Employment equity in Canada: making sense of employee discourses of misunderstanding, resistance, and support.

McGowan, Rosemary A. ; Ng, Eddy S.

Introduction

Employment equity seeks to increase the representation of historically disadvantaged groups in employment. However, there has been little research that examines the attitudes toward employment equity among Canadians. This paper explores employee discourse of an employment equity initiative in a mid-sized Canadian organization. Studying employee discourse is important because misunderstandings of employment equity can create backlash among the working public, particularly when the economy is declining and job opportunities are scarce, and hamper government efforts to promote workplace equality (Agocs and Burr 1996; Reitz 2005; Reitz and Banerjee 2007). Employee discourse contributes to the perception and enactment of workplace policy, and can provide an insight into staff views and interpretations of important policies (Ter Hoeven et al. 2012). Furthermore, politicians' efforts to "depoliticize" employment equity using statistical reporting can result in backlash because of perceived quotas and targets (Grundy and Smith 2011). Bakan and Kobayashi (2007) reported that such backlash has stymied the cooperation from employers and policy makers when governments implement employment equity. Furthermore, those hired under employment equity were often stigmatized and seen as less competent, resulting in employee resistance (Matheson et al. 2000; Ng and Wiesner 2007).

This study examines the construction of employee understanding of employment equity as a first step to developing an understanding of how and why employment equity is either accepted or is seen as problematic by organizational members. It adopts a discourse analytic perspective to the study of employee comments regarding employee equity in their workplace. Discourse analysis, as a form of textual analysis, explores the richness of people's natural language to detect themes, patterns, and nuances that might not be detected in quantitative work (Roberson and Stevens 2006). It enables the exploration of how issues come to be understood, represented, and co-constructed by individuals (Wood and Kroger 2000). A discourse analytic framework facilitates exploration of the discursive strategies that underpin both support of and resistance to employment equity, and can enhance understanding of perceptions, understandings and misunderstandings of this complex organizational issue.

Background: Employment equity policy

Efforts to implement employment equity began in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the federal and Quebec governments sought to increase Aboriginal and Francophone participation in civil service (Agocs 1986). The legal foundation for employment equity was provided under the Canadian Human Rights Act (1981). The Public Service Employment Act (1967) also established prohibitions against sex discrimination. The Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission, established in 1976, oversaw voluntary programs to include women and Aboriginals in federal contracts (Agocs 1986). When the federal government began investigating the need for mandatory employment equity aimed at improving the economic status of minorities who faced discrimination in the labour market, it asked the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment to make policy recommendations.

The resulting policy response was the 1984 report (Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report) by Judge Rosalie Abella. According to Abella, members of the four designated groups, namely women, visible minorities (1), Aboriginal peoples, and persons with disabilities, have historically faced barriers to employment. They were disproportionately excluded from the workplace because of their group membership, and most of the barriers they faced were systemic in nature. Employment equity policy was intended to ensure fairness in the workplace by removing systemic barriers due to factors unrelated to merit. This would allow these groups to contribute evenly to the success of their employers and to the economic and social well-being of all Canadians. Following the Abella report, the Employment Equity Act (EEA) was officially passed by parliament in 1986.

Employment equity (2) is intended as a "proactive strategy" to remedy the effects of past discrimination facing four designated groups. The EEA states that employment equity means "more than treating people in the same way," as it also "requires special measures and the accommodation of differences" (Employment Equity Act of 1986, Section 2). "The employer's employment equity plan must state the 'positive policies and practices that will be implemented for 'hiring, training, promotion, and retention of persons in designated groups and for the making of reasonable accommodations for those persons, to correct the underrepresentation...'" (Mentzer 2002: 43-44). However, the EEA states that employers are not required to hire or promote unqualified persons or to create new positions (Labour Canada n.d.).

A 1993 national Gallup poll indicated that 74 percent of respondents across Canada felt that a person's qualifications should be the sole determinant of hiring decisions (Sillars, 1994). Recent reports (for example, The Globe and Mail 2011) also suggest that Canadians held negative attitudes toward employment equity. Some individuals may be resistant (3) to employment equity because they: (1) harbour racist or sexist attitudes (that is, taste discrimination) (Becker 2013); (2) deny their own privilege and do not understand the challenges faced by marginalized groups (Solomona et al. 2005); and/or (3) subscribe to meritocracy (that is, most qualified person) and oppose any form of affirmative action (Son Hing et al. 2011). Others may support employment equity because they understand the historical challenges faced by designated groups (Beaton and Tougas 2001). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that employment equity measures, including the recruitment and hiring of minority groups, are controversial and divisive (Burke and Black 1997; Bakan and Kobayashi, 2007; Grundy and Smith 2011). Against this backdrop, the purpose of this paper is to examine the knowledge, and support or resistance among a sample of Canadian workers toward employment equity.

Falkenberg and Boland (1997) suggested one alternative to increasing government involvement might to be to focus on changing attitudes toward employment equity. This is worth exploring given that Canadians are relatively open to persuasion (for example, on multiculturalism; see Ng and Bloemraad 2015). Ng and Wiesner (2007), in an experimental study, reported that respondents are willing to hire a lesser-qualified candidate when they were informed that there is a gender imbalance. Likewise, Hideg and Ferris (2014) suggest that non-beneficiaries of employment equity (that is, men) have more positive self-image (worth and integrity) and support employment equity when the policy is seen as promoting diversity. Previous investigations into the attitudes toward employment equity among the general Canadian population used surveys (for example, Fletcher and Chalmers 1991; Sillars 1994) or lab experiments (Brutus et al. 1998; Seijts and Jackson 2001; Tougas et al. 2004; Ng and Wiesner 2007). Flere we employ discourse analysis (4) to shed light on the interpretation and reaction of employment equity among Canadians (also see Ehrlich and King 1992) in an organizational setting. We draw on Converse's (1964, 1970) hypothesis that the general public often has so little information and understanding of the issues that they respond more or less at random to survey questions. Consequently, our study explores the ways in which negative attitudes toward employment equity may stem from Canadians in an organizational setting not being well-informed nor understanding the spirit and intent of employment equity within the context of "redressing past discrimination."

Method

Participants in the study included 676 respondents who are employees at a mid-sized Canadian organization subject to mandatory reporting under the Employment Equity Act. They were asked to self-identity whether they belonged to one of the four designated groups (that is, women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with a disability, visible minorities), as part of the employer's requirement to comply with the EEA. In addition, employees were asked these questions: (1) "Are you familiar with Employment Equity?", (2) "What is your understanding of Employment Equity?" and, (3) "Do you feel [your employer] has done enough to promote Employment Equity?" We used the responses to the three open-ended questions in our textual analysis. The sample was comprised of 62.3 percent women, 2.7 percent Aboriginal peoples, 3.6 percent persons with a disability, and 5.8 percent visible minorities.

The text samples were reviewed and initially divided into five categories: (1) Who are the designated groups?; (2) The purpose of employment equity; (3) Construction of resistance; (4) Construction of support for employment equity; and (5) Employee assessment of the organization's employment equity efforts. A fine-grained analysis of those texts was conducted to gain a better appreciation of the discursive constructions and strategies employees adopted when discussing employment equity.

The approach to discourse analysis used here drew largely from Edwards and Potter (1992), Potter and Wetherell (1987), and Wood and Kroger (2000). The first stage of analysis involved reading and re-reading the interview transcripts to identify emergent themes. Files of excerpts were created for each major theme, followed by a close reading of the excerpts to determine which discursive tools participants used and how participants used them to present their understanding and perspectives of the policy. We checked for the presence of different discursive tools and practices such as modality, systematic vagueness, extreme case formalizations, ellipsis, metaphors, and rhetoric. The analysis focuses on the discourse to identify themes and patterns of similarity, differences in constructions, and then show how these themes are evident in the language. This leads to an understanding of how respondents' language reinforces and resists employment equity initiatives.

One of the goals of content analysis is to generate a numerical count of words or specific content (Weber 1985); discourse analysis does not typically consider numerical counts. In discourse analysis, demonstration is a key element of the analysis (Wood and Kroger 2000: 183-4); that said, it is helpful to review the descriptive statistics of respondent statements that were supportive (or not) of employment equity policy (see Table 1).

Gender

Men were no more likely than women to report that they are familiar with employment equity. However, men were more likely than women to say the employer has done enough to promote employment equity.

Aboriginal Peoples

Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Peoples also reported little familiarity with employment equity. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Peoples were equally likely to say the employer has done enough for Aboriginal Peoples.

Persons with disabilities

Persons with and without disabilities reported little familiarity with employment equity. However, persons without disabilities were more than persons with disability to claim that the employer has done enough to promote employment equity.

Visible minorities

Visible minorities were no more likely than non-visible minorities to report familiarity with employment equity. However, non-visible minorities were more likely to say the employer has done enough to promote employment equity.

Overall, participants reported little familiarity with employment equity. With the exception of those with disabilities, non-minority groups (that is, non-beneficiaries of employment equity) were also more likely to respond that their employer has done enough for the designated groups.

The discourse analysis focused on the 236 comments offered by survey respondents. There were 69 comments pertaining to Q2 ("Understanding of employment equity") and 167 comments related to Q3 ("Employer has done enough"). In response to a question regarding their understanding of employment equity policies, 47 comments were from individuals who indicated they had an understanding of employment equity principles. Among those familiar with employment equity principles, 31 % of comments challenged or resisted employment equity principles. Among those indicating they are not familiar with employment equity, only one comment expressed a negative perspective on employment equity based on their limited understanding.

Results

Textual analysis of employees' comments suggests a range of understanding of employment equity practices and policies at the organization. The following sections analyze the discursive strategies used by employee respondents to the online survey.

Who are the designated groups?

When describing who employment equity was designed to support, some respondents correctly identified some but generally not all of the four categories of eligible groups. In only 5 of the 69 comments were the groups covered by employment equity accurately identified. There was a commonality in the groups identified as eligible for employment equity; the groups typically identified include women, visible minorities and people with disabilities. Only nine participants explicitly identified Aboriginal Peoples as supported by employee equity. Nineteen comments identify an overly broad inclusion of people for whom employment equity was designed. Respondents tended to state that employment equity provided support for individuals based on non-employment equity eligible categories namely sexual orientation, employment status and faith-based categories. For instance, employees wrote that employment equity is designed for: "women, women of visible minorities, transgendered and transsexual, lesbian and gay people, marginal and vulnerable groups like contract workers, aboriginal people, people with disabilities both visible and invisible and so on"; "faith (or lack of), race, gender or gender orientation, disability"; "... people of all races, cultural and religious differences. ..."

Given that employment equity was designed to assist workers who might otherwise face limitations in the workplace, these comments suggest that in this organization, participants feel that a broad range of individuals may face challenges in the workplace. These overly inclusive comments may say more about this particular workplace or the workplace in general than about the respondents' understanding of employment equity eligible categories of individuals. Other employees extended the designated groups under employment equity even further through the use of an extreme case formulation--"all"--as in "all Canadians." For instance, 23 employee statements of the 69 or 33 % stated that employee equity pertained to: "all persons"; "male, female, disabled, gay or from a visible minority"; "equal and fair opportunity for all Canadians"; "all"; "all individuals"; "all people." Some employees used the shorthand "preference given to 2, 3, 4 categories" or "target groups."

In addition, when referring to the individuals for whom employment equity was designed to assist, the term "dominant group" was used in 4 of 69 statements. Although small, the use of a very specific marked term "dominant group" suggests an understanding of eligible groups in opposition to "the dominant group." For instance, research participants noted that employment equity was for "groups identified as not a part of the dominant group" or "not part of the dominant cultural/sexual/religious...." In these cases, designated groups were identified in opposition to the "dominant group." The use of the word "dominant" explicitly establishes oppositional categories--"dominant"/"subordinated" groups but does so without specifying who those dominant groups are, or by what feature they are dominant (for example, gender, race, numbers, position within organizations, earning potential, decision making authority, etc.).

When describing the target groups for whom employment equity was designed, some participants used language that was explicitly critical of those in the designated groups. For instance, one participant noted that employment equity was designed, "To give people who cannot succeed in normal workplace competition an advantage."

The purpose of employment equity

Employee comments regarding the purpose of employment equity show, as with the definition of the designated group for employment equity described earlier, an overly broad understanding of the purpose of employment equity legislation. When asked about employment equity, 4 out of 69 comments indicated that it involved "equal pay for all regardless of gender, age, or race" or "Females must be paid equal pay for equal work as males." In the original legislation, the purpose of employment equity was for employment opportunities, rather than for pay equity.

Some respondents framed employment equity as a very comprehensive but ill-defined concept. Two responses said "equal opportunities for all individuals." Also, as noted previously, this discursive construction positions employment equity as being open to "all" individuals--an extreme case formulation of inclusion. For six respondents, there is a notable shift from the word "equal opportunity" to a more tempered "fair opportunity." The use of the word "fair" is a downgrade from "equal opportunity" and is further qualified by the phrase "to those qualified and physically able to perform the duties of the position." The twin foundations of "qualified and physically able" become coded language for the justification for excluding or marginalizing certain applicants. This comment may suggest a bias against certain individuals in favour of certain physical characteristics, or a lack of understanding of employment equity.

Construction of resistance: the "most qualified person"

Resistance to employment equity frequently invokes a liberal, principle-based perspective of employment based on merit (Augoustinos, Tuffin, and Every 2005). Five comments explicitly included the term "merit." For instance, one employee wrote, "Employment should be not based on race, gender, personal disability, sexual preference. Rather, it should be based solely on merit." One participant characterized the employment equity program as, "An outdated, racist, sexist program. People should be hired on ability, not because of colour/race/creed." These comments clearly declared what employment should NOT be based on, using it as a platform for the merit argument for hiring. The imperative "should" appeared 17 times in 69 comments (or approximately 25 %) regarding the importance of merit as a hiring criterion as did the extreme case formulation "must always" (six times) as in "Organization X must ALWAYS hire and promote the best qualified people regardless of status in any of the categories listed above." "Representation should not be an issue. Decisions for staffing should be based on ability." Another participant wrote that, "No organization should hire someone because of employment equity. It should hire the best qualified person." This double-barrelled construction of what hiring should and should not be based on was a predominant feature of the argument of many respondents. Such argumentation is both critical of employment equity and presents an alternative basis for hiring.

Similarly, one participant stated that, "Representation should not be an issue. Decisions for staffing should be based on ability." Another stated that, "This may sound idealistic, but having the best qualified person for the job should always take precedence over a person's physical appearance." This statement, like others reviewed earlier, also serves to potentially diminish and marginalize employees whose hiring is through employment equity procedures. This person's statement suggests that employment equity leads to "not necessarily the best qualified person for the job." One further example in support of this perspective, "That the issue of race and disability should not be an issue. For instance, when hiring for a position, evaluation should be based on candidate education, skills, etc. not race or disability." Statements of resistance consistently drew on the merit argument and used the imperatives and firm declaratives of "should" and "must always."

Based on these comments from a vocal minority (approximately 12%), there is no equivocality in the resistance to the principles of employment equity. In addition, these statements show little understanding or regard for the hurdles that employment equity-eligible groups have traditionally and currently still face. Nor do these comments recognize the speaker's own position of privilege and the opportunities afforded through their position.

Construction of resistance: favouritism and resistance

Employment equity was framed as a program of privilege or supporting favouritism. One participant wrote that, "T understand it to be a program that favours some members of the target group in hiring processes which I would oppose fundamentally because 'equal' should mean 'equal' and not 'better.'" This strident position was not unique among the comments reviewed. The use of the modality "I understand" tempers the subsequent information and suggests that the individual frames his/her opinion on employment equity as from their knowledge of the issue. In contrast, other participants framed their comment as a "fact" about employment equity with participants simply stated that "Employment equity is ..." despite then providing a response frequently showing a less than full and accurate understanding of the legislation. Their confidence in construction was not met with accuracy of understanding.

Construction of support: neutrality and supportive "legalese"

In contrast to statements that actively resist employment equity principles, thirteen participant statements attempted to demonstrate knowledge and give credence to their understanding of employment equity by drawing on legalistic and/or neutral language. For example, participants drew on legalistic language "as per clauses in position announcement," which suggests at least two outcomes: the participant is free from having to declare a position on employment equity (either pro or con); and the language provides a level of authority regarding the purpose of employment equity--an authority which would then be less subject to challenge by those reading the statement. Another sample statement noted that, "My own understanding is that it is a governmental policy directed at ensuring people are judged fairly when applying for employment. ..." In describing employee equity, one participant wrote that, "employment equity is a policy designed to level the playing field across different groups in terms of having access to job opportunities and actively removing barriers to employment for members of specific groups."

Employee assessment of the organization's efforts to implement employment equity

When asked an opinion about the organization's efforts to implement employment equity, responses were categorized in one of three broad categories: topic avoidance and unfamiliarity, attribution of status of employment equity to match with the surrounding community, or attributions of limitation to the organization.

Topic avoidance and unfamiliarity

Some participants engaged in the discursive strategy of topic avoidance (Bonilla-Silva and Forman 2000: 52) by claiming non-familiarity with employment equity. When asked about what the organization had done to promote employment equity, 11 respondents simply stated, "I don't know" or "I am not sure" or "I am not familiar enough to answer this question." While some individuals may really not have been familiar with the employment equity initiatives at the organization, this response becomes a shorthand means for safely avoiding further discussion.

We examined why employees made such statements. When asked about why some people were unfamiliar with employment equity, the participants identified the organization as responsible for providing limited information. As one individual stated, "I have never been presented with it to read." This framing clearly puts the onus for information dissemination on the organization. The word "never" is a firm declarative and extreme case formulation designed to be unambiguous and definitive. Another participant also stated that, "I have never been presented with a copy of, or link to the Federal program information." Again, this participant's use of the word "never" removes any sense of ambiguity regarding the organization's communications pertaining to employment equity. One participant pointed to organizational silencing as a root of their unfamiliarity--"no one ever talks about it." This extreme case formulation "no one" and "ever" frames employment equity as a difficult topic that is silenced in the workplace. Strategies of organizational silence tend to be the bailiwick of thorny issues (Morrison and Milliken 2000; Ryan and Oestreich 1991).

Three employees cited their "new employee status" as the reason for their lack of familiarity with the employment equity programs at the organization. Identity construction as a new employee also allowed some participants to not voice an opinion; it also suggests that length of stay entitled voice. For instance, one stated, "I am too new of an employee to responsibly comment on this aspect of the organization." Not only did employees identify themselves as "new," they used qualifiers like "brand new" or "too new" to further differentiate their status and justification for not voicing an opinion. This construction suggests that a) only longstanding employees can comment on employment equity and b) this is a complex issue which requires a fairly lengthy employment standing in order to be understood. Alternatively, recent hires may feel too vulnerable to comment on what might be seen as a complicated and potentially divisive issue. As one employee stated, "This is a rather difficult question for a caretaker. I can't answer it." In this case, the employee relied on identity construction as a rationale for not giving voice. However, it could be simply that individuals felt that they were not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on this issue.

Views on the organization's success with employment equity varied considerably. Comments included, "I believe XX has done more than required in order to promote equity" to "XX is doing well but, in conjunction with the rest of society, we have not done enough until we see women and visible minorities involved in the higher positions in the workplace in proportion to their numbers in the population" to the more critical perspective that, "There are still very few visible minorities in XX's workforce. It needs to be looked at whether this is systematic or incidental." One participant focused on current issues with physical characteristics of the organization that dissuade applicants, "Make the physical building more accessible so when an interesting job is posted a disabled person does not have to first think, 'Do I have access to that location' without a big hassle?" Other respondents cited the organization as complying in theory but not in practice. For instance, one person wrote, "We currently have the standard statement on advertisements and report on the gender/minority distribution in job competitions. This is "monitoring" of equity but I am not aware of any active promotion." Finally, another wrote that, "Not making this seem as though it's only part of a compulsory process would be a start."

Attribution to community and organization's limitations

Some respondents note the numbers of employees potentially available from population demographics in the surrounding community. For instance, one wondered, "if the representation of visible minorities at XX is consistent with the existing population in AA and who are qualified for the potential positions." Another employee went further by indicating that the community is not only a "white" community but "AA is a very white community and therefore the majority of applicants are not visible minorities."

Yet this does not address the consideration of two of the key areas for employment equity: women and Aboriginal individuals. Another employee was more critical noting that the surrounding community was a, "White community--cultural norms--hidden racism--like hires like," and provided a description based on negative language to capture the behaviour of members in the organization. These practices potentially limit the diversity in the organization.

Discussion

This paper provides some insight into the social constructions of misunderstanding, resistance, and support of employment equity operating within an organization, present day. For individuals who resisted employment equity, the language is unequivocal. There was a consistent use of imperatives ("must" and "should") and extreme case formulations ("all") which serve to construct a fairly strong and strident position regarding employment equity in the workplace. These findings indicate that, for those who resist employment equity, their stance is absolute. There was also a marked and strong similarity in constructions of the resistance across a number of different textual excerpts suggesting a common platform or interpretive repertoire (Potter and Wetherell 1987) shaping understanding and resistance; an interpretive repertoire based on notions of merit, and liberal principles. Such participants not only used the term "merit," but in a context of imperatives and extreme case formulations suggesting that employment equity is absolutely problematic.

The findings may also suggest that many respondents simply did not know or understand the intent of employment equity as a public policy tool aimed at increasing representation of historically disadvantaged groups. For example, many did not know who were the designated groups identified under employment equity, and many included groups protected under separate anti-discrimination legislation (for example, Human Rights Act) such as religion and sexual orientation. When asked about employment equity, some respondents expressed non-familiarity with the concept, others suggested that they were too new as an employee to comment, and others used "legalese" when asked about their opinions, suggesting a defensive position. Most of the respondents did not appear to support giving preferential treatment to one group over another. Instead, the respondents were much more in favour of hiring the most qualified person, providing equal opportunities to all, and selection based on merit. While this may reflect their sentiment on justice issues in the workplace, it does not necessarily imply clear opposition to employment equity. We interpret this attitude as ambivalent given that most of the respondents were not (well) informed of employment equity in the workplace. There was also some indication of support for employment equity. As an example, some respondents used the term "dominant" to imply that some group are without power or influence, and are taken for granted.

Of particular concern is that the identity of the participants of employment equity is marginalized. The paradoxical and problematic outcome of employment equity--a program designed to facilitate employment opportunities of those in designated groups may serve to further marginalize these individuals --is a troubling and frustrating finding. By using words like "advantage," those eligible for employment equity consideration are subsequently categorized as akin to "cue jumpers" or "privileged" in the employment sphere an identity construction which may provide more hindrances than were previously in effect. The tendency to normalize, discount and silence challenges, whether physical, political, or otherwise, presented in the workplace ("normal workplace competition") serves to bifurcate the workforce into those who, by some unstated but widely held assumptions, can succeed in the workforce against those who by nature of gender and or disability are not suited to succeed in the workplace. This type of coded language masks a discriminatory bias within the organization.

Comments also depersonalized the individuals employment equity was designed to support. Some employees used the shorthand "preference given to 2, 3, 4 categories" or "target groups." The latter terminology, common within the employment equity literature, establishes a problematic identity for participants of employment equity programs. A target is defined as "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack" (Oxford Online Dictionary). A program designed for specific groups of individuals by its nature sets those individuals apart from others, and as will be seen later, is defined as privileging a certain group--hence making them and the program vulnerable to criticism or "attack." There is a paradox of establishing a program to help certain individuals but then having it discursively constructed in a way that potentially makes members of those groups vulnerable to questions about the basis for their hiring and promotion. Alternatively, participants might be using this language as a form of shorthand.

Those eligible for employment equity are identified not as being given an "equal" opportunity but one that privileges them; the word "advantage" with its Latin origin meaning "to be in front" suggests a privileged position, almost a "jumping the queue" quality, suggesting that the policy was unfair and inequitable. In addition, designated group members are identified as individuals who would be otherwise unsuccessful in the workplace. This respondent also used a firm declarative "cannot succeed" when describing the capabilities of these employees--suggesting that it is only by virtue of employment equity, and not through knowledge, skill, ability, etc., that this person would be able to succeed.

These comments serve not so much to directly criticize employment equity policies but to characterize the identities of those eligible for employment equity in ways that puts them in the margins and problematizes their identities, rather than in the mainstream, of organizational life either through a special privileging, or as individuals who were somehow less capable than others.

For some participants, the business case or market forces "framing" (for example, Cox and Blake 1991; Tannen 1993) serves to absolve organizations and their members of their responsibility in meeting employment equity guidelines. Adopting this perspective, employees and organizations do not have to examine their own internal practices and culture because employment equity is outside of their control. This approach has been described as market-based consideration of factors affecting employment equity (Tilbury and Colic-Peisker 2006). It effectively distances any responsibility for employment equity hiring and promotion issues away from the organization and out to factors outside the control of the organization--in other words, to the demographic profile of the external community. In effect, this approach shields the organization.

Conclusion

It is almost 25 years since early public opinion polls and surveys on Canadians' reaction to employment equity policy were published (Fletcher and Chalmers 1991; Sillars 1994). We find no evidence of workers universally advocating discrimination against marginalized groups, and some support for employment equity for these individuals. A majority of the opinions reflect those who do not understand the challenges faced by marginalized groups or simply favour meritocracy. Our research suggests that more communication on employment equity to Canadians is needed. While employment equity is a workplace practice, it is also a public policy that requires the support of the citizenry in order for it to be accepted and supported. In particular, we believe that Canadians are generally open to persuasion in this regard. Although the objective of our study was not to make an assessment on the effectiveness of employment equity, we caution that the effectiveness of employment equity may influence public opinion on whether it has achieved its objectives and is still needed. For example, the most recent EEA annual report (2014) found that although women and visible minorities have reached their proportionate representation in the Canadian workplace, their representation is still limited to lower levels of the organization and in non-professional or technical positions (see Leek 2002; Jain and Lawler, 2004; Ng and Burke 2010; Ng, Haq, and Tremblay 2014).

Employment and Social Development Canada offers a toolkit on "How to Implement an Employment Equity Program" which include steps on how to communicate the purpose of EE to employees (ESDC 2016). Additionally, Dutton et al. (2002) suggest engaging in "issue-selling" or "framing" to promote (gender) equity issues in the workplace. First, given our findings that resistance to employment equity stems from perceptions of fairness and the principle of meritocracy, we recommend mobilizing "psychological support" to persuade Canadians to support employment equity. In this context, studies (see Ng 2014 for a review) have shown that male approval for employment equity stems from perceptions of inequitable treatment of women. Thus, promoting employment equity as a policy to correct past injustices and to address gender imbalances may prove to be an effective strategy to garner support for employment equity. The public is also supportive of government intervention (for example, employment equity) to correct unfair market allocations (for example, discriminatory hiring practices) (Tyler 2004). Second, non-beneficiaries of employment equity (that is, white men) are more likely to support employment equity when their self-worth is not threatened (Hideg and Ferris 2014). In this regard, promoting employment equity on the basis of social justice and positive "doing the right thing" can enhance the non-beneficiaries' self-worth and positive self-image and consequently enhance their support for employment equity policy. Third, giving employees voice or influence enhances their commitment and participation in a program or policy. Given that employers have substantial leeway on how to implement employment equity, soliciting input from employees ("psychological ownership") can enhance their support for employment equity (Hideg, Michela, and Ferris 2011).

This research has applied language-based analysis to explore how employment equity processes are viewed and interpreted by organizational members as well as the identities of eligible groups. We found that there were variations of resistance ranging from principled objection to limited information and incorrect understandings. Overall, there was some support for employment equity, and no one was in favour of discriminating against marginalized groups. A large majority opposed employment equity in favour of meritocracy. The comments suggest a blindness, in some cases, to the inequities, privileges and power imbalances in organizations. With this understanding, governments can better anticipate the level and nature of resistance, and better communicate the goals and intent of employment equity.

This study produced many interesting findings, but its limitations should be noted. First, the survey was conducted in a single Canadian organization and may not be generalizable to employees or workers from organizations across the country. Nonetheless, the responses do represent the opinions of employees across an organization that has to comply with employment equity. Second, surveys on employment equity or affirmative action often suffer from social desirability bias (that is, respondents representing themselves in a positive light). However, given the findings reported in this study, we do not believe social desirability to be an issue. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we recommend future research on reactions to employment equity to focus on prejudice, privilege, and power dynamics in organizations.

Notes

(1) Visible minorities are defined as "persons other than Aboriginal Peoples who are non-Caucasian in race, or non-White in colour" under the federal Employment Equity Act (1986, revised 1995).

(2) "The term 'employment equity' was coined by Abella (1984) to denote a distinctly Canadian policy and to avoid the stigma and controversy surrounding affirmative action."

(3) We thank the Editor for suggesting this to us.

(4) In recent years, text-based analysis are increasingly used in the business and organizational literatures (Swales and Rogers 1995; Mumby and Claire 1997; Grant et al. 2004; Harley and Hardy 2004) and to explore a range of issues including racism (Hardy and Phillips 1999; Bonilla-Silva and Forma 2000; Augoustinos, Tuffin, and Every 2005; Hastie and Rimmington 2014), diversity (Roberson and Stevens 2006) and discrimination (Tilbury and Colic-Peisker 2006). As Hastie and Rimmington (2014) observed, studies of the discourses of racism have provided insights into linguistic patterns of "justifications and denials" adopted by individuals in positions of privilege and the manner in which those discourses that have been "used to resist policies designed to redress inequality" (p. 189).

References

Agocs, C. 1986. "Affirmative action, Canadian style: A reconnaissance." Canadian Public Policy 12 (1): 148-62.

Agocs, C, and C. Burr. 1996. "Employment equity, affirmative action and managing diversity: Assessing the differences." International Journal of Manpower 17 (4/5): 30-45.

Augoustinos, M., K. Tuffin, and D. Every. 2005. "New racism, meritocracy and individualism: Constraining affirmative action in education." Discourse & Society 16 (3): 315-40.

Bakan, A.B., and A. Kobayashi. 2007. "Affirmative action and employment equity: Policy, ideology, and backlash in Canadian context." Studies in Political Economy 79: 145-66.

Beaton, A.M., and F. Tougas. 2001. "Reactions to affirmative action: Group membership and social justice." Social Justice Research 14 (1): 61-78.

Becker, G.S. 2013. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press.

Bonilla-Silva, E., and T.A. Forman. 2000. "'I am not a racist'": Mapping white college students' racial ideology in the USA." Discourse & Society 11 (1): 50-85.

Brutus, S., L.F. Parra, M. Hunter, B. Perry, and F. Ducharme. 1998. "Attitudes toward affirmative action in the United States and Canada." Journal of Business and Psychology 12 (4): 515-33.

Burke, R.J., and S. Black. 1997. "Save the males: Backlash in organizations." Journal of Business Ethics 16 (9): 933-42.

Canadian Human Rights Act, 1981, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33.

Converse, P. 1964. "The nature of belief systems in mass publics." In Ideology and Discontent, edited by Apter, D. New York: Free Press, pp. 206-61.

--1970. "Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue." In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Tufte, E.R. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 168-89.

Cox, T.H., and S. Blake. 1991. "Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness." Academy of Management Executive 5 (3): 45-56.

Dutton, J.E., S.J. Ashford, K.A. Lawrence, and K. Miner-Rubino. 2002. Red light, green light: "Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling." Organization Science 13 (4): 355-69.

Edwards, D., and J. Potter. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.

Ehrlich, S., and R. King. 1992. "Gender-based language reform and the social construction of meaning." Discourse & Society, 3 (2): 151-66.

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). 2016. "How to implement an employment equity program" Available from http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/jobs/workplace/human_rights/employment_equity/tools/index.page.

Employment Equity Act, 1986, S.C. 1995, c. 44.

Employment Equity Act: Annual report. 2014. Gatineau, QC: Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

Falkenberg, L.E., and L. Boland. 1997. "Eliminating barriers to employment equity in the Canadian workplace." Journal of Business Ethics 16: 963-75.

Fletcher, J.F., and M. Chalmers. 1991. "Attitudes of Canadians toward affirmative action: Opposition, value pluralism, and non-attitudes." Political Behavior 13 (1): 67-95.

Grant, D., C. Hardy, C. Oswick, and L. Putnam, eds. 2004. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Grundy, J., and M. Smith. 2011. "Evidence and equity: Struggles over federal employment equity policy in Canada, 1984-95." Canadian Public Administration 54 (3): 335-57.

Hardy, C., and N. Phillips. 1999. "No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system." Organization Studies, 20 (1): 1-24.

Harley, B., and C. Hardy. 2004. "Firing blanks? An analysis of discursive struggle in HRM." Journal of Management Studies 41 (3): 377-400.

Hastie, B., and D. Rimmington. 2014. "'200 years of white affirmative action': White privilege discourse in discussions of racial inequality." Discourse & Society 25 (2): 186-204.

Hideg, I., and D.L. Ferris. 2014. "Support for employment equity policies: A self-enhancement approach." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 123 (1): 49-64.

Hideg, I., J.L. Michela, and D.L. Ferris. 2011. "Overcoming negative reactions of nonbeneficiaries to employment equity: The effect of participation in policy formulation." Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (2): 363.

Jain, H.C., and Lawler, J.L. 2004. "Visible minorities under the Canadian Employment Equity Act: 1987-1999." Relations Industrielles, 59 (3): 585-611.

Labour Canada. 2006. Ten Years Experience: A Background Issues Paper on the Employment Equity Act and Federal Contractors Program in Preparation for the Parliamentary Review 2006. Gatineau, Quebec: Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

Leck, J. 2002. "Making employment equity programs work for women." Canadian Public Policy 28 (s1): s85-s100.

Matheson, K.J., K.L. Warren, M.D. Forster, and C. Painter. 2000. "Reactions to affirmative action: Seeking the bases for resistance." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30 (5) 1013-38.

Mentzer, M.S. 2002. "The Canadian experience with employment equity legislation." International Journal of Value-Based Management 15 (1): 35-50.

Morrison, E.W., and F.J. Milliken. 2000. "Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world." Academy of Management Review 25: 706-25.

Mumby, D.K., and R. Clair. 1997. "Organizational discourse." In Discourse as Structure and Process, Vol. 2, edited by van Dijk, T.A. London: SAGE, pp. 181-205.

Ng, E.S. 2014. "Relative deprivation, self-interest and social justice: Why I do research on inequality." Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 33 (5): 429-41.

Ng, E.S. and I. Bloemraad. 2015. "A SWOT analysis of multiculturalism in Canada, Europe, Mauritius, and South Korean." American Behavioral Scientist 59 (6): 619-36.

Ng, E.S., and R. Burke. 2010. "A comparison of the legislated employment equity program, federal contractors program, and Financial Post 500 firms." Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 2IJ (3): 224-35.

Ng, E.S., and W.H. Wiesner. 2007. "Are men always picked over women? The effects of employment equity directives on selection decisions." Journal of Business Ethics 76 (2): 177-87.

Ng, E.S., R. Haq, and D.G. Tremblay. 2014. "A review of two decades of employment equity in Canada: Progress and propositions." In International Handbook on Diversity Management at Work: Second Edition Country Perspectives on Diversity and Equal Treatment, edited by Klarsfeld, A., L. Booysen, G. Combs, E. Ng, I. Roper, and A. Tatli. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 46-67.

Oxford Online Dictionary. Available from: http://www.oed.com/.

Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.

Reitz, J.G. 2005. "Tapping immigrants' skills: New directions for Canadian immigration policy in the knowledge economy." Law and Business Review of the Americas 11 (3/4): 409-32.

Reitz, J.G., and R. Banerjee. 2007. Racial Inequality, Social Cohesion and Policy Issues in Canada. Canada: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Roberson, Q.M., and C.K. Stevens. 2006. "Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employees' accounts of diversity-related incidents." Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (2): 379-91.

Ryan, K.D., and D.K. Oestreich. 1991. Driving Fear out of the Workplace: How to Overcome the Invisible Barriers to Quality, Productivity, and Innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Seijts, G.H., and S.E. Jackson. 2001. "Reactions to employment equity programs and situational interviews: A laboratory study." Human Performance 14 (3): 247-65.

Sillars, L. 1994. "Opposition to employment equity: A poll says Canadians dislike 'equal opportunity' programs." Western Report 8 (51): 32-3.

Solomona, R.P., J.P. Portelli, B.J. Daniel, and A. Campbell. 2005. "The discourse of denial: How white teacher candidates construct race, racism and 'white privilege'." Race Ethnicity and Education 8 (2): 147-69.

Son Hing, L.S., D.R. Bobocel, M.P. Zanna, D.M. Garcia, S.S. Gee, and K. Orazietti. 2011. The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101 (3): 433-50.

Swales, J., and P. Rogers. 1995. "Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The mission statement." Discourse & Society 92 (2): 223-42.

Tannen, D. 1993. "What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations." In Framing in Discourse, edited by Tannen, D. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 14-56.

Ter Hoeven, C.L., V. Miller, L. Den Dulk, and B. Peper. 2012. "'The work must go on': The role of employee and managerial discourse in the implementation and restriction of work-life policy use." Paper presented at the International Communication Association's 62nd Annual Conference (May), Phoenix Arizona, USA.

The Globe and Mail. 2011. "Employment equity: One size doesn't fit all," March 7.

Tilbury, F., and V. Colic-Peisker. 2006. "Deflecting responsibility in employer talk about race discrimination." Discourse & Society 17 (5): 651-76.

Tougas, F., J. Desruisseaux, A. Descrochers, L. St.-Pierre, A. Perrino, and R. de la Sablonniere. 2004. "Two forms of racism and their related outcomes: The bad and the ugly." Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 36 (3): 177-89.

Tyler, T.R. 2004. "Affirmative action in an institutional context: The antecedents of policy preferences and political support." Social Justice Research 17 (1): 5-24.

Weber, R.P. 1985. Basic Content Analysis. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage University Paper 49. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Wood, L.A., and R.O. Kroger. 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rosemary A. McGowan is Associate Professor, Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario. Eddy S. Ng is Professor and F.C. Manning Chair in Economics and Business, Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

Table 1. Percentage of Respondents Indicating: (1) Familiarity with
Employment Equity, and (2) Whether the Employer Has Done Enough to
Promote Employment Equity in the Workplace

                                Familiarity    Has the employer done
                                  with EE      enough to promote EE?

                                Yes     No        Yes       No

Women                          19.1%   80.9%   68.4%       31.6%
                               (63)    (267)   (253)       (117)
Men                            25.7%   74.3%   80.5%       19.5%
                               (48)    (139)   (182)       (44)
[chi square]                   3.06            10.51 ***

Aboriginal                     25.0%   75.0%   68.8%       31.3%
                               (3)     (9)     (11)        (5)
Non-Aboriginal                 21.5%   78.5%   73.2%       26.8%
                               (108)   (395)   (423)       (155)
[chi square]                    .86             .16

Persons with Disabilities      36.8%   63.2%   25.0%       75.0%
                               (7)     (12)    (5)         (15)
Persons without Disabilities   20.9%   79.1%   74.8%       25.2%
                               (104)   (393)   (430)       (145)
[chi square]                   2.75            24.37 ***

Visible Minorities             31.0%   69.0%   56.7%       43.3%
                               (9)     (20)    (17)        (13)
Non-Visible Minorities         20.5%   79.5%   73.8%       26.2%
                               (99)    (384)   (415)       (147)
[chi square]                   1.83            4.26 *

Note: Values in parentheses represent the sample size
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.