Conference turris::womannotes-v2

773.0. "What's Equal Opportunity Worth?" by JAIMES::GODIN (This is the only world we have) Thu Aug 31 1989 19:19

The following is an excerpt (reprinted without permission) from "American 
Executives through Foreign Eyes" by Arthur M. Whitehill.  The article 
appeared in the May-June, 1989, "Business Horizons."  According to the 
editors, "Arthur M. Whitehill is a professor of international management 
at the College of Business Administration, University of Hawaii.  This 
article is adapted from his recent books, "Yankee Businessman" (in 
Japanese), and "The New American Executive" (in Chinese and English).

Any comments?  My only caution is that we all remember Digital is an 
international corporation and that we have known readers/contributors 
from outside the U.S.


                         _Honorable Chairperson_

When is the chairman of the board not a chairman?  The answer is simple.  
When she is a chairwoman.  But to avoid any hint of sexism, he or she is 
now referred to as "chairperson."  Stewardesses have become "cabin 
attendants," waitresses have become "food handlers," and janitors have 
been elevated to the lofty title of "custodian."  No other country in the 
world has reacted so strongly as the United States to overcome national 
guilt feelings regarding the treatment of minorities in employment.

Writing in 1982, a leading Japanese professor of law tactfully pointed 
out the very real costs to American industry of complying with equal 
employment opportunity (EEO) laws.  He warned that "the idea of equal 
opportunity for groups hitherto discriminated against, such as minorities 
and women, tends to protect the interests of such groups, without 
particular consideration of the efficiency and ability of individuals 
belonging to such groups."  A major concern, he warned, is the glaring 
contradiction "between the idea of fairness and the efficient allocation 
of the labor force in an industrial society."

The crucial point is that under EEO, American businessmen do play by a 
different set of rules than their competitors in other parts of the 
world.  U.S. airlines have been particularly hard-pressed to live within 
the laws.  Cabin crews now must be hired without consideration of sex or 
age.  This may be very desirable and supportive of human rights.  But 
when given the choice between grandmotherly and often grouchy female 
attendants on U.S. planes and the svelte young girls in colorful kimonos 
or saris on other airlines, the experienced business traveler will opt 
for the latter every time.

Foreign companies operating in the United States frequently are confused, 
and sometimes angered, by the nation's obsession with human rights and 
equality.  For example, the giant Hitachi Corporation thought things were 
going quite well in its television assembly plant in southern California 
until mid-1982.  Then the company had its first real American-style 
shock.  Hitachi had to pay a quarter-million-dollar penalty to settle a 
racial discrimination suit.  It seems that it was hiring too many Asians 
and not enough blacks and Hispanics at the plant.

Even the most severe foreign critics, however, will admit that there have 
been many positive results of EEO legislation.  They recognize that of 
all the minority groups, women no doubt have benefited most.  As one 
foreign corporate president confesses, "It never occurred to me that 
women might be willing and able to do many skilled craft jobs, be sales 
representatives, or fill professional and managerial positions."

But there is one recent trend in America that is simply beyond the 
comprehension of most foreign executives.  It is difficult for them to 
accept the fact that in a growing number of families, the working wife 
already holds a more important job and earns more pay than her husband.  
In such a situation, if the wife gets a promotion that requires moving to 
a new location, her husband is willing to leave his lesser job and 
follow.

Recently, I described this growing possibility to a small group of 
Japanese who were attending a seminar on U.S. management practices.  When 
I asked for their reactions, only one would respond.  And his only 
comment, made with considerable emotion and feeling was, "What a terrible 
country!"

    I think the American family is far from settled with the changes that
    have been enabled by Equal Opportunity.  We're still struggling.  In
    many countries, a lot more work would have to be done to arrive even at
    the doorstep of Equal Opportunity... the veils would have to drop,
    figuratively and literally.  What these businessmen are experiencing is
    future shock.
    
    Marge

    Isn't it interesting that the writer finds a correlation between age 
    and disposition?  As an "experienced business traveler", I've found 
    my share of grouchy svelte youngsters in flight attendant uniforms.
    
    Polly

    Re: .2
    
    I was going to remark on the same point.
    
    I rather like the friendly, helpful, gracious grandmother and
    grandfather types I've frequently encountered on Continental and
    TWA.  True, I've encountered some grouchy older attendants.  I've
    also encountered young, attractive attendants who were too busy
    flirting with the guy in the next cabin to bring out the beverage
    cart, and efficient attractive young men with gorgeous bodies, and
    efficient attractive middle-aged men with wonderful manners, and
    just about every combination in between.  
    
    If I had the choice, I'd gladly pay more for better service.  And
    the business reputation of airlines like JAL is that they provide
    much better service, more amenities, better food, etc.  
    
    --bonnie

    Re: .2
    
    I consider it more interesting that the writer finds a correlation
    between "experienced business travelers" and people attracted to svelte
    young women attired in saris and kimonos.  (Caveat:  I'm sure men don't 
    wear saris; I'm not so sure they don't wear kimonos.)

    Back to the original point.  The author assumes that american
    businesses are put at a competitive disadvantage with respect to asian
    firms because of compliance with equal oportunity laws.  If there is
    any sacrifice in monetary gain (and I am sure this point is debatable)
    there is certainly more fairness and improvement the attendant social
    quality-of-life issues to which no monetary value may be attached. 
                     
    This is a democracy where three-fourths of the populace is not
    white-male.  
    
    Beware, japanese.  Your last election showed the voting power of
    the women voters.
    
    Robbie

    re: .4
    
    Agreed.  That thought struck me while driving home the other day.
    Would ssem as if the author of this little piece started out with a few
    biases of his own.

    This article really doesn't say much, so there is hardly any point in
    trying to respond to it.  The author never says what the "high costs"
    of equal employnment opportunity are even though the point is made more
    than once.  Maybe the cost is in building a second restroom??
    
    It is kind of unsettling to have some manager quoted as being surprised
    that women are willing and able to fill the same kinds of positions as
    men; you wouldn't get many American men to admit they feel that way
    anymore, even if they do.  Maybe the Japanese man quoted at the end
    thinks this is a "terrible" country because we don't stay home and act
    like personal servants??
    
    I kind of prefer the more mature airline attendants, but I don't care
    much so long as they are reasonably civil to me.  Which do you think
    would do better in an emergency, and 18-year-old kid or someone twice
    that age? (MY age, in other words...)  
    
    /Charlotte