Section B explored a range of things that can go wrong despite the existence of EO policies and programs, as well as different ways to manage, and pre-empt the negative human factors that can compromise or fully negate workplace systems and intentions to provide EO.

For each of the following situations, take a positive approach to eliminating sex discrimination and gender bias by determining what processes need to be introduced or enhanced in your workplace in order to eliminate the negative impact of human factors.

Consider this checklist below and grow your awareness of the many guises human bias can take, for example:

• acting roles that can develop staff are not rotated equitably;
• individuals who opt for part-time or flexible work arrangements are seen and treated as people who are less serious about career progression – for the part-timers, the perception is that ‘it’s just a job’;
• company policy allows for family-friendly work arrangements, but no management training exists to counteract negative gender bias and stereotypes that come into play when women choose to exercise these options;
• an inappropriate and divisive management request for one staff member to keep an eye on a peer who is being paid to act up;
• an outlook on jobs, (shared with new graduates by a more senior person) that appears to contrast the ‘serious nature of men’s careers to the ‘less serious’ nature of women’s work;
• the informal way in which a performance review is done can disadvantage people using family-friendly work options;
• a manager won’t alter personal style, or operate in a way that accommodates different work arrangements, placing pressure on the peers of those utilising family-friendly options;
• a simplistic grasp of equality principles and their direct application to existing salary base can result in pay inequities, subverting the objective performance-based system used previously;
• the manager holds the view that a full-time person is more committed to the organisation;
• lack of sensitivity is displayed as the restructure is introduced; when people are informed about who will fill the new jobs without any consultation, this is unprofessional and legally naïve;
• the restructure and type of jobs created conflict with the spirit and intent of policy that provides for family-friendly practices, but the restructure and jobs offered are justified as business strategy to reduce operational costs;
• inappropriate management decisions arise about who will or should take redundancies, based on a personal desire to have people fulfilling more traditional work arrangements;
• potential direct and indirect cases of sex and pregnancy discrimination plus potential dismissal on the basis of family responsibilities arise.

Proceed to Section D - Useful Definitions
or
Return to Work Organisation Solution Tool Homepage.