaders are considered to have a more

"prototypical leadership" style compared to African-American leaders, who are viewed in a

less favourable light.

In South Africa the situation is even worse. According to statistics South Africa in 2014, the

unemployment rate amongst black Africans stood at 39% compared to 8.3% for whites.

Barriers to progression of other racial groups

Over and above the research discussions around racial discrimination in the working

environment, there are also discussion made on the different barriers that hinder the

progression of other racial in the working environment. Kandola (2004) reveals stereotyping,

a lack of role models, networks and social ties are some of the factors deterring career

progression of racial minorities in senior management positions in the United Kingdom. These

factors are explored in the sections that follow.

A. Stereotyping

Davidson (2002) and Stewart and Bapat (1996) view racial discrimination as a “glass ceiling”

which prevents minority ethnic workers’ progression to higher levels in their working

environment.

Roberson and Block (2001) maintain that racism breaks down communication between racial

minority employees and their white supervisors, which in turn reduces the support received by

minorities. These practices of racial discrimination have a negative stereotypical effect on

minorities, who are perceived as underperformers. Such practices produce anxiety, distraction

and inefficiency, which lead to reduced performance levels (Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Fearfull and Kamenou (2006) and Stewart and Bapat (1996) note that the negative

stereotypes that come with racial discrimination make minorities feel undermined and doubt

their own credibility. This statement is supported by Kandola (2004), who states that minority

employees feel that the lack of understanding of their culture is a hindrance to their being

promoted in the workplace.

Ibarra (1995) confirm that race and ethnicity play an important role in employees' hiring,

promotion and performance appraisals in most organisations. A similar view is held by Pager,

Western and Bonikowski (2009) who claim that in spite of African Americans having

comparable qualifications to their white counterparts, they are half as likely as whites to

receive a job offer.

The 2005 studies, by Eddie Webster, Karl von Holdt, confirms that, in South Africa the formal

colour bar was arranged by apartheid laws, to date this situation remains mostly unchanged.

Even when black people occupy senior positions, they usually earn less, and have fewer

benefits and less responsibility as compared to their white counterparts. Increasingly, black

applicants are required to have higher qualifications for jobs once done by less-qualified white

people.

B. Lack of role models: Not seeing others like themselves in management or executive

positions

According to Kenny and Briner (2007), most employees find it difficult to see how they can

progress to higher levels in an organisation where there are few people of their own ethnic

group represented at management level.

In South Africa, black employees feel excluded from the informal work networks; as a result

they have limited access to mentors and role models. The white male exclusionary

organisational culture makes it challenging to retain black employees and women at

management level (Booysen & Nkomo 2006; Selby & Sutherland 2006; Thomas 2004)

C. Social capital resources or “networking”

Parks-Yancy (2006) suggests that a lack of social capital resources (also known as

“networking”) forms another barrier to the progression of racial minorities in the workplace.

White males are said to have good networks, which help them in gaining employment and

promotions in the workplace.

Petersen, Trond, Saporta, Seidel ML (2000) investigated the impact of gender, race and social

networks on the hiring process in the hi-tech industry. They discovered that networking was

critical for receiving job offers and that most white Americans had access to both personal and

professional networks, unlike black African Americans.

In South Africa Ngambi (2002) and Thomas (2004), identified organisation culture issues, like

the exclusionary old boys network, as historical organisational cultures, that create barriers to

retention and advancement of blacks in organisation

Social ties or similarities: The “in group”

Waldinger (1997) and Moss and Tilly (2001) claim that in the United States, African Americans

are not only competing with white majorities but they are also competing with other racial

groups for work opportunities. The research of Waldinger (1997) and Moss and Tilly (2001)

suggests that managers and owners of various businesses in Los Angeles are likely to employ

people from their own ethnic group. As a result, certain ethnic groups dominate certain

industries. For example, in 2001 Latinos (i.e. Latin Americans) dominated the housekeeping

jobs in hotels, restaurants and furniture manufacturing. This marginalised blacks within these

industries, which created conflict, tension and rivalry between the two groups. Tajfel and

Turner (1979) refer to these behaviours as “in-group bias” where there is favouritism towards

the in-group and discrimination against the out-group. Selby and Sutherland (2006) also

confirm this result, they advocate that black employees are marginalised from the existing

white corporate cultures as these monoculture values fail to consider workforce diversity, and

continue to drive black people out of the organisations.

Strategic Methods Adopted to Achieve Racial Diversity

A study by Carr-Ruffino (1996) describes an ideal workplace as one that includes all

employees and excludes none. It is therefore important to make sure that there is fair

distribution of career opportunities and equal treatment of employees if organisations wish to

increase employee job satisfaction for higher productivity levels and maximum profits.

The 2009 HALDE Report of the French Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination

Commission states that the main complaints it received related to racial discrimination.

Examples included direct discrimination in job advertisements or indirect discrimination which

involved the refusal to recognise foreign diplomats.

Due to the racial discrimination in the work place, there have been numerous initiatives

including legislation that have been introduced by many organisation to promote racial

diversity in the workplace. Some of these initiatives are discussed below.

In South Africa, researcher’s Selby & Sutherland 2006; Thomas 2002 reveal that even though

legislation is fundamental to addressing unfair workplace discrimination, legislation on its own

is not enough. It is also important to change organisational culture. These researchers are of

the view that the implementation of Economic Empowerment Act needs to be supported by

comprehensible employment practices that focus on human capital development and are

inclusive of practices and organisational culture change.

CONCLUSION

Globally over the past few decades, the number of women and ethnic minorities has slowly

increased in American companies (Hillman, Cannella & Harris, 2002). The rationale behind

such increases at both has been to address gender and racial imbalances in the corporate

environment.

Companies that have embraced diversity have realised significant increases in workforce

productivity and job performance. It has been said that a diverse workforce that includes

women and racial minorities drives economic growth (Burns, Barton & Kirby, 2012). Employee

diversity management is key to good corporate governance (Smith, Smith & Verner, 2006).

Since the implementation of the Employment Equity Act, post the Apartheid era there has

been slow progress in the transformation of South African corporates. In order to improve on

its transformation, it is essential for the South African government to strengthen its regulations

around transformation and diversity.

The results suggest that a legislative quota should be adopted, similar to that of Sweden,

where companies are obliged to have a certain percentage of women in their top corporate

positions (Adams & Ferreira, 2009). It is therefore recommended that in South Africa, this

quota should be extended to both women and those who were previously marginalised from

working enviroment by the apartheid regime.

In addition South African organisations should introduce compulsory awareness programmes

on prejudice and diversity and should do regular race climate surveys to test institutional

racism. Diverse workforces are needed to end institutional racism.

Reference List

Adkins, C.L., Samaras, S.A., Gilfillan, S.W. & McWee, W.E. (2013). The relationship between

owner characteristics, company size and the work-family culture and policies of women‐owned

businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(2), pp. 196-214.

Bartlett, K.T. (2009). Making good on good intentions: The critical role of motivation in reducing

implicit workplace discrimination. Virginia Law Review, 95(8), pp. 893-1972.

Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and

organizational growth. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp. 152-170.

Booysen, L & Nkomo, SM. 2006 Think manager- think (fe)male: a South African perspective.

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences:1833 – 1882.

Booysen, L. (2007). Barriers to employment equity implementation and retention of blacks in

management in South Africa. South African Journal of Labour Relations, 31(1), pp. 47-71.

Browne, I. (1999). Latinas and African American women at work. New York: Russell Sage.

Burke, R.J. & McKeen, C.A. (1994).Women in Management: Current research issues. London:

Chapman.

Burke, R.J. & Nelson, D.L. (2002). Advancing Women's Careers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Burke, R.J., Vinnicombe, S., Singh, V. & James, K. (2006). Constructing a professional

identity: How young female managers use role models. Women in Management Review,

21(1), pp. 67-81.

Burns, C., Barton, K. & Kirby, S. (2012). The state of diversity in today’s workforce.

Washington DC: Center for American Progress.

Carli, L.L. & Eagly, A.H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy and leadership: An introduction. Journal of

Social Issues, 57(4), pp. 629-636.

Carlsson, G. & Karlsson, K. (1970). Age, cohorts and the generation of generations. American

Sociological Review, 35(1), pp. 710-718.

Carr-Ruffino, N. (1996). Managing diversity: People skills for a multicultural workplace. San

Francisco: Thomson Executive Press.

Charles, N. & Davies, C. (2000). Cultural stereotypes and the gendering of senior

management. The Sociological Review, 48(4), pp. 544-567.

Department of Labour (2015). Commission for Employment Equity Annual Report. Pretoria:

Department of Labour.

Davidson, M. (2002). The black and ethnic minority woman manager: Advancing women’s

careers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Dickens, L. (2012). Making employment rights effective: Issues of enforcement and

compliance. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

DiTomaso, N. Post, C. & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,

status and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, pp. 473- 501.

Ernst & Young. (2012). The glass ceiling a dead concept for today’s modern career.

Available: http://www.ey.com/uk/en/newsroom/news-releases/12-08-23---the-glass-ceiling-is-

dead-as-a-concept-for-todays-modern-career. (Accessed 9 April 2015).

European Business Test Panel (2008). Diversity management in 2008: Research with the

European Business Test Panel. Available: http://www.iegd.org/pdf/Task%201-%20EBTP.pdf.

(Accessed 9 April 2015).

Eurostats (2008). Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Youth_unemployment. (Accessed 26 March 2015).

European Commission (2016). Country report, gender equality. Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/ge_country_reports_d1/2016-cy_en.pdf.

(Accessed 26 March 2015).

Equal Opportunity Commission (2002). Equal Opportunity Commission Report. London: Equal

Opportunity Commission.

Fearfull, A. & Kamenou, N. (2006). How do you account for it? A critical exploration of career

opportunities for and experiences of ethnic minority women. Critical Perspectives on

Accounting, 17(7), pp. 883-901.

Fields, M.A. & Keys, P.Y. (2003). The emergence of corporate governance from Wall St. to

Main St.: Outside directors, board diversity, earnings management and managerial incentives

to bear risk. Financial Review, 38(1), pp.1-24.

Fuegen, K., Biernat, M., Haines, E. & Deaux, K. (2004). Mothers and fathers in the workplace:

How gender and parental status influence judgments of job‐related competence. Journal of

Social Issues, 60(4), pp. 737-754.

Girls Education Movement (2006). Available:

https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_gembrief. (Accessed: 5 August 2018)

(HALDE) Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations et pour l'égalité (2009). HALDE:

The French Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination Commission Report. Available:

http://www.ces.uc.pt/projectos/tolerace/media/WP2/WorkingPapers%202_France.pdf.

(Accessed 8 April 2015).

Hillman, A.J., Cannella, A.A. & Harris, I.C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the

boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28(6), pp. 747-763.

Hitt, M.A. & Tyler, B.B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives.

Strategic Management Journal, 12(5), pp. 327-351.

Hirsh, E. & Lyons, C.J. (2010). Perceiving discrimination on the job: Legal consciousness,

workplace context and the construction of race discrimination. Law & Society Review, 44(2),

pp. 269-298.

Grant Thornton (2013). Grant Thornton International Business Report: Focus on South Africa.

Johannesburg: Grant Thornton.

Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity and diversity of social circles in managerial networks.

Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), pp. 673-703.

International Labour Organisation (2000). Maternity Protection Conversion No: 183.

Switzerland: ILO Library

International Labour Organisation. (2009). Available:

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@stat/documents/meetingdocument/w

cms_101467.pdf. (Accessed: 5 February 2015).

International Labour Organisation (2011). Available:

http://ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/100thSession. (Accessed 5 February 2015).

International Trade Union Confederation (2014). Available: http://www.ituc-csi.org/2008-2014.

(Accessed 8 April 2015).

Kenny, E.J. & Briner, R.B. (2007). Ethnicity and behaviour in organizations: A review of British

research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3), pp. 437-457.

Katz, M.B. & Stern, M.J. (2008). Beyond discrimination: Understanding African American

inequality in the twenty-first century. Dissent, 55(1), pp. 61-65.

Kandola, B. (2004). Skills development: The missing link in increasing diversity in leadership.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(4), pp.143-147

Konek, C.W. & Kitch, S.L. (1994). Women and careers: Issues and challenges. Thousand

Oaks California: Sage Publications.

Labour Force Survey (LFS) (2008). United Kingdom - Labour Force Survey 2008. London:

The Stationery Office.

Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J., Harvey, J.L. & Hall, R.J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype

generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12(3), pp. 311-338.

Low Pay Commission (2008). National Minimum Wage Low Pay Commission Report 2008.

London: The Stationery Office.

Lewis, S. & Cooper, C.L. (1999). The work-family research agenda in changing contexts.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), p. 382.

Maskell-Pretz, M. & Hopkins, W.E. (1997). Women in engineering: Toward a barrier-free work

environment. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(1), pp. 32-37.

Maznevski, M.L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making

groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47(5), pp. 531-552.

Mdladlana, M. (1999). Statement by the Minister of Labour, Membathisi Mdladlana at

Median African National Conference meeting. Available:

http://www.anc.org.za/docs/anctoday/2003/at16.htm. (Accessed 12 February 2015).

Milliken, F.J. & Martins, L.L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the

multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2),

pp. 402-433.

Miller, G.E. (2004). Frontier masculinity in the oil industry: The experience of women

engineers. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(1), pp. 47-73.

Moser, C. & Moser, A. (2005). Gender mainstreaming since Beijing: A review of success and

limitations in international institutions. Gender & Development, 13(2), pp. 11-22.

Moss, P. & Tilly, C. (2001). Stories employers tell: Race, skill and hiring in America. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Ngambi, H. 2002. The role of emotional intelligence in transforming South African

organisations. Proceedings of the International and Management Sciences

Conference, Vanderbijlpark:221-231.

Ngambi, HC. 2002. Exploring diversity perspective in South Africa & United States:

different emphasis, different contexts. Paper presented at a conference held at

Göteborg, Sweden, August 29-31.

Okurame, D.E. (2007). Perceived mentoring functions: Does mentor's gender matter? Women

in Management Review, 22(5), pp. 418-427

Orlando C., Richard, S.L. Kirby, B. & Chadwick, K. (2013). The impact of racial and gender

diversity in management on financial performance: How participative strategy making features

can unleash a diversity advantage. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 24(13), pp. 2571-2582.

Pager, D., Western, B. & Bonikowski, B. (2009). Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: A

field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74(5), pp. 777-799.

Parks-Yancy, R. (2006). The effects of social group membership and social capital resources

on careers. Journal of Black Studies, 36(4), pp. 515-545.

Petersen, T., Saporta, I. & Seidel, M.L. (2000). Offering a job: Meritocracy and social networks.

American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), pp. 763-816.

Pelled, L.H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict and work group outcomes: An intervening

process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), pp. 615-631.

Powell, G.N. & Graves, L.M. (2003). Women and men in management. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications.

Randy, W. & Carson, C.M. (2005). A social capital explanation of the relationship between

functional diversity and group performance. Team Performance Management: An

International Journal, 11(7/8), pp. 302-315.

Ridgeway, C.L. (2001). Gender, status and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), pp. 6

Roberson, L. & Block, C.J. (2001). Racioethnicity and job performance: A review and critique

of theoretical perspectives on the causes of group differences. Research in Organizational

Behaviour, 23, pp. 247–32537-655.

Rosette, A.S., Leonardelli, G.J. & Phillips, K.W. (2008). The white standard: Racial bias in

leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), p. 758.

Rosener, J. B. (2003). Women on corporate boards make good business sense. NACD

Directorship, 29(5), 7.

Rosser, S.V. (2004). Using POWER to ADVANCE: Institutional barriers identified by women

scientists and engineers. NWSA Journal, 1, pp. 50-78.

Rubery, J. Grimshaw, D. & Figueredo, H. (2005). How to close the gender pay gap in Europe:

Towards the gender mainstreaming of pay policy. Industrial Relations Journal, 36(3), pp. 184-

213.

Selby. K & Sutherland, M. 2006. “Space creation”: a strategy for achieving employment equity

at senior management level. South African Journal of Labour Relations 30(2):36-64.

Simpson, R., Sturges, J., Woods, A. & Altman, Y. (2004). Career progress and career barriers:

Women MBA graduates in Canada and the UK. Career Development International, 9(5), pp.

459-477.

Steele, C.M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), p. 797.

Stewart, M. & Bapat, G. (1996). The cement roof: Afro‐Caribbean people in management.

London: Routledge.

Schuck, K. & Liddle, B.J. (2004). The female manager's experience: A concept map and

assessment tool. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(2), p. 75.

Statistics South Africa (2014). An exploration of household survey evidence on skills

development and unemployment between 1994 and 2014. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.

South African National Treasury (2011). Confronting youth unemployment: Policy options for

South Africa. Pretoria: South African National Treasury.

South African National Treasury (n.d.). Available: http://www.nyda.gov.za/About-

Us/nyda/Pages/default.aspx. (Accessed 2 April 2015).

Staines, G., Tavris, C. & Hayagrante, T. (eds.) (1973). The queen bee syndrome in the female

experience. New York: Psychology Today

Swartz, N. & Firer, S. (2005). Board structure and intellectual capital performance in South

Africa. Meditari Accountancy Research, 13(2), pp. 145-166.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social

Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), p. 74.

Thomas, A 2004 Black economic empowerment: a study of South African companies.

Management Today, May:35–38.

The Guardian Newspaper. (2014). Available: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014.

(Accessed 2 April 2015).

Timmerman, T.A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence and team

performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), pp. 592-606.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2009). Available:

https://www.eeoc.gov. (Accessed 8 April 2015).

Von Holdt, K., & Webster, E. (2005). Beyond the apartheid workplace: Studies in transition.

Scottsville, South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press

Waldinger, R. (1997). Black/immigrant competition re-assessed: New evidence from Los

Angeles. Sociological Perspectives, 40(3), pp. 365-386.

Westphal, J.D. & Stern, I. (2007). Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male

Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior and demographic minority status affect

additional board appointments at US companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2),

pp. 267-288.

Williams, J.C. & Cooper, H.C. (2004). The public policy of motherhood. Journal of Social

Issues, 60(4), pp. 849-865.