- “Skillfull,” linked in Alison Wynn’s Individual Change Won’t Create Gender Equality in Organizations, is an organization with the intent of connecting the 70% of Americans without college degrees with employers, educators and lawmakers based on skill sets. The website has resources for employers as well as the unemployed to get involved. What this adds to Wynn’s article is an outlet for the disparities she discussed to be helped. Women, or disadvantaged people can use this resource to pursue their endeavors.
- Her target audience in citing this website is women without college degrees. I gather this from the website’s mission statement which says, “Skillful works with employers, educators, policymakers and others to help the nearly 70% of Americans without college degrees get good jobs based on the skills they have or the skills they can learn – creating new opportunities for success in the digital era.” Wynn’s article is about a disparity of women in tech, and this linked article provides a resource for people without college degrees to get jobs in tech. Further, the website’s resources provide a place for women with a desire to get involved in tech to sign up, people who may have come straight from Wynn’s article.
Research Portfolio
For this project, the goal was to start with a small topic and expand it into a greater field of research and perspectives, making the discussion bigger and bigger. We started with the simple definition of organizational culture, and then expanded it to the positives and negatives of it. Through this we found an opposing ideal, which champions diversity as a means for greater success. We discussed all of this within the realm of the workplace, with some readings relating it further. What interested me most was when I first saw the connection of diversity to success made to something extremely different from the workplace realm. This was when in the “Expanding the Canon” assignment, someone included an article of a study which theorized a connection between diversity and success inn international, professional soccer.
From here I wanted to research a theory that diversity inherently means greater success. In stating this theory, I was able to find more avenues of research in looking to disprove it. This was done in the “complicating your research” activity, where I found information that proves diversity doesn’t, in fact, equate to immediate greater success. The article I found conducted a study that showed diverse groups performing equal to or less than less diverse groups. The study then implemented two things into the groups – trust, and openness in communication – and analyzed how that changed their level of success. The result was eye-opening for my research, because implementing these two things made the diverse groups outperform the non-diverse groups significantly. This brought me to my final avenue of research, which I decided would be my focus. I wondered if these two variables could be the connection between diversity and success in any sense, including in the real world, beyond a team or office.
This path of research I took all guided me to this inquiry, which I plan to dive into next to finish off this research project. Can some form of implementation of trust and openness in communication solve a gap between diversity and success in the real world? Meaning could it solve some of the issues with race our country has been plagued with for centuries and up to this day? Or does this relate back to one of my article’s claims that “diversity and inclusion” type of workshops in the office don’t help, but actually make minority employees feel more uncomfortable? Or how could these things be implemented without uncomfortable and useless workshops? These are the questions I will seek answers to as I finish my research.
Discussion Posts Week of 7/13
- My linked article under “hold decision makers accountable” is all about how employer practices has a big effect on workplace inequality. It focuses on sensitivity and the article argues that women can evoke more sensitive behavior from others. So much so that men as well as women contribute to an increase in sensitivity in mixed gender interactions. One of the biggest problems facing organizations today according to the article is that there’s currently a lack of interpersonal sensitivity. This can be defined as the act of caring and respectful treatment towards others. Organizations don’t often help themselves when it comes to inequality. When determining pay, employers are the ones at the forefront of that and should be held accountable when there are situations where equal pay is not met. This connects to what Wynn is saying in her article titled “Individual Change Wont Create Gender Equality in Organizations.” She argues that there are many factors that go into this and many steps organizations can take to reduce the inequality that women are facing in the workplace. It is up to the higher ups and employers of these organizations to take the necessary steps to create a safe working environment for women, and less inequality all around.
- In the article, the authors are talking about the environment in the workplace initiated by the employers. I feel that first and foremost, the employers of these companies would benefit the most from reading this article seeing how some of them are the reasons for this inequality. In addition, I think that this article appeals to everyone who works and more specifically works with people of the opposite gender in groups. The article talks about sensitivity levels differentiating when in a group with people of the opposite gender. The researchers found that “the willingness to act with interpersonal sensitivity increased in interactions with women.” This is just an interesting fact that I feel people who work in groups would want to know about and read the rest of the article. This quote was in the first paragraph of the article.
Discussion Prompt Week of 7/13 – Samantha Danylchuk
- My linked article under “biases can infiltrate the process” is about the lack of women in tech. Along with Wynn, other researchers attended several introductory sessions a few years ago at West Coast University, and the observations were astronomical. These sessions provided women with uncomfortable settings, as the females received sexist jokes and imagery, geeky references, and a super competitive environment. Most women were seen setting up the venue with refreshments or raffling off tickets, while the actual presenters happened to be male. If a female engineer was invited by a company, she often did not speak or if she did, would get cut off. Wynn and a research partner Correll described “one session in which men asked 19 questions and women asked none.” This article is extremely valuable as it highlights the gender stereotype within the tech field, specifically among recruiters. For example, the article explains that “presenters often made comments that disparaged women or depicted them as sexualized objects rather than talented technical colleagues.” This Stanford research proves that first are impressions are essential in bringing success to a company, and in order to attract a more diverse workforce, companies must present themselves as diverse communities of professionals, which adds to Wynn’s larger article.
- I think “Why Are There Few Women in Tech? Watch a Recruiting Session” would be most beneficial to engineer recruiters of companies in the tech industry who host/attend these sessions. She talks a lot about recruiters and people within tech firms because that’s what the article focuses on, so they are meant to be the target audience. Broad and dramastic change, like having more women in tech, cannot happen through one individual person’s actions. A few sentences from this article that I believe would work well in capturing the point that is being made here for this group of readers is “Wynn says she has presented this research to recruiters and people within tech firms. ‘They’re astonished. They often just don’t know what’s going on in their recruiting sessions,’ she says. Another quote is “The paper also describes recruiters using gender stereotypes. One online gaming company showed a slide of a woman wearing a red, skin-tight dress and holding a burning poker card to represent its product. Another company, which makes software to help construct computer graphics, only showed pictures of men—astronauts, computer technicians, soldiers.” Creating a problem like this one and adding onto a stereotype that’s already existed for so long does not solve anything. Instead, it adds fuel to the fire and promotes this kind of humiliating representation of women in the workforce. Gender stereotypes are used so commonly now without the creators (in this case tech engineers) even recognizing them.
Week of 7/13 Discussion
- The resource I followed is a program called Al4All which works to teach and provide resources for minorities interested in STEM and AI. It works to expose them to the uses of artificial intelligence in every day life and give them the skills needed to pursue careers and broaden the field. Not only do they teach the basics and give them the tools required to be young innovators but they provide them with teachers and a community of organizations that will help them along the path to success. This program is so important because it provides minority students access to the stem world and allows them to develop their passions amongst a more diverse community. It adds to Wynns article because she speaks of broadening the science community in terms of representation for minorities. This program provides the opportunity for young kids to learn the traits and have the resources required to excel in any field despite their backgrounds.
- In this article the author is mostly speaking towards either minorities or those with disabilities who have been discriminated from a position due to things like race or gender. When she writes this article she attempts to sympathize with those who feel they have been treated wrongly for something they can’t control and wish to see a monumental change within the industry. When she says “Organizations regularly engage in practices that can reduce or reinforce inequality—such as hiring practices, performance evaluations, promotion procedures, project allocation, compensation, and termination. For women who experience multiple forms of bias (e.g. based on race or sexuality as well as gender), these practices can amplify inequalities even further.” she specifically points out the discrimination faced in each environment and how these individuals are affected by it. In this passage she attempts a call to action by asking the audience what changes can be made and whether or not they wish to see the next generation have more rights than in previous years.
Discussion Post – Week of 7/13
Appearing in the April 29, 2016 issue of The Harvard Business Review, Shelly Correll and Caroline Simard’s article, “Research: Vague Feedback Is Holding Women Back” shares with readers some of the results of their research into the effects of performance evaluations on the advancement of women into executive roles. Correll and Simard, both of Stamford University, found that women are less likely than men to receive specific feedback, regardless as to whether that feedback be positive or negative. The authors discuss the possible causes behind this trend and conclude that this “vague feedback” has a direct negative impact on women’s chances for advancement. The lack of specificity makes it difficult to measure progress and provides less clarity of what steps are necessary to make it to the next level. The results of Correll and Simard’s research are a powerful tool in supporting Wynn’s third recommendation for organizational change; Performance Evaluations. Her suggestion that organizations establish clear and precise criteria is backed up by the research performed by Correll and Simard.
————————————————————————————-
The best audience for Wynn’s article is leaders in the tech industry who are engaged in working to enhance gender equality in tech. It is best suited for those in a position to effect change, as well as those with the opportunity to influence decision making. It would be particularly useful to HR presidents and vice-presidents because it provides six clear areas of focus. There are two key sentences which I believe serve as the fulcrum for Wynn’s entire argument:
“It may be easier to think of individualistic solutions—such as training ourselves to think differently and change our own behavior—or to blame larger societal forces we can’t control, rather than to change the intricate organizational procedures and practices that contribute to employment outcomes in complex ways. However, my research suggests that we must address organizational forms of inequality as well.”
The first of these sentences addresses methods with which the readers are likely to be familiar. In fact, they may have attempted many of them already. In the second, Wynn quickly but delicately deems them ineffective and prepares the reader to be receptive to her recommendations which follow.
Week of 7/13 – Discussion
- The article ”Is Redemption Possible In The Aftermath Of #MeToo?” by Matt Chinworth is about the men accused and charged with sexual misconduct during the #MeToo movement and the possibilities for them to come back into the society without ignoring the feelings and wishes of their victims. It is structured in such a way that both sides are heard—one side that supports open reintegration in addition to the main focus on the victims as a step towards sustainability in the movement and one that emphazises more the side and fair dealing with the pain of the victims instead of giving space to the perpetrators. The lighting of both opposing sides and the integration of concrete case studies as examples and expert speeches make up the value of this article, since it enables the most objective opinion formation possible. It is integrated into Wynn’s article that talks about the effort organizations of the tech industry have to take in order to create gender equality within their structures instead of focusing on small individual changes. The tech industry is also strongly criticized for the disrespectful treatment of women and since the #MeToo movement has earned a wide range of medial attention showing the dangerous conditions of women in different work spaces, the article is well integrated into Alison Wynn’s for giving a deeper look into the topics and providing background informations.
- Alison Wynn in her article “Individual Change Won’t Create Gender Equality in Organizations” points out how small individual changes won’t be capable to reduce or eliminate inequality between genders in organizations although they are often used as a main attempt to fight inequality, which her research reveals. Her article not only talks on a meta level about the efforts that have to be made by those responsible, but reduces biases in addressing them directly in her six stage strategy to combat inequality. She claims that the problem has to be identified to take action on it, so she seems to speak straight to decision-holders of the industry to increase the chances that those people in charge feel addressed. By using the imperative in the following excerpt, “When determining employee rewards, such as pay and promotion, hold decision-makers accountable for basing such rewards on demonstrated employee performance, rather than subjective factors such as favoritism”, the author guarantees that in the right places executives are appealed. Her next excerpt, “Take steps to make sure employees’ voices are heard in meetings that they feel included and safe at work, and that they can be successful“ speaks about how to eliminate microaggressions in the workplace. To make sure employees’ voices are heard in meetings as she suggests, you have to be in charge of leading them, therefore her main group of readers are as well those who are interested as employers and the leaders of a company. Nevertheless, she encounters them on an informing but neutral level which supports her appeals to be heard and hopefully even acted upon.
Discussion, Isaac
- Allison Wynn is at the point in her article where she is listing her proposals to mitigate the ongoing discrimination in organizations when she adds the link to the article “Why Most Performance Evaluations Are Biased, and How to Fix Them”. The link is contained in a small paragraph that places blame on ambiguous evaluation forms that use open-ended questions that draws biased opinionated answers. The study she links to elaborates on this claim, and uses data and experiments to try and find a solution to the problem. The study involved speaking to current managers and their thoughts on the evaluation form and its process, and their answers typically were not confident in the current system. The ambiguity of the questionnaires leaves managers lost often, and in turn, their unconscious/conscious biases help them fill in the open spaces. The authors, Lori Mackenzie, JoAnne Wehner and Shelley J. Correll, then go on in the same direction as Wynn by proposing improvements to the evaluation form process. The study they conducted also included managers feedback and opinions on their more specific evaluation form that forced the managers to work through their employees using a standardized list of criteria, in hopes everyone is judged much more equally. The responses they received were 90% positive, and the managers who participated in the study said the new form made them feel much more confident in their evaluations.
- The target audience of Allison Wynn’s article “Individual Change Won’t Create Gender Equality in Organizations” is primarily the managers and executives in leadership roles that have the power to implement the reforms Allison Wynn is calling for. Baseline employees and even some of the higher positions in organizations usually have little power in making changes to the pre-existing standards of the company, although the manager’s role typically includes managing and evaluating their employees work. In the article, Wynn states
“While conducting a year-long, in-depth case study of a Silicon Valley technology company implementing a gender equality initiative, I investigated how executives understand and attempt to mitigate inequality. I found that their explanations for inequality—and strategies to address it—often fall short of enacting the change that’s most necessary.”
This statement was used in her introduction, and she brings up the fact that most of her studies results show that the people with the power to enact positive change often do not do so. This passage is calling out to executives, informing them of how large this issue has become and how they are the ones in the position to enact change, and the rest of the article calls back to this statement every time it mentions the executive’s role in a company.
Week of 7/13 Discussion Post – Dominique Van Gilst
- The linked resource that I explored is a card set called Inclusion Conversation Cards. Each card includes engaging statistics and questions that will definitely get you thinking. This set of cards is important because it allows for a comfortable way to speak and learn about inclusion and gender equality. This resource is also great for motivation because it gets people thinking about what they need to change at work, home, school, etc. This tool adds to Wynn’s article because it is a suggestion of something that can be used to teach employees how to be more inclusive at work. Wynn believes that this resource could definitely assist in creating a more accepting and inclusive workspace. However, this tool should not be the only one used to do this; creating a safe environment for everyone must be a continuous process.
- I think that anyone could benefit from reading this article because it provides a lot of tools and resources that can help people to be more aware of inequality at work, school, home, etc. However, I think that the main target audience is probably any organization and its employees because of the way that the article is written, and the language used. The segment that I think works well with that target audience is:
“Beyond hiring, organizations should establish clear, specific criteria for evaluating employees year-round. Research shows that ambiguous or vague evaluations can open the door to bias, such as evaluating employees based on gendered personality expectations (e.g. women should behave communally, men should behave assertively), so it’s important for organizations to use a transparent and consistent process for evaluating employees”
It is easy to tell from this passage that the article is geared towards organizations and employees because it talks about hiring, bias, and evaluating employees. Even though I chose to include this specific passage, the whole article talks about ways to improve the workplace so that everyone is treated equally.
Week of 7/13 discussion, Aaron
- The link within the article that I had was “50 ways to fight bias”. This was brand new to me, but I found very useful. It is an online card game of sorts that has 4 different sets of cards which each have a “do you know?” section in them which contain diversity and bias related questions such as: “What % of Black women have never had an informal interaction with a senior leader at their company?” The answer for this one is 59%. These questions have pretty dismal answers that prepare you for whats to come in the next section of cards which give you different scenarios, such as: hiring, everyday interactions, reviews and promotions, meeting dynamics, mentorship and sponsorship.
- This activity is geared towards professional people in a working environment. It is very useful because the scenarios that are used in this exercise are very relatable and realistic. One scenario in one of the card sets presents us with this problem: “You’re asked to interview candidates for a role on your team and notice none are women.” The bottom of the card gives an explanation of why this matters. This matters because not interviewing women will surely mean that the company is missing out on good candidates and women will not be afforded the opportunity to advance their careers. The card also gives information that states that women are far less likely to receive an opportunity into entry level professional employment, which further stunts the growth of diversity in the workplace.