The Equality Effects of the ‘Hyper‐formalization’ of Selection
| Author | Geraldine Healy,Franklin Oikelome,Mike Noon,Cynthia Forson |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00807.x |
| Date | 01 September 2013 |
| Published date | 01 September 2013 |
The Equality Effects of the
‘Hyper-formalization’ of Selection
Mike Noon, Geraldine Healy, Cynthia Forson1and Franklin Oikelome2
School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End, London E1 4NS, UK,
1Department of Management Leadership and Organisation, Business School, University of Hertfordshire,
College Lane, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK, and 2College of Graduate and Professional Studies, Eastern
University, 1300 Eagle Road, St Davids, PA 19087, USA
Corresponding author email: m.a.noon@qmul.ac.uk
This paper explores how formalization of employee selection procedures for the purpose
of ensuring equality of opportunity can become so extensive that the intended outcome of
fairness is undermined. Drawing on empirical evidence from a large media organization,
the analysis reveals the detrimental impact of formalization in relation to the recruitment
of ethnic minority staff. While the existing literature describes how, during recruitment
of employees, the circumvention of formal equality procedures can occur through mana-
gerial neglect and manipulation, the analysis in this paper shows that, paradoxically,
circumvention can also occur through compliance with procedures. This new category
takes three forms (robotic, defensive and malicious) and appears under conditions of
excessive formalization – the term hyper-formalization is coined to describe this. The
paper develops new concepts that add to understanding of the limitations of equality and
diversity procedures, and brings fresh challenges to some of the liberal assumptions about
the efficacy and desirability of formalization for achieving fairness.
Introduction
Equality and diversity is an area of human
resource management that can be characterized as
procedurally driven. Legal regulations require
compliance with minimum standards based on
a liberal tradition of regulating to attain fair
procedures (Greene and Kirton, 2009; Jewson
and Mason, 1986b). In addition, the processes of
recruitment and selection have undergone a
general growth in the specification of procedures
as human resource (HR) professionals seek to
manage risk of litigation and assert their specialist
influence (Wolf and Jenkins, 2006). This regula-
tion of internal processes is normally described as
formalization and characterized by a growth in
procedures that prescribe actions to be taken, the
sequencing of actions and the limits to action. The
supposed gains from formalizing are standardiza-
tion and control of processes leading to more pre-
dictable outcomes. In relation to recruitment and
selection, the principle objective is the selection of
the best candidate through the removal of bias,
inconsistency, prejudice and other distorting
effects. The desired equality outcome is that the
process is fair and produces a ‘level playing field’
(Jewson and Mason, 1986b).
While formalization is acknowledged as impor-
tant for the purposes of equality, it is not without
its critics who, as we review below, suggest that
there are ways in which managers circumvent the
procedures and undermine fairness, either inten-
tionally or inadvertently. The response is some-
times to increase formalization by introducing
even tighter procedures – a move which we
suggest might lead to new forms of circumven-
tion. This paper explores the proposition that
there might be an optimum level of formalization
beyond which the procedures begin to undermine
the purposes for which they are intended. Specifi-
cally, we assess whether the formalization of selec-
tion procedures can become so extensive that it
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 24, 333–346 (2013)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00807.x
© 2012 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2012 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial