Discriminated People Advantages - Negative Aspects

The great majority of us would say that rewards should be given according to one's merit. What happens when people are not rewarded for their achievements, but instead they are rewarded for who they are or for the group they are part of? Many people, including you, would react negatively.

This is the essence of the dilemma concerning the idea of putting into advantage persons who were discriminated in the past. Although it was created in order to assure an indiscriminative treatment for women and the minorities, this action became more than a preferential treatment without taking into account the merit of that person. There are a number of harmful deleterious consequences.

Firstly, putting into advantage the individuals discriminated in the past can stigmatize the beneficiaries of this action, producing feelings and thoughts of incompetence. For example, if you believe that someone was the beneficiary of a preferential election - based on criteria that did not take into account the personal merits - then, it is most probably that you will disregard the achievements of that specific individual. Actually, you would assume that this person would have never been elected if it wasn't for the advantage offered because of his past discrimination. There is a study conducted by Heilman, Block and Lucas which took part inside a laboratory where people were asked to review the employees' files, and on the work field, where people were asked to evaluate their work colleagues. There were spotted inferences of incompetence towards women and members of racial minorities.

Secondly, there is another negative consequence of putting into advantage the individuals discriminated in the past which affects those who are not beneficiaries of this action. When it is believed that women and minorities were preferentially selected, those who would have been traditionally elected often times consider they are truly deserving and consequently, they feel they were iniquitously avoided and rejected. This was suggested to be the major reason for the violent reactions against people discriminated in the past.

In a study concerning this problem, some participants of the masculine gender were grouped together with a woman. They were told that the woman was previously elected preferentially, based on her sex, for the task they wanted to achieve. Those who thought they were more proficient than the woman were less motivated, more irritated and less contempt than those who were told that the woman was elected because she is much more deserving and competent.

Furthermore, another negative aspect refers to the fact that those who are put into advantage because of their affiliation to a group discriminated in the past have an affected potential. When people believe they were preferentially elected on irrelevant criteria such as this one presented above, there might appear low self opinions. Ironically, if this is the case, putting into advantage people discriminated in the past might actually harm them. Another study was conducted in order to bring support to this idea. When women were told they were elected to be leaders based on their gender, they consider themselves incompetent for the role, they evaluated more negatively their activity and they were eager to get rid of the role.

In conclusion, because of the negative aspects and consequences presented above, it seems that putting into advantage persons who were discriminated in the past can undermine its own objectives. Stigmatizing people who were discriminated in the past is inerrant to this action and instead of discrediting stereotype thinking and attitudes based on preconceptions it increases them. Depriving people of the satisfaction they could get from knowing they achieved something they deserve can be corrosive, can diminish the personal efficacy and can also develop low self-esteem. So, despite the success in extending working opportunities for women and minorities, putting into advantage individuals discriminated in the past can contribute to the exact conditions that provoked the problems this action was intended to mend. This means employers should think twice before appeal to this action and maybe they should elect staff based on significant criteria and not on those based on gender or racial differences, because by this they could create tension at the work place and also they could reduce the staff's efficacy.