Month: May 2020

Posted on

Prompt Discussion/Responses

Prompt 1) The standard way of thinking about diversity policies has it that they are instrumental in stimulating minority leadership and impacting leadership self-perceptions of minority categories in organizations. However, by manipulating the environment to the degree in which they did in Gundemir et al’s argument, I was left wondering what would happen if they spent time in actual environments, those known to have undergone diversion policy integration, to see how it’s operating without any manipulations.  This was such a scientific experiment, it seemed to lack an experiential human component of observation and witness.  In tern eliminating a sense of the call and response of human interaction that takes place on a daily basis in the workplace.

Prompt 2) While many might automatically assume that any efforts to expand on and progress any type of diversity in the workplace, whether we are looking at how diversity is framed, or the opportunities and challenges diversity brings to a workplace; they are efforts generally determined as good works automatically.  Gundemir et al make very thorough attempts to show factual data of the findings of their research, and Austin and Pisano speak very freely about the current low standard deviation of neurodiversity in our society.  They both implicate clearly why and what the challenges are in changing certain low standard deviations when it comes to diversity in the workplace.  I wonder though, by just bringing these things to attention, is there actual impact from this that is scalable?  Not in the diversity itself, but the research being done about diversity.

Posted on

Overview of Week of 6/1

Now that we’re getting our feet under us in terms of what organizational culture is, why diversity and inclusion are part of the conversation, and how thinking about rhetorical situation can help us to engage with complex texts, it’s time for us to build on that.

As a group, we’ve all been working with the same set of texts, and that gives us a shared foundation of knowledge. What I’ve tried to assemble here is a set of texts that function as a canon–works that are essential to an understanding of the subject matter, important and influential works. But there’s so much more out there to explore, and that will be your primary work for the week–looking around to locate an additional text that you think should be part of the canon.

Canonical works are substantive–building on careful and thoughtful research. They provide new insights and ideas, and don’t simply re-present known information. They work well for their audience, so that they can contribute to the world of knowledge.

Chances are you’ll need to look at several articles to find one that does all this and that meets the particular criteria that are set forth on the unit 1 assignment sheet . The SU libraries’ website is a good place to start here. You can use the Advanced Search functions there to help filter the results so they meet some of the basic criteria to start with. You’ll find a number of useful tutorials on the library site if you’re not already familiar with using it. This search tips page is a good place to start.

(A quick note on using SU libraries vs. Google Scholar–you’ve already paid for the SU services and won’t ever bump into a paywall; on Google Scholar, you often will. The library also provides free research support, which you can’t get on Google.)

So, where to begin? Here’s an overview of your tasks for the week:

Reading assignments:

  • chapters 2 and 3 of TSIS
  • chapter 1 of Rewriting by Joe Harris (PDF on Blackboard)
  • “Understanding key D&I concepts” (PDF on Blackboard)
  • your selected article (that you plan to contribute to the canon)–to write an effective summary, you will need to read this carefully and probably more than once. Be sure to consult the close reading handout and the handout on summary.

Discussion/writing assignments:

  • write a 100-200 word summary of either the Kaplan and Donovan article from this week OR the Austin and Pisano article from last week, and submit this on the blog (categorize as “Discussions/Homework”; tag with “K&D” or “A&P” as appropriate, along with “week of 6/1,” and [your name] (due Weds., 6/3) 
  • respond to 2 of this week’s discussion questions (available here). Categorize as “Discussions/Homework”; tag with “week of 6/1,” “unit1,” and [your name]. (due Thurs., 6/4): 

    Discussion prompts for Week of 6/1

  • respond to at least 2 of your classmates’ discussion posts on the blog (due Sat., 6/6)
  •  write a 200 word summary of your selected article. Include a link to or PDF of the article you’re working with, and reference the author and title of the text you are summarizing. Categorize this as “Expanding the Canon”; tag it with “summary,” “week of 6/1,” and [your name]. (due Sun., 6/7)
Posted on

Discussion prompts for Week of 6/1

This week you’ll begin injecting into this conversation about diversity and inclusion that we’ve been reading about. Each of you will suggest an article to add to this body of information, so that we can all continue to expand our understanding of the issues. Please be sure to reread the last page of the  unit 1 assignment sheet.

First, a quick refresher on rhetorical situation. This is the idea that everything is written by someone, for someone, for some purpose, and within some broader context. Considering these different elements of a text can give us a window into how the text works, why it looks the way it does, whether it is likely to be successful for its intended reader, etc. You’ve already seen rhetorical situation represented in visual form like this:

Just a little something to keep in mind as we move into discussion for the week–we’ll be thinking a lot this week about how authors respond to their writing situation in order to produce successful communications, and in particular about how an author’s audience connects to his/her purpose in writing.

On to the prompts–this week everyone should respond to the 1st question and then select 1 of the other 2 to answer. Responses should be >150 words each. Please tag your responses with “unit1,” “weekof6/1,” and [your name]. Categorize as “Discussions.”

  1. It’s time to get moving along with your unit 1 assignment. For this assignment, you will be adding to the set of sources we’re reading about diversity and organizational culture (which amount to a canon of sorts–a collection of important texts). We’ll expand this canon by suggesting additional valuable resources. So, for your first discussion post this week, please tell us a little about how you’re doing that: what kinds of material are you looking for? what topic are you following up on? what sort of expert(s) do you think we need to hear from? how are you looking (i.e. what particular databases or search tools are you using)? what techniques or strategies are proving helpful?
  2. This week’s readings move from the theoretical conversation about diversity that unfolds in the pages of scholarly journals to the practical–consideration of what is actually involved in creating and maintaining a diverse workforce, this time through the lens of (dis)ability. Let’s start to put the pieces together, as we’re adding to our growing foundation of knowledge: construct a they say/I say sentence (or series of sentences) that connects one of this week’s readings about disability inclusion with one of the readings from the last 2 weeks. (There are a number of templates in chapter 2 of TSIS that might help you with this work.) You are welcome to include yourself as an I in this formulation, but you may also choose to use 2 theys here–i.e. While Austin and Pisano contend that…. Kaplan and Donovan suggest that… Be creative, and use this work to further your understanding both of the texts you’re employing, as well as your own perspective.
  3. In chapter 1 of Rewriting, Joe Harris asks us to consider a writer’s project when we’re trying to make sense of a particular text. That is, he encourages us to think of “something far more complex than a main idea, since it refers not to a single concept but to a plan of work, to a set of ideas and questions that a writer ‘throws forward (Latin, pro + jacare)” and to recognize that “a project is something that a writer is working on–and that a text can only imperfectly realize” (Harris 17). Thinking in these terms, how would you characterize the project that Kaplan and Donovan undertake in “Key D&I Concepts”? That is, what do you think they are “working on” in this article? (Review Harris’s steps at the bottom of page 15.)
Posted on

Week 5/25

1. When it comes to the topic of organizational diversity policies, most of us will readily agree that these policies have some relation to the success of an organization. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how these policies affect minorities. Whereas some are convinced that these mission statements pursue means of promoting multiculturalism, others maintain that they may pursue means of value-in-individual differences or value-in-homogeneity within an organization. 
For this approach, I first focused on choosing one statement, one that still aligned with the article but was challenging. I found it difficult to represent the article while still following the statement’s foundation with the blanks. This proved to of course be challenging, but manageable, and with this challenge I was able too further dive into my interpretation of Gundemir’s means of experimentation when it came to organizational diversity policies. I found this framework to be useful, and one that I can see myself using more often. I would use these statements in the particular case that I am having trouble understanding an article. I feel that the frameworks given are ones that are not too complicated to fill in but are also just difficult enough to jog some though into and encourage myself as a reader to analyze the text even deeper.
2. I believe my understanding of organizational diversity has expanded since reading these two articles. The first, Gundemir’s article focusing on minority representation and diversity, was fascinating to myself in ways I had not expected. The results of the two experiments were intriguing, seeing how different policies can produce an outcome from the participants. Seeing that when mutliculturalism and value-in-individual differences are endorsed, the participants perceived this as a more diverse approach in comparison to the value-in-homogeneity. Little did I think, until reading Austin and Pisano’s article, that those who suffer from neurological disorders fall into the diverse category and indeed they do. These individuals see the world from a different perspective, one that should most certainly be represented but I would assume is most certainly not the case when observing organizational diversity. From my perspective before being so definitional, I did not think to question what diverse would mean in this instance, how it would pertain to anyone who is not considered the majority or privileged. Through both articles, they present the positives to this diversity, and why it should be incorporated in the business world more often than it is. The stigmas and issues surrounding being a more inclusive company are presented, but after reading both articles there is a clear understanding that the positive outcomes outweigh the worries some may have.
Posted on

Discussion post – week of 5/25 (Dan)

1)           According to the findings of the Gundermir article, Organizations should strive to create diversity policies focusing on multiculturalism and value-in-individuals. Gundemir defined the former as policies that explicitly acknowledge the positive characteristic of diverse social groups. The latter is defined as a policy that acknowledges each individual for their characteristics without explicitly addressing ethnic groups. Though I agree that our society must focus on developing company mission statements that vocalize inclusion, I believe that there may be more effective ways to increase the morale of all employees and create an open-minded environment without focusing most of our attention on mission statements.

Using the writing technique of framing what “They say” first has certainly helped me organize my thoughts and formulate my argument in a way that has set me up for further explanation. I agree that writing in this manner will help me stay on track and keep me from straying away on tangents.

 

 

2)           My reading of the Gundemir et al article and the article on neurodiversity has been very thought provoking for me. I understand that our society needs to strive for continuous improvement in inclusion to become more accepting of everyone’s differences. This, I agree, will be beneficial to our society on many levels. I also acknowledge that there is still much work to be done as certain groups may be underrepresented in leadership roles in companies. Though I found it interesting, for example, that the Gundemir article states that African Americans hold around 10 percent of board seats in fortune 100 companies. This doesn’t seem to be drastically far off from the percentage of African American population in the United States of around 13 percent. On the other hand, the article on neurodiversity possesses a fact that is truly startling to me. That is that the unemployment rate for these individuals runs as high as 80 percent! At my company I work with and am good friends with people from many different parts of the world. But I can say that I do not know a single person that I work with who would be classified as non-neurotypical. I know that my company often addresses the importance of ethnical inclusion, though they have never once discussed the issue of minimal representation of the nuerodiverse community in any level of the business. I would be very interested to further explore this topic as I have some close ties with this. I have a great relationship with my fiancées cognitively impaired brother. He struggles to understand how to interact with others in certain situations and he does learn at a slower pace. Though I know that he could make positive contributions to organizations if more of them will adopt the practices at SAP, HPE, Microsoft and others included in Austin and Pisanos article.

Posted on

Responses week of 5/25

  1. One approach from Chapter 1 of They Say / I Say which I will be taking is: In discussions of organizational diversity, one controversial issue has been if having organizational diversity policies show any changes among employee minorities’ self perceptions and goals, and if these changes are positive or negative. On the one hand, Gundemir argues that Mulitculturalism and Value-in-Individuality Differences prove to have a positive effect on the self perceptions and goals of minorities. On the other hand, the Value-in-Homogeneity policy emphasizes equality and uniformity of treatment rather than individual uniqueness, which is what several companies may choose to follow. I definitely found this approach to framing quite useful because it made me think outside of the box. Now I understand what the preface / introduction was talking about when they mentioned templates. I feel as though having this guide made me reference back to the article by Gundemir and dive much deeper into the content and comprehend it, rather than just read the paragraphs over and over again without understanding the information displayed.
  2. The readings for this week strengthened my thoughts on why diversity is so important, and why I look forward to reading more passages in this class. As I was reading Gundemir’s article, I associated the connection to improving the minorities’ self perceptions and goals just with overall self confidence, and what this can do for a person. By using the policies of Multiculturalism and Value-in-Individual Differences, there is so much room for self growth which can they be carried into a work environment. As a result, these policies make it easier for those not belonging to majority groups to feel more comfortable in who they are, radiate happiness, and boost their self – esteem. In just the two weeks that I’ve enrolled in this course, I already have become way more educated on the topic of diversity which I am very grateful for. Having a company that includes many different mindsets / outlooks / perspectives on life that people of all races and ethnicities can bring to the table is much more beneficial than just a bunch of employees doing every single task with the same idea, which is hopefully a bold step that more businesses are looking to take in the near future.
Posted on

Discussion Post, Week of 5/25 [Toni]

Formal organizational diversity policies and how they affect minorities’ self-perceptions and goals in leadership, seem to be based on statistics of findings through the lens of subcategories of multiculturalism, valuing interindividual differences and valuing homogeneity.  These three subcategories seem to increase perceptions of an open diversity climate, which in turn enhances leadership self-efficacy. I feel ill-equipped to analyze or even summarize these findings I attempted to follow throughout this article. It’s incredibly well researched and documented.  It’s made clear that many sources are out there to say that, “minority leadership is crucial to optimally utilize the talent of all employees for competitive advantage,” but it’s also stated that such initiatives, such as affirmative action, are often accompanied by unintended negative consequences.  Further attempting to study if cultural intervention in the form of diversity policies can be instrumental in stimulating minority leadership and impacting leadership self-perceptions, they manipulate the environment to see the extent that such policies succeed in creating a climate for diversity, and if they will positively influence minority employees.  However, without the manipulations in place, one might wonder what the real life impacts these cultural interventions actually have? And is the real goal diversity? Or apparent diversity so long as it benefits the company at large?

Posted on

Week of 5/25 Discussion Post

In their article, “The Impact of Organizational Diversity Policies on Minority Employees’ Leadership Self-Perceptions and Goals”, Seval Gündemir, John F. Dovidio , Astrid C. Homan , and Carsten K. W. De Dreu conclude that organizations with policies which favor acknowledgement and encouragement of differences at either a sub-group or individual level have a higher chance of minority retention and advancement. They deduce this has an overall positive effect on the organization. I believed as much before ever reading the article.

I gravitated towards using this approach in an attempt to set up the rest of my argument. It is clear to the reader after three sentences what my position is and establishes expectations for the remainder of my piece. I will cite the article further in an attempt to explain myself. I may or may not cite sources which feature differing views. However, the ultimate conclusion the reader will draw is that I support the authors’ premise that diversity has a positive effect on organizations.

I am lucky enough to have seen with my own eyes the positive effects of an organization having embraced diversity. As I mentioned last week, my company has been implementing several initiatives as it works to attract, retain and advance a more diverse workforce. The Gundemir article reinforced conclusions I’ve drawn as I have observed these changes over my thirteen years with the company.

There are a number of “Employee Resource Groups” which celebrate the qualities that make certain sub-groups unique. These groups typically sponsor initiatives and host events which focus on matters which are of particular interest to their members. However, any employee is welcome to participate. For example, a group for Developing Young Professionals, which focuses on the specific challenges faced by younger employees, continues to invite me to participate in events despite the fact that I’m not that young anymore (Bruce Springsteen reference most definitely intended.).

A few years ago, one of the responsibilities of my team was to coordinate the monthly IT security patch process. For those who may be unfamiliar, this essentially required members of my team to coordinate the discovery, review and application of security patches (changes intended to remove a security vulnerability in computer software) on thousands of IT devices. As the scope of our work increased, one of the options discussed was exactly the type of arrangement described in the article by Austin and Pisano. While we wouldn’t be employing neuro-diverse staff ourselves, we would be working with an outside vendor in a managed service agreement.

Senior leadership ultimately decided to go with a different approach but reading Austin and Pisano’s article led me to think back on that and imagine what that arrangement would have been like. There was certainly the “feel-good” factor of working with people who might not otherwise find this type of well-paying employment. Yet, I’m struck more by a sense of opportunity lost. There are many challenges which continue to exist with our patch management process, and I remain convinced that the services provided by the vendor who employed neuro-diverse staff would have been a tremendous help.

It wasn’t until I read the article that I even considered some of the many changes that would have been required. The example about changes to communications was particularly striking. I wonder just how many emails and other communications sent to neuro-typical and neuro-diverse staff alike lead to misunderstandings today. The last paragraph of Austin and Pisano’s article made me immediately think about the rectangle and triangle presentation I shared with you all last week. Being a manager has its share of challenges. I’ve found that connecting with each of my direct reports as individuals is the best way to achieve our collective goals. It certainly isn’t easy, but thinking about how everyone is a puzzle piece, just waiting to fit next to one another is a great way to look at it.

Posted on

Week of 5/25-(Mikayla)

 

  1. While they rarely admit as much, members of minorities and marginalized groups offer benefits and skills that are of immense value to workplace communities granted that they fail to uncover their true potential due to unequal representation and lack of opportunity. Whereas some are convinced that valuing the group rather than emphasizing the value of the individual unites more groups, Others maintain that emphasizing the value of the individual rather than the group focuses on the skill and leadership one person can contribute to the company. 

I used these two templates to depict the aspects of Gundemir Et Al article and the different stances the companies take. They both hold the position that minorities hold many skills and achievements yet they fail to demonstrate them in the workplace. However, they disagree on how to make the workspace more inclusive towards the individual. These two sides were highlighted in the article as Multiculturalism and Value-in-homogeneity, However, with the use of the They say/ I say templates it wasn’t necessary to explicitly state which side held which argument.

 

2.  In this weeks passages from Gundemir Et Al and Austin/Pisano, I found myself very intrigued and I came to appreciate the ideas uncovered in the articles. Throughout my entire life I have struggled in an attempt to pave a path for myself and become a successful individual despite the way that I am depicted in society. As a minority I constantly find myself underrepresented and undervalued in terms of school, work and everyday life. It has been a constant battle to push myself ahead despite constantly being underestimated by those who wish to see me fail. However, these articles were a breath of fresh air for me. To see that underrepresentation of minorities in the workplace is a widespread issue and that there are worldwide attempts being made to make communities more understanding and inclusive is amazing to me. These articles show us the power that we have to make a change in the lives of each individual and show them how much they are truly valued.

Posted on

Responses Week of 5/25

  1. The sentences I chose to write are the following:
    In discussions of workplace diversity climate, one controversial issues has been that there is an indirect relationship between diversity policy and minorities leadership goals. On the one hand, Gundemir et al argues that diversity policies positively impact minority employees goals of leadership.

    I used the basic template that Graff and Birkenstein used for opening a debate. I used one of the hypothesis that was proven to be false as the counter and the conclusion that the study drew as the argument for Gundemir et al. This approach framing was useful as it was able to filter my thinking. Usually when I write, I include other information or “fluff” that does not need to be included. However, this framing was able to filter my thinking and have me think about what exactly is important and needs to be included, and what isn’t.

  2. Gundemir et al and Austin and Pisano created a deeper level of understanding to diversity in organizations. For Gundemir et al, diversity inclusion gave hope to those in the minority and made them feel more comfortable going for authoritative opportunities and achieving their goals. This type of environment reflects a society that we as a whole hope to have one day — one where anyone can achieve their goals. Those who disabilities are also included in this, which Austin and Pisano elaborate on. Not only is diversity about race and ethnicity, it is about ability or disability or any identity. These articles cemented the idea that those who are given the opportunity, will thrive just like everyone else. As a member of SU and someone who is aspiring to become part of the work force, these articles further my drive to be apart of a job that doesn’t discriminate against anyone.