HRM 3014: ASA Framework, Gender Bias, & Disability - Workforce Issues

This assignment delves into contemporary issues in Human Resource Management, addressing four key questions. The first question explains the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework and how it contributes to maintaining homogeneity within organizations, using Apple as an example. The second question examines how role congruity theory elucidates the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles, highlighting descriptive and prescriptive biases. The third question explores the motivations behind employers' reluctance to hire disabled workers, discussing whether these motivations are justified by empirical evidence, and touches on financial burdens and anxieties. Finally, the assignment addresses the rational actor model in hiring decisions and how employers' stereotyped beliefs about minority job applicants may or may not change based on positive experiences, referencing a study by Pager and Karafin (2009). Desklib provides solved assignments for students.

Running head: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Question 1
The Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) model delineates a framework for the
understanding of organization behavior from the individual and organizational perspectives. The
framework demonstrates the out of three interrelated organizational process like attraction,
selection and attrition that determine the types of people in an organization (Schneider 1987). It
consequently determines the strategy, structure and culture of an organization. The founders of
organizations often get confused about selecting types of people, providing them compensation,
building relationship structure with them and maintaining homogeneous workplace culture.
Hence, this model is perfect for explaining the maintenance of homogeneity in an organization.
The attraction factor of ASA framework articulates the fact that the preferences of people for a
particular organization is based on some estimate of fit of their personal attributes with the
attributes of the organization. People mostly find the organizations differentially attractive
because of their implicit judgment about the congruence of personal attributes with the
organizational attributes (Butler et al. 2014). While considering the evidence of Apple, this
organization follows teamwork culture at the workplace. So, the most of the people having
collaborative nature are attracted in this organization. In this way, a homogeneous collaborative
culture has been formed in this organization.
As per the selection process of ASA framework, organizations are more likely to select
those people, who they think are most compatible and fir for various types of jobs. Moreover,
organizations often select the candidates, who are posed with similar skills, attitudes, knowledge
and abilities just like their existing employees. Hence, most of the organizations use fit as their
basic criteria for hiring people. The organizations are more likely to create homogeneous
organizational culture, when they hire people having similar attitude, skills and abilities. In this

2HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
way, the organizations end up choosing people, who share common personal attitudes, but they
may not share common competence (Konrad, Yang and Maurer 2016). While considering the
evidence, the managers of Apple are more likely to hire people having high level of
technological skills and collaborative nature. Hence, the organization has become able to
maintain its homogeneous organizational culture.
Finally, the attrition process reflects the ideas that the employees will leave their
organization, if they do not fit with its culture. The employees tend to leave their organization,
when they do not fit well in a particular organizational culture. In this way, when the employees
leave the environment, a more concrete homogeneous group of employees stay in the
organization than those who were attracted initially (Jackson, Schuler and Jiang 2014).
Considering these three factors, the employees, who work in a particular organization share some
common personality and attitude over time that helps in maintaining homogeneous
organizational culture.
Word Count: 440
Reference List
Butler, B.S., Bateman, P.J., Gray, P.H. and Diamant, E.I., 2014. An attraction-selection-attrition
theory of online community size and resilience. Mis Quarterly, 38(3), pp.699-728.
Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. and Jiang, K., 2014. An aspirational framework for strategic human
resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), pp.1-56.
Konrad, A.M., Yang, Y. and Maurer, C.C., 2016. Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and
equality management systems: An integrated institutional agency and strategic human resource
management approach. Human Resource Management, 55(1), pp.83-107.

3HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Schneider, B., 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
Question 2
Women’s progress in leadership role is always hampered because of the biased
perception of effective leadership. As per the vertical segregation in the European Union, 65%
men has hold the positions of manager, whereas, only 35% of women has hold managerial roles
(Ibarra, Ely and Kolb 2013). The tension women face regarding their gender role, where are
expected to be communal and where they are expected to be agentic in their leadership role. It
ultimately leads to lowered perception about their effectiveness of leadership roles. The
congruity theory has an important role in explaining the reasons for which women are
underrepresented in leadership role (Eagly and Karau 2002). One of the two prime reasons of
injustice preventing women from getting leadership role is perception of women, when they are
placed in leadership role. Women leaders are usually perceived in less optimistic manner in
comparison with male leaders.
As per descriptive bias, female leader are stereotyped as having less leadership skills and
potential than the male leaders. The women are often perceived to have low status position than
the men because of their socially accepted role. The accepted gender stereotypes let a grater
prophecy of gender discrimination between men and women in social behaviour. Most of
common reason for preferring the male leaders occurs from disliking the female leaders (Elsesser
and Lever 2011). It is the perception of people that female leaders are usually too moody,
emotional, gossipy, catty, bitchy, dramatic, petty, dramatic, backstabbing and jealous. Moreover,
the female leaders are often perceived to tremendous polarized perception based on inaptness
between traits related to the women and positive traits of a leadership role. As per this theory,

4HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
inconsistent gender stereotypes and unfeminine perception lead to negative judgement of women
leadership regardless of the kind of leadership the women display (Hoyt and Murphy 2016). In
this way, descriptive bias defines the reason for which women are underrepresented in leadership
role.
One of the other ways for which women are underrepresented in leadership role is
prescriptive bias. As per this bias, female leaders are evaluated as less favourably, as leadership
seen as better fit for men than for women. Female leaders often have to choose between the
options of being perceived as proficient leaders or being liked by followers and co-workers. The
female leaders, who follow masculine leadership style, are considered as competent. However,
such leaders are more likely to receive more negative evaluation for their interpersonal skills
than the female leaders, who follow feminine leadership style (Stafsudd 2006). In this way, such
leaders are often perceived to have misfit with the positive leadership traits. On the other hand,
the female leaders, who follow feminine leadership, are evaluated negatively and less favourably
because of violating the traditional masculine leadership style and desire.
Word Count: 459
Reference List
Eagly, A. H., and Karau, S. J., 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
Elsesser, K. M., and Lever, J., 2011. Does gender bias against female leaders persist?
Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64(12), 1555-
1578.

5HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Hoyt, C.L. and Murphy, S.E., 2016. Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), pp.387-399.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R. and Kolb, D., 2013. Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business
Review, 91(9), 60-66.
Stafsudd, A., 2006. People are strange when you're a stranger: Senior executives select similar
successors. European Management Review, 3(3), 177-189.
Question 3
Disabled people are less likely to be hired and retained by the employers than the non-
disabled people. Such people are also less likely to occupy senior positions, as compared with
the non-disabled people. The disabled people are always having less priority than those of non-
disabled people in organizations, despite of equal educational qualification. Educational
qualification is always help at constant, but the physical abilities matter a lot in getting
employment opportunity. On the other hand, the people having mental health problems are the
impairment groups, who are least likely to be in senior position in all the sectors. Several
qualitative studies have been conducted on assessing the employment opportunity of disabled
people.
These qualitative studies have pointed out that the employers always suspect that the
disabled people are always having low productivity. Moreover, it is the perception that disabled
people are lazy, workshy and prefer to live on benefits that actually doing work. Hence, the
employers are highly motivated to avoid hiring disabled people at work. However, this
motivation is not truly justified by the empirical evidences. Several studies conducted on the
disabled employees have proved that these employees feel that they need to work harder for
proving their abilities in their organizations (McLaughlin, Bell and Stringer 2004). Hence, as per

6HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
these studies, disabled people may me equally productive like non-disabled people. On the other
hand, it is also a common perception of the employers that disabled employees are more likely to
ne encountered with employment risk. They can have high chance of being injured within the
workplace. Hence, the employers are more likely to avoid disabled people in their organizations
Salkever et al. (2014). This motivation can be justified by the empirical evidence, as disabled
people are truly inclined to be injured at the workplace causing employment risk.
The presence of disabled people in the workplace may provoke existential anxiety in
other employees. Moreover, the non-disabled employees may fear about increasing workloads
over them, as disabled people are not well-versed and hardworking. On the other hand, the
employees without disabilities may fear that some disabilities are contagious, which may leads to
high level of anxiety and stress among them (Boone et al. 2004). Some employees without
disabilities may feel awkwardness, ambivalence and discomfort in interacting with the disabled
employees. Hence, such reasons may motivate the employers to avoid hiring disabled people at
their workplaces. Several empirical evidences have justified this motivation of the employees.
The empirical evidences have also pointed out that the employment rate in UK with disabilities
is 46.3%, whereas the employment rate without disabilities is 76.4% (Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt and
Kulkami 2008). It proved that the employers truly avoid hiring disabled people at their
organizations. On the other hand, the employers often face financial burden for the reasonable
accommodation of the disabled people for their comfort within the workplace. Such increasing
financial burden also motivates the employer to avoid hiring disabled people at the workplace.

7HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Word Count: 488
Reference List
Boone, C., van Olffen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A. and de Brabander, B., 2004. The genesis of top
management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch
newspaper publishing. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 633–656.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M. and Kulkami, M., 2008. Overlooked and underutilized:
People With disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management, 47(2),
255-273.
McLaughlin, M. E., Bell, M. P., and Stringer, D. Y., 2004. Stigma and acceptance of persons
with disabilities: Understudied aspects of workforce diversity. Group & Organization
Management, 29(3), 302-333.
Salkever, D.S., Gibbons, B., Frey, W.D. and Milfort, R., 2014. Recruitment in the Mental Health
Treatment Study: a behavioral health/employment intervention for Social Security disabled-
worker beneficiaries. Soc. Sec. Bull., 74, p.27.
Question 4
It has been seen in the employment field that black and Asian groups earn quite less than
while British, despite of having equal educational qualification. Black male graduates earn
almost 24% less than white male graduates. Rational actor model of hiring is an economic model
of statistical discrimination, which suggests that race provides a useful proxy for difficult-to-
observe characteristics. Productivity is an extremely difficult factor to observe directly,
especially for new hires. Hence, the employers are dependent on indirect information gathered
from the group membership. The rational action model demonstrates the rational actions on the
part of employers, given the fact that the information from the group membership is accurate and
there exist a mechanism to update the estimates of group characteristics over time.

8HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
As per this model, the hiring decision of the employers is actually based on calculated
anticipated benefits and guided by consistent personal values. The model is initiated with the
information regarding known group characteristics, the employers are aware of the racial
difference among the group members in terms of graduation rates, incarceration rates, test score
and several other disparities (Tran, Garcia-Prieto and Schneider 2011). The employers may also
have direct prior experience about the employees, which shapes the own belief of the employers.
In case of minority discrimination, such information shapes the general belief regarding black
employees in terms of their reliability, intelligence, productivity and other characteristics (Pager
and Karafin 2009). Such belief ultimately guides the hiring decisions of the employers. Next
after hiring, the employers are actually exposed the capabilities and skills of the black
employees, which often do not fit with the prior assumption of the employers taken from the
group (Van Knippenberg and Schippers 2007). In this way, the employers ultimately revise their
beliefs about minority employees through updating their beliefs.
According to Pager and Karafin’s (2009) study, in real scenario, the employers always
hold a negative perception regarding the minority employees. Moreover, 75% of whites and
Asians have demonstrated an implicit bias in favor of white employees as compared with black
employees. For evidence, Jewish and Hindu male employees are always overrepresented in high
level of jobs and Muslims male employees are always underrepresented (Pager and Karafin
2009). As per this study, some employers have emphasized on the structural barriers faced by the
African Americans, which includes the factors such as lack of education, poverty, prejudice and
discrimination and disadvantaged neighborhood context.

9HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Word Count: 400
Reference List
Pager, D., and Karafin, D., 2009. Bayesian bigot? Statistical discrimination, stereotypes, and
employer decision making. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
621(1), 70-93.
Tran, V., Garcia-Prieto, P., and Schneider, S. C., 2011. The role of social identity, appraisal, and
emotion in determining responses to diversity management. Human Relations, 64(2), 161-176.
Van Knippenberg, D., and Schippers, M. C., 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 515-541.
Question 5
Managing diversity and equal employment opportunity are the increasing trends in all
reputed organization. Such approaches are intended to source diverse knowledge and skills from
employees having different cultural and educational backgrounds. The purpose of Managing
diversity and equal employment opportunity may seem to be equal, but there are some key
differences between these two terms. Diversity among the employees is consisted of the visible
and non-visible factors like age, race, gender, personality, region, culture, work style, disability
and many more. Diversity management is intended to manage the employees having different
background and leading them towards the common goals of the organization for high level of
organizational success (Verbeek 2011). On the other hand, equal opportunity is the right of the
employees to be treated without discrimination, especially on the ground of age, race and gender.
Hence, there is slight difference between diversity management approach and equal opportunity
approach.

10HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The key difference between the approach of diversity management and approach of equal
opportunity is the driven force of implementation. Moreover, the equal opportunity approach is
initiated in the organizations externally. Furthermore, this approach is actually driven by the
legislation and society ethnic like fairness, group parity, justice and human right. On the other
hand, the diversity management approach is actually initiated in the organizations internally
(Sabharwal 2014). Moreover, this approach is actually driven by the business needs of the
organizations. For evidence, the purpose equal opportunity in London Borough of Ealing is
intended towards complying with the statutory duty of implementing equality. On other hand, the
approach of diversity management is intended towards exploiting the diverse skills and
knowledge of the diverse set of the employees towards strengthening and promoting the
business.
The difference between diversity management approach and equal opportunity also lies
in their ultimate goals. The aim of equal opportunity approach is to represent the social justice
and human rights and correct them that have been framed previously in the past. This approach is
also intended to correct an injustice, an imbalance and a mistake in hiring the employees
(Knights and Omanović 2016). On the other contrary, the aim of diversity management approach
is to treat the employees as individuals and acknowledging each employee with their unique
needs, skills and knowledge. Moreover, the goal of this approach is to exploit the unique skills
and knowledge of the diverse employees in the progress of the business. Equal opportunity
approach prevents the discrimination among the employees against vulnerable and different
groups, whereas diversity management approach realizes the full potential of each employee for
organizational benefits (Ashikali and Groeneveld 2015). Furthermore, the equal opportunity is
mostly visible in the areas of recruitment and selection process of the organizations. However,

11HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
the diversity management approach is visible in almost whole management process of the
organizations.
Word Count: 462
Reference List
Ashikali, T. and Groeneveld, S., 2015. Diversity management for all? An empirical analysis of
diversity management outcomes across groups. Personnel Review, 44(5), pp.757-780.
Knights, D. and Omanović, V., 2016. (Mis) managing diversity: exploring the dangers of
diversity management orthodoxy. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 35(1), pp.5-16.
Sabharwal, M., 2014. Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further
performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), pp.197-217.
Verbeek, S., 2011. Employment equity policy frames in the literature: ‘Good practice’ versus
‘bad idea’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1942-1962.
Question 6
Diverse team in an organization is formed with the employees having different
backgrounds based on age, race, gender, religion, culture, physical abilities and many more. On
the other hand, homogeneous group is consisted of employees having similar attributes. As
Homan et al. (2007) diverse groups can outperform homogeneous groups helping teams with
faultiness perform better through improved information sharing process. Diverse people may
alter the behavior of group’s social majority in a way, which leads to improved and accurate
group thinking (Scott, Heathcote and Gruman 2011). The diverse team can also outperform the
homogeneous group, when the organizational leaders develop clear protocol of communication