Question

Comparing Stock Statistics – Utilization Analysis

Using this table, compare the stock statistics – the ratio of employees in a given job relative to the percentage of (qualified) people in the potential applicant pool (usually limited geographically), which helps determine if any demographic group is underutilized. Note, there is no legal requirement for the stock statistics (incumbency/availability) to be equal, but it can be used as a way to evaluate if the staffing function should be evaluated further.

Job Group	Female Incumbency %	(Qualified) Female Availability %	Based on the stock statistics, is underutilization occurring? Would you set a goal to increase (or decrease) the utilization of men or women in each occupation group?	If Yes, what would you set as a goal?
1	3.00	47.6	Yes (the staffing ratio is (3.0/47.6) = 6.3%, well below the 80% threshold). Although this isn’t illegal, if you were sued, this would likely be used as evidence that women are somehow disadvantaged in the recruitment process for this position.	Goal could be set between (38.0% to 59.5%)
2	40.5	43.8	92%
3	20.0	34.5	58%
4	83.3	65.0	128%
5	85.2	78.5	109%
6	22.5	38.5	58%

Fill in the rest of the table on your own.

which includes a similar table to see additional examples.

Based on the information available (just this table), is there any evidence that disparate treatment is occurring? Why or why not?

In cases where underutilization is found, what criteria did you use to set a staffing goal?

Where would you suggest looking for data about the availability of people within a certain demographic or industry?

What other information would you want to have to help develop an AAP to help meet your goals?

Answer 1

1. Completed table :

Job Group	Female Incumbency %	(Qualified) Female Availability %	Based on the stock statistics, is underutilization occurring? Would you set a goal to increase (or decrease) the utilization of men or women in each occupation group?	If Yes, what would you set as a goal?
1	3	47.6	Yes (the staffing ratio is (3.0/47.6) = 6.3%, well below the 80% threshold). Although this isn’t illegal, if you were sued, this would likely be used as evidence that women are somehow disadvantaged in the recruitment process for this position.	Goal could be set between
(38.0% to 59.5%)
2	40.5	43.8	No, this staffing ration fits the goal and 40/5/43.8 = 92% which shows effective utilitisation	This goal has been met, effective range is (35% to 53%)
3	20	34.5	Yes, this staffing goal 20/34.5 = 58% which is well below the 80% threshold	Goal could be set between 28% to 41%
4	83.3	65	Yes, but the underutilisation is for the male demographic. This staffing goal 83.3/65 = 128% indicates that more women than are qualified and available are being hired, showing a bias towards hiring women in this group	Goal could be set between 52% to 78% for women, and between 28% and 42% for men
5	85.2	78.5	No, The utilisation 85.2/78.5 = 108% is higher than the availability however, well within the range that a goal is likely to be set for this metric	Goal could be set between 63% to 94%
6	22.5	38.5	Yes, the utilisation is 22.5/38.5 = 58%, well below the 80% threshold	Goal could be set between 31% to 46%

2. Based on the information available (just this table), is there any evidence that disparate treatment is occurring? Why or why not?

There is evidence of disparate treatment occurring towards women employees in job groups - 1,3,6, with under-utilisation seen as low as 6.3% in group 1, and 58% in groups 3 and 6 against the 80% threshold. This indicates a clear bias towards recruiting female employees in these groups, despite clear evidence of availability.

In job group 4, what looks like over-compensation has lead to more women being hired than are available and suitable for the roles. There could also be a possible unconscious bias against male employees in a bid to ensure pro-women hiring.

3. In cases where underutilization is found, what criteria did you use to set a staffing goal?

Using the range set for Job group 1 - which set a goal range from 80-125% from the availability %, the ranges for the other groups are set at 80-120% (not as aggressive as group 1 as these have higher utilisations metrics). Using this same goal setting method, it is clear that job group 5 that shows a higher utilisation than the required 80%, is still within the range that the firm would likely set.

4. Where would you suggest looking for data about the availability of people within a certain demographic or industry?

Most countries maintain a central repository of their labour force, capturing key demographic information. E.g. in the US the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an official government website, provides information about age, sex, employment status, race, disability, education and certifications etc. that can be used to inform organisational decisions.

5. What other information would you want to have to help develop an AAP to help meet your goals?

- Once demographic information is obtained (question 4 above), an analysis is needed of your current organisational diversity to understand where you meet the guidelines and where you fall short. This analysis should also be compared against industry and regulatory standards to check for gaps.

- Review your past/current employment practices and to evaluate whether you have any policies that restrict or exclude certain demographics. This can help you understand the most severe issues so they can be prioritised and addressed.

- Budgetary concerns, alternate solutions, management inputs are all required to help you develop an effective and sustainable affirmative action plan.