IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v6y2013i04p438-442_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No Steps Forward, Two Steps Back: The Fallacy of Trying to “Eradicate” Adverse Impact?

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur, Winfred
  • Woehr, David

Abstract

Within the context of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specifically as it pertains to the tenets of Title VII, Lindsey, King, Dunleavy, McCausland, and Jones (2013) state: “This focal article raises and addresses critical issues regarding a yet unanswered question: How can organizational researchers and practitioners contribute to the ultimate goal of eradicating employment discrimination” (p. 391). We argue that in the context of employment testing and selection, at least as per the disparate impact theory of discrimination, this question is the wrong one—certainly as framed by Lindsey et al. To the contrary, instead of holding up the "eradication of employment discrimination" as our ultimate goal, perhaps we should continue to focus on the development, implementation, and support of the best (i.e., most job-related and valid) employment practices possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur, Winfred & Woehr, David, 2013. "No Steps Forward, Two Steps Back: The Fallacy of Trying to “Eradicate” Adverse Impact?," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 438-442, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:6:y:2013:i:04:p:438-442_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942600005733/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:6:y:2013:i:04:p:438-442_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.