Michelle 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 1 0 年前


Our findings cast doubt on the notion implied in the diversity-awareness model that managers have a relatively poor knowledge of social perception biases, which in turn explains their differential treatment of others. Although knowledge of social perception

biases may motivate managers to stay away from stereotypes when dealing with a culturally diverse workforce such knowledge appears to be already good, and therefore it remains largely unaffected by diversity training. As suggested by others (Morrison, 1992;Rynes &Rosen, 1995), diversity-related conflict might not be explained primarily

by lack of awareness. Discussions of demographic trends, social perception theories, and even the experiential exercises carried out in diversity training sessions might be insufficient to bring about the post- training behavioral change sought by proponents of diversity management. In this respect, Rynes and Rosen(1995) advocated the use

of training methods that provide specific behavioral guidelines such as behavioral modeling (Goldstein & Sorcher, 1974), which may be more useful than awareness enhancement alone.

Because managing cultural diversity makes not only business but also ethical sense in today’s pluralistic and global workplace, calling for a moratorium on diversity management interventions will be misguided.Indeed, our results can teach us potentially useful lessons about viable improvements to diversity-management interventions.

First, our interviews suggested that the negative reactions were not a result of the training program per se but a by-product of unclear communications regarding the selection of trainees. This finding underscores the need for careful management of pre-training issues such as trainee entry (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987). Rynes and Rosen (1995) reported that between 61% and 65% of the organizations surveyed had mandatory diversity training for their managers and supervisors. The training was also mandatory in the study reported here but, as the interviews revealed, training nominations are subject to interpretation.Receiving a training nomination may be interpreted as a punishment for

having behaved insensitively in the past. Even if it is unfounded, this perception may provoke feelings of being stigmatized and a consequent backlash. Bitter trainee reactions to the training program should not to be taken frivolously because they can trigger not only interpersonal conflict but even lawsuits (Stodghill, 1996). An objective and well-publicized process of trainee nominations may prevent the resentful demoralization that being nominated for diversity training is prone to elicit (Cook & Campbell, 1979, p.55 ).

Our interviews also hinted that, in the absence if post-training Coaching, trainees did not have a proper forum to vent their concerns.As a result, some chose to make public comments against the training program, whereas others decided to confront those whom they perceived responsible for their training nomination. Proven post-training practices

such as behavioral coaching and follow-up sessions, which are often necessary to achieve transfer from the training room to the job, might have prevented training backlash (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Cox. 1993;Komaki et al., 1980; Rasmussen, 1996).

Unfortunately, the brief one-day awareness training format studied here appears to be as far as many organizations are willing to go in their diversity management interventions ( Rynes & Rosen, 1995; Stodghill, 1996). We hope that our findings will encourage organizations to go beyond this kind of quick-fix diversity intervention and to adopt instead a holistic approach in which training sessions are part of a continuous process including pre-training and post-training management practices.

3 個解答

  • 匿名使用者
    1 0 年前

    我們的結論對在差異意識模型裡表示的理念提出懷疑, 那經理有社會知覺偏見的相對劣質的知識,這反過來解釋他們的其它人的差別待遇。 社會知覺偏見的知識可能激勵經理離開什麼時候涉及這樣的知識看起來已經好的文化上多種多樣的勞工的陳規雖然, 因此訓練保持基本上不被差異影響。 象由其它人建議的那樣(莫裡森,1992; Rynes &Rosen,1995),有關差異的衝突可能不被缺乏意識主要解釋。 人口統計趨勢的討論, 社會知覺理論, 並且甚至在訓練會議的差異上進行的經驗的鍛鍊可能不足以引起行為的變化差異管理的提議者尋找的培養訓練后。 在這方面, Rynes和羅森(1995)提倡使用訓練方法, 那提供具體的行為的指南,例如行為的模型化(戈爾茨坦& Sorcher,1974),這可能單獨比意識提升更有用。 因為管理的文化差異在今天不僅製造生意,而且製造倫理感覺多元主義和全球工作場所, 在差異管理干涉上要求延期償付將是misguided.Indeed,我們的結果能對差異管理干涉教我們潛在有用的關於可行的改進的經驗。 首先, 我們的接見建議負的回應本來不是一個培養訓練計畫的結果關於學員的選擇的但是一種不清楚的通訊的副產品。 這發現強調預訓練的問題的對仔細的管理的需要,例如學員進入(希斯克& Klimoski,1987)。 Rynes 和羅森(1995)報告在有命令的差異適合他們經理和監督人訓練的調查的組織61% 和65%之間。 訓練也命令在這裡在研究過程中報告但是, 因為顯示的接見,訓練的提名受interpretation.Receiving影響,訓練提名可以被解釋為對過去表現insensitively的一次處罰。 即使它是沒有根據的,這知覺可以激起被指認和一次隨之而來的反抗運動的感覺。 難以接受的學員對培養訓練計畫的回應應該不被輕佻帶, 因為他們能不僅引發人與人之間的衝突,而且引發訴訟(Stodghill,1996)。 一個學員提名的客觀和宣佈得好的過程可以防止忿恨的道德敗壞, 適合訓練差異的那被提名引出易于(煮&坎貝拉,1979,第55頁)。 我們的接見也暗示那, 在不在內,輔導的培養訓練后, 學員沒有一個適當的論壇排放他們的concerns.As一個結果, 一些選擇對培養訓練計畫把意見公佈于眾,而其它人決定面對對他們的訓練提名負責的他們察覺的那些人。 象行為的輔導和后續的會議那樣證明培養訓練后為慣例,經常必要取得從訓練房間轉移到工作, 可能防止訓練反抗運動(鮑德溫&福特,1988; 舵手。 1993 ; Komaki et al.,1980 ; 拉斯穆森,1996)。 令人遺憾, 在這裡研究的訓練形式的簡短一天意識看起來是只要多組織願意 進入他們的差異管理干涉(Rynes &羅森,1995; Stodghill,1996)。 我們希望我們的結論將令人鼓舞超過這種的組織快確定差異干涉,採用改為整體處理辦法, 訓練會議是包括預訓練和培養訓練后管理慣例的一個連續的過程的一部分。

    參考資料: Dr.Eye ~好長喔~
    • 登入以對解答發表意見
  • 4 年前


    • 登入以對解答發表意見
  • 1 0 年前



    但只有5點 著實讓人感到誠意不足

    • 登入以對解答發表意見