The Equal Employment Opportunity/ Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) Compliance Function: Where, and to Whom Should the Office

1. The Equal Employment Opportunity/ Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) Compliance Function: Where, and to Whom Should the Office Report? Charlie Williams Director of Affirmative Action Programs Kean University Union, New Jersey chwillia@kean.edu

2. WELCOME • INTRODUCTION • INFORMAL PARTICIPANT SURVEY

3. Definitions • Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action (EEO/AA) compliance–Position titles for managers overseeing this function include, EEO/AA Director, EEO Officer, EEO Director, EEO Manager, AA Director, AA Officer, etc.) • Chief Executive Officer (CEO) – chief organizational or governing official assigned the final authorization for personnel and employment decisions for the organization or agency, i.e., President, Commissioner, Agency Head, Appointing Authority, etc.

4. Hierarchical Reporting Structures(Direct Reporting) EEO

5. Hierarchical Reporting Structures(Indirect Reporting)

6. EEO/AA REPORTING STRUCTURE • To whom does your Affirmative Action Office report?   (August 2004) • 51 Total Responses • 4 Non-Educational Institutions   • 1 Executive Director • 1 Chief of Administration • 1 CEO • 1 Assistant City Manager

7. 47 Educational Institutions • 27 President • 7 Provost • 5 Chancellor • 3 HR • 1 HR & Legal • 1 Deputy Provost • 1 Sr. Vice Chancellor/Chief Financial Officer • 1 General Counsel • 1 Sr. VP of Finance & Administration • 57% of AA Officers in Educational Institutions Report to the President

8. EEO Officer Reporting: (2005)N.J. Department of Personnel, Division of EEO/AA Survey • 36 Total Responses • 17 Commissioner/Exec. Director/College President • 7 Assistant Commissioner • 8 Administrator/Chief • 4 Director • 47% of EEO Officers reported to their organization’s appointing authority (CEO)

9. REPORT ON THE EEO DIRECTORS’ CHAIN OF COMMAND, COUNCIL OF FEDERAL EEO AND CIVIL RIGHTS EXECUTIVES, MAY 2002 • 93 Reporting Federal Agencies • 43% or “(40 of 93) [of] federal agencies violate” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) federal guidance on the reporting relationship of EEO/AA managers reporting to the agency head • “EEOC has stated that, because of outside pressures, they could not enforce this regulation.” • 57% of EEO/AA managers reported to the agency head

11. I. PRACTICAL GUIDANCE (Examples) • Operating Procedures, Regulations, Statutes • EEOC MD 110 • NJ Administrative Code Title 4A

12. Management Directive: MD-110, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) • CHAPTER 1: AGENCY AND EEOC AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY • I. Federal Agency - Each federal agency shall appoint a Director of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO Director), who shall be under the immediate supervision of the agency head. The EEO Director cannot be placed under the supervision of the agency's Director of Personnel or other officials responsible for executing and advising on personnel actions.

13. EEOC MD-110 (cont’d) • II. EEO Director – Independent Authority and Reporting Relationships: Federal agencies shall place the EEO Director in a direct reporting relationship with the head of the agency. By placing the EEO Director in a direct reporting relationship to the head of the agency, the agency underscores the importance of equal employment opportunity to the mission of each federal agency and ensures that the EEO Director is able to act with the greatest degree of independence. Placing the EEO Director under the authority of others within the agency may undermine the EEO Director's independence, especially where the person or entity to which the EEO Director reports is involved in or would be affected by the actions of the EEO Director in the performance of his/her implementation of the agency program set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102.

14. EEOC MD-110 (cont’d) • Agencies must avoid conflicts of position or conflicts of interest as well as the appearance of such conflicts. For example, the same agency official(s) responsible for executing and advising on personnel actions may not also be responsible for managing, advising, or overseeing the EEO pre-complaint or complaint processes. Those processes often challenge the motivations and impacts of personnel actions and decisions. In order to maintain the integrity of the EEO investigative and decision making processes, those functions must be kept separate from the personnel function.

15. EEOC MD-110 (cont’d) • Heads of agencies must not permit intrusion on the investigations and deliberations of EEO complaints by agency representatives and offices responsible for defending the agency against EEO complaints. • Maintaining distance between the fact-finding and defensive functions of the agency enhances the credibility of the EEO office and the integrity of the EEO complaints process.

16. EEOC MD-110 (cont’d) • Legal sufficiency reviews of EEO matters must be handled by a functional unit that is separate and apart from the unit which handles agency representation in EEO complaints. The Commission requires this separation because impartiality and the appearance of impartiality is important to the credibility of the equal employment program.

17. NJ Administrative Code Title 4ASUBCHAPTER 2. DIVISION OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • 4A: 7-2.3 APPOINTING AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITIES • (b) Each State agency shall: 2. Appoint at least one person as the Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Officer who shall report to the State agency head or a designee within the office of the State agency head, and who shall serve on a full-time basis, unless otherwise requested by the State agency head and approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Personnel and the Director of the Division of EEO/AA;

18. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH • The Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Structure: Theories and Concepts • Organizational Justice (OJ) – a range of theoretical perspectives examining decision-making processes and outcomes (Colquitt, et al 2001). • Distributive Justice (DJ) – the outcome of the decision-making process (Greenberg, 1987a).

19. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH (cont’d) • Interactional Justice (IJ) – the manner in which decisions are processed (Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005). • Procedural Justice (PJ) – the process in which decisions are made (Thibaut and Walker 1975; Alexander and Ruderman, 1987). • Organizational Structure (OS) – ordered bureaucratic or organizational systems, usually hierarchically arranged (Downs, 1965).

20. Research on Organizational Structure and Organizational Justice • Procedural Justice and Due Process (Organizational Justice): When people feel they have an opportunity to influence the outcome of decisions by having voice and/or process control, their perception of fairness in the decision-making process is increased (Thibaut and Walker 1975; Lind and Tyler 1988).

21. Research on Organizational Structure and Organizational Justice (cont’d) • Researchers have studied the relationship between organizational structure, which includes the dimensions of hierarchy, size, and formalization and organizational justice • Findings indicated that organizational structure does influence individuals’ perceptions of organizational justice (Schminke et al. 2000 and Schminke et al. 2002)

22. III. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION • Best Practice: Regulatory Guidance, Organizational Justice Perspectives • Why Don’t EEO’s Report to the CEO? • Efficiency and Coordination of Functions or Services • Managerial Discretion, Executive Privilege