Tanglewood Case 5

577 Words3 Pages
Hiring Ratios Upon review of Tanglewood’s historical data for hiring and promotion I found that of the 4,764 total new hires, 82.9% were white, 16.8% were non-white, and 2.3% were African American. More to the point, as the positions within the company increased to Assistant Store Manager or Store Manager, the overall percentage of white hires to African American hires also significantly increased. Of the external candidates reviewed and hired for the Assistant Store Manager position a full 100% hired were white. These numbers suggest that the company did not meet the 4/5th ratio used in determining disparate impact, in other words, greater than 80% of the applicants hired were white. This number strongly suggests Tanglewood would be found guilty of disparate impact. Reviewing the total number of Department manager positions reveals the number of whites employed at this level begins to rise over that of non-white or African American. At the next level of Assistant Store Manager we see a staggering 92.75% are white, which is nearly 10% higher than the ratios encountered at Associate and Shift Leader positions. Once you reach the highest job level, Store Manager, we see that 69.56% are white and 30.44% are non-white, but 0% is African American. It appears this company has a ways to go to achieve adequate levels of diversity within the organization as a whole. Suggested Improvements to External Recruiting While it is obvious that Tanglewood tracks their candidacy options for positions, it is not apparent that the company makes determination as to which candidate to hire based on their diversity. Tanglewood needs to be encouraged to review the applicable laws pertaining to diversity hiring standards. There are many good reference sites available on-line to learn about Equal Opportunity laws, start with www.eeoc.gov and branch out from there to understand how
Open Document