Affirmative Action has various positive impacts on an individual basis. For instance, Evan Apfelbaum of MIT and other professionals in the field would state there is a direct link between an employee’s representation of their minority group in the workplace. They say groups that are characterized more in a workplace or school environment tend to have fewer concerns about their personal reflection on their group (Apfelbaum, Reagans, & Stephens, 2016). This relationship shows that an employee's individual performance can be raised by the presence of more employees of their minority group so that they are more relaxed and in turn will work more efficiently as a result of motivation. This can definitely be achieved by affirmative action and continue to assist companies in improving their productivity through diversity. Another effective outcome for affirmative action amongst individuals is that it encompasses all minorities, such as African Americans, Latinos, LGBT, and women (Harrison, Kravitz, Leslie, Lev-Arey, & Mayer, 2006). Both instances are rooted from motivation. If the employees feel at ease in their positions and can perform effectively with other people, then in turn their enthusiasm to do well will increase and they will surpass expectations. Affirmative action in this circumstance is not just advantageous for the individual, but also for the organization.
Affirmative action also has pros for organizations, which are inclined to be similar to individuals but on a larger scale. One encouraging benefit of affirmative action plans is that it is mandatory for organizations to consider every candidate regardless of orientation. This guarantees that businesses look at all potential employees throughout the hiring process and do not ignore select minority groups due to bias. This then communicates the idea of equality. In the article, Understanding Affirmative Action, Faye Crosby examined this sense of equality and how many businesses can be biased without recognizing it. The usefulness of affirmative action originates from the fact that it is the only method of rectifying discrimination in the United States that does not depend upon the mistreated parties to come forward on their own choice (Crosby, Iyer, Sincharoen, 2006). Research has supported that possessing diversity in organizations can improve growth within a company and boost productivity. As stated by Faye Crosby and her associates, diversity has been shown to result in constructive learning outcomes and positive democratic outcomes for all workers, as well as an added capability, to see from the perspective of others and participate in political affairs (Crosby, Iyer, Sincharoen, 2006).
In contrast, there are an ample number of opponents to affirmative action, particularly in individuals. From what David Kravitz of the Journal of Applied Psychology has to say, many people are against affirmative action because they simply have no idea what it actually does (Kravitz, 1993). When people are uneducated on what affirmative action is, in turn there is significant resistance toward it. Without this method in place, there would be a reduced amount of diversity in the workplace which could impair a person’s productivity. A further concern with affirmative action is attributable to its negative opinion among many people. It is argued that facts of the AAP (Affirmative Action plans) will impact opinions toward affirmative action, with thoughts becoming progressively negative as more emphasis is given to demographic status than merit (Kravitz, 1993). This gradually negative association with the words “affirmative action” can have a damaging effect on the progression as a whole. It is evident then, that the status of affirmative action is valuable and that if someone is against it, they should nonetheless be knowledgeable of what it actually does.
Including organizations, affirmative action holds just as many cons. Between hiring and admission committees there has been many occurrences of scandals of affirmative action being exploited. Some businesses have been discovered to misuse affirmative action or even completely reject Caucasian applicants because they are a majority group. This is also a considerable issue among universities and their selection procedures. Such was the case with the University of Michigan example. There are universities that misuse affirmative action and reject eligible applicants based on background, which is not what affirmative action is intended for. As said by Thernstrom & Zuriff, opponents of affirmative action frequently describe the policy as being biased, arguing that it destroys a treasured system of meritocracy in the United States by basing selection decisions on demographic characteristics at the cost of skill and accomplishment (As cited in Crosby, Iyer, Sincharoen, 2006). This dispute implies that it is prejudiced in nature to select a minority over a majority applicant given the same qualifications. Granted that this is not the most optimal outcome, it is one of the only means for which lesser minority groups have the opportunity to be represented in a place of work. Just like the definition states, affirmative action aims to redress discrimination (Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006). After considering the pros and cons of affirmative action, further analysis in still needed to determine how it influences diverse environments and why it is essential.