Source of Diversity Present at Eli Lilly
Gender is one source of diversity at Eli Lilly. In the year 2006, Eli Lilly had more that forty one thousand employees within its ranks in all its global outlets. Out of the number of the employees working in the United States of America, 45.4 percent of them were of the female gender. Additionally, 45.1 percent of its entire global workforce is also made of the female gender. This amounts to close to half of the workforce from either gender.
Experience at the workplace is very important. It is one of the factors that employers consider when hiring. However, in order to take care of attrition, employers need to get new recruits who learn from the experienced employees. This element creates diversity at the workplace. Eli Lilly appear to have taken heed of this as experience is one source of diversity in the workplace. Out of the forty one thousand strong workforces that Eli Lilly had in all its global outlets in 2006, two thousand seven hundred and four were new recruits. This accounts for 6.59 percent of the employees at the company. Additionally, an employee like Welch has twelve years of experience at the company. Tyson had an experience of four years while Davis had nineteen years of experience before starting out with the Eli Lilly.
Education is also another source of diversity at Eli Lilly. For instance, Welch studied to be a production worker although she did not study to higher levels like other employees. Davis studied as a dentist although he also worked in pharmaceutical sales. Perhaps the most educated person in the entire workforce was Bromell, and MBA graduate.
Race & Ethnicity
Eli Lilly is a workplace that is not well diversified on a racial and ethnic perspective. According to the corporate citizenship report by the company in 2006, the composition of its global workforce from the non-minority ethnic groups was 84%. Native Americans comprised 0.1%, African Americans comprised 7.7%, and Hispanics comprised 2.4% while Pacific Islanders or Asians comprised 5.6% of their global workforce.
Analysis after the Listing the Sources of Diversity
The factors listed above are true indicators of diversity in a workplace. It is important to note that diversity does not merely imply a presence of the elements in the sources of diversity. Diversity would require a fair representation of the elements on the opposite sides of the divide. For instance, it is very apparent that Eli Lilly is well diversified in terms of gender. This is because both genders comprise an almost equal representation of the total number of the workforce, not just in the United States of America but also in the global outlets of the company.
While this is commendable for the company, the same cannot be said regarding the other sources of diversity in the company. For instance, racial and ethnic representation in the company appears to be skewed against minority groups. From the figures given in the case study, non-minority groups account for 84% of the workforce. This is very significant given that the highest of the minority groups in the company are African Americans at 7.7%. The implication of this is that the number of women from the minority groups is lesser compared to the number of women from the non-minority groups. Looking from these statistics, it is not hard to see why many accusations of discrimination have been leveled against the company. After considering the listed sources of diversity, it is my opinion that Eli Lilly is not as diversified as the management would want to believe.
For the purposes of this independent assessment, I will use Welch as he employee of choice.
Observable Facts from the Case Study
One of the observable facts from the case study is the number of awards that the company was awarded between the year 2002 and 2005. Eli Lilly was named in the list of “100 Best Companies to Work For” by Forbes Magazine in 2004 and 2005. The company along with its subsidiaries was also named as the “Best Company to Work For” by the Working Mother Magazine for the two years running. In the year 2005, the company got other six awards for their exceptional performance considering different parameters. Its subsidiaries in Belgium, Spain, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, France, South Africa, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Finland, Germany and Poland have all been awarded similar awards in the two years.
While those facts present a case for Eli Lilly, other observable facts that presented a case against her include the following.
- African Americans were offered lower starting salaries compared to other workers in comparable positions.
- African Americans took longer waits and were promoted less often compared to other comparable workers.
- African Americans were often encouraged to look for alternative sources of employments elsewhere.
- African Americans who complained against discrimination were often vilified and victimized.
Determination of Violations of Legal or Company Standards
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful to use derogatory and offensive comments that are predicated on someone’s race or ethnicity. This is because it constitutes unlawful harassment of such person, especially if the result of such comments is a hostile and intimidating work environment. As envisioned in the core values of the company is the value on integrity. The company endeavors to treat all its stakeholders with honesty and ethical behavior as guided by the regulations of the company and the laws of the land. It is also envisioned in the document that the company will treat all people with respect, and concern for their interests, up to and including employees, shareholders and customers among others. The regulations governing the business conduct at the workplace also prohibit racial slurs, gender based intimidation and racial stereotyping. Additionally, the regulations give all the employees equal employment opportunities regardless of their race, religion and gender among other statuses that are protected by the law. As such, processes like demotions, placements, hiring, recruiting and transfers are to be done on an equal employment basis.
Analysis of the Evidence
This analysis will cross reference the observable facts against company and legal standards in order to determine whether Welch faced discrimination. Against the regulations of the company, Welch was paid at the level of 50 although her range was from 56-58. Additionally, she was denied bonuses and incentives that her white counterparts enjoyed for comparable work. Against the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Welch was subjected to racial slurs in her department that made her dispensation of her duties very hard. This unlawful harassment was also in the form of a ‘black doll’ that had a noose around its neck placed on her desk. This is a symbol that has been used since the nineteenth century to show the hatred for the people of African American descent. Finally, Welch was overlooked when it came to promotions against the principle of equal opportunity employment enshrined in the company’s regulations. Considering this evidence, it is apparent that Welch faced discrimination based in the race and ethnicity. This is because the company violated its regulations and laws that safeguard the individual rights of employees and people in general.
Eli Lilly & Company. Eli Lilly: Managing Workplace Diversity and Coping with the Accusations of Racial Discrimination. 2008. Print.