Misplaced Pages

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (November 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Social determinants of health Social determinants of health in poverty Social determinants of mental health Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism Aryanism Autistic Black Chauvinism Female Illusory Jewish Male Nordicism Tigraynization Ultranationalism White Transphobia 21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Atheism Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon Protestantism Tewahedo Orthodoxy post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Rastafari Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Australian Austrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Colombian Croat Dutch English Estonian Filipino French Fulani Finnish Georgian German Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Iranian Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Antisemitism New Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Portuguese Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Spanish Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh
Manifestations Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Anti-LGBTQ movement in the US Anti-trans movement in the UK Anti-Zionism Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Gender-based dress codes Cosmetics policy High heel policy Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime Violence against LGBTQ people Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ+ grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Paper genocide Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sentencing disparity Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Transphobia in the US House of Representatives Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation LGBTQ rights opposition MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Criminalization of homosexuality Dehumanization Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Medical model of disability autism Net bias Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social equity Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

Diversity training is a type of corporate training designed to facilitate positive intergroup interaction, reduce prejudice and discrimination, and teach different individuals how to work together effectively.

Diversity training is often aimed to meet objectives such as attracting and retaining customers and productive workers; maintaining high employee morale; and fostering understanding and harmony between workers.

Despite intended benefits, systematic studies have not proven benefits to diversity training. While some studies show that voluntary diversity training can lead to more diverse management, other studies have found that mandatory diversity training can lead to increased discrimination and prejudice.

As of 2019, more than $8 billion a year is spent on diversity training in the United States.

History

1960s

In the 1960s, the concept of promoting diversity in the workplace was prompted as a result of the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted by the 88th US Congress, made it illegal for employers with more than 15 workers to discriminate against employees and candidates based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, age, and disability was also later outlawed. After the Act was passed, activists protested organizations who refused to hire blacks, planned jobs banks, and filed charges against employers that discriminated against employees.

1970s

The United States Supreme Court extended the definition of discrimination in 1971 in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, ruling against employment practices that ostracized black employees without evidence of intent to discriminate. The civil rights movement helped to recreate its momentum for a new round of movements in the 1970s for the rights of women, the disabled, Latinos, and others. With shifts in societal and legal reforms, federal agencies took the first step towards modern day diversity training, and by the end of 1971, the Social Security Administration had enrolled over 50,000 employees through racial bias training. Corporations followed suit and, over the next five years, began offering anti-bias training to their employees. By 1976, 60 percent of large companies offered equal-opportunity training. Many of these corporations implemented such training programs as a way to protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits.

1980s to Present

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan tried to reverse affirmative action regulations put forward by former president John F. Kennedy and appointed Clarence Thomas to run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As a result, diversity trainers in the U.S. began calling for diversity training, arguing that women and minorities would soon be the backbone of the workforce and that companies needed to determine how to include them amongst their ranks. By 2005, 65 percent of large corporations offered their employees some form of diversity training.

Promoting respect and appealing to minority employees and customers became significant goals of diversity training starting in the late 1980s. In the early 2000s, an expansion of diversity training was prompted by a series of high-profile discrimination lawsuits in the financial industry.

Impact

Findings on diversity trainings are mixed. According to Harvard University sociologist Frank Dobbin, there is no evidence to indicate that anti-bias training leads to increases in the number of women or people of color in management positions. A 2009 Annual Review of Psychology study concluded, "We currently do not know whether a wide range of programs and policies tend to work on average," with the authors of the study stating in 2020 that as the quality of studies increases, the effect size of anti-bias training dwindles.

According to a 2006 study in the American Sociological Review, "diversity training and diversity evaluations are least effective at increasing the share of white women, black women, and black men in management." A meta-analysis suggests that diversity training could have a relatively large effect on cognitive-based and skill-based training outcomes. An analysis of data from over 800 firms over 30 years shows that diversity training and grievance procedures backfire and lead to reductions in the diversity of the firms' workforce. A 2013 study found that the presence of a diversity program in a workplace made high-status subjects less likely to take discrimination complaints seriously.

Alexandra Kalev and Frank Dobbin conducted a comprehensive review of cultural diversity training conducted in 830 midsize to large U.S. workplaces over a thirty one-year period. The results showed that diversity training was followed by a decrease of anywhere from 7.5 to 10% in the number of women in management. The percentage of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent. Similar effects were shown for Latinos and Asians. The study did not find that all diversity training is ineffective. Mandatory training programs offered to protect against discrimination lawsuits were called into question. Voluntary diversity training participation to advance organization's business goals was associated with increased diversity at the management level; voluntary services resulted in near triple digit increases for black, Hispanic, and Asian men.

A 2021 meta-analysis found a lack of high quality studies on the efficacy of diversity training. The researchers concluded that "while the small number of experimental studies provide encouraging average effects... the effects shrink when the trainings are conducted in real-world workplace settings, when the outcomes are measured at a greater time distance than immediately following the intervention, and, most importantly, when the sample size is large enough to produce reliable results."

A 2013 study found that white men were less likely to think a complaint of discrimination by an employee was accurate when they were told that the employer used diversity training, even when they were presented with evidence of discrimination. Several studies of the results of discrimination lawsuits in the United States have found that official diversity structures, including diversity training, have increasingly been accepted by judges as evidence of a lack of discrimination regardless of their effectiveness. According to Nakamura & Edelman's summary of corporate diversity policies, "n the twenty-first century, diversity commitments and policies are standard and firms that lack such structures look suspect."

See also

• Anti-bias curriculum
• Diversity (business)
• Diversity (politics)
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion
• Multiculturalism
• Neurodiversity
• Sensitivity training

References

1. Lindsey, Alex; King, Eden; Hebl, Michelle; Levine, Noah (September 2015). "The Impact of Method, Motivation, and Empathy on Diversity Training Effectiveness". Journal of Business and Psychology. 30 (3): 605–617. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9384-3. S2CID 144447133.
2. Chavez, Carolyn I.; Weisinger, Judith Y. (Summer 2008). "Beyond diversity training: a social infusion for cultural inclusion". Human Resource Management. 47 (2): 331–350. doi:10.1002/hrm.20215.
3. Mehta, Stephanie (2019-11-21). "Despite spending billions, companies can't buy diversity". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2021-12-04.
4. Anand, Rohini; Winters, Mary-Frances (2008). "A Retrospective View of Corporate Diversity Training From 1964 to the Present" (PDF). Academy of Management Learning & Education. 7 (3): 356–372. doi:10.5465/amle.2008.34251673. ISSN 1537-260X. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-11-29.
5. Dobbin, Frank (2009-12-31). Inventing Equal Opportunity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400830893. ISBN 978-1-4008-3089-3.
6. ^ Dobbin, Frank; Kalev, Alexandra (2018-05-04). "Why Doesn't Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia". Anthropology Now. 10 (2): 48–55. doi:10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182. ISSN 1942-8200. S2CID 158262607.
7. ^ Read, Bridget (2021-05-26). "Doing the Work at Work: What are companies desperate for diversity consultants actually buying?". New York. Archived from the original on 2021-12-17.
8. ^ Dobbins, Frank; Kalev, Alexandra (July 2016). "Why Diversity Programs Fail". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21.
9. ^ Bergner, Daniel (2020-07-15). "'White Fragility' Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-01-17.
10. Kalev, Alexandra; Dobbin, Frank; Kelly, Erin (August 2006). "Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies" (PDF). American Sociological Review. 71 (4): 589–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404. S2CID 10327121. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-11.
11. Kalinoski, Zachary T.; Steele-Johnson, Debra; Peyton, Elizabeth J.; Leas, Keith A.; Steinke, Julie; Bowling, Nathan A. (2013). "A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 34 (8): 1076–1104. doi:10.1002/job.1839.
12. Dobbin, Frank; Kalev, Alexandra. "Why Diversity Management Backfires (And How Firms Can Make it Work)". ethics.harvard.edu. Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University. Retrieved 2016-10-15.
13. McGregor, Jena (July 1, 2016). "To improve diversity, don't make people go to diversity training. Really". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
14. McElroy, Molly (3 April 2013). "Diversity programs give illusion of corporate fairness, study shows". UW Today. University of Washington. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
15. ^ Kaiser, Cheryl R.; Major, Brenda; Jurcevic, Ines; Dover, Tessa L.; Brady, Laura M.; Shapiro, Jenessa R. (2013). "Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 104 (3): 504–519. doi:10.1037/a0030838. PMID 23163748. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-07-07.
16. Vedantam, Shankar (2008-01-20). "Most Diversity Training Ineffective, Study Finds". The Washington Post and Times-Herald. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
17. ^ Paluck, Elizabeth Levy; Porat, Roni; Clark, Chelsey S.; Green, Donald P. (2021-01-04). "Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges". Annual Review of Psychology. 72 (1): 533–560. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 32928061. S2CID 221722150.
18. Edelman, Lauren B.; Krieger, Linda H.; Eliason, Scott R.; Albiston, Catherine R.; Mellema, Virginia (November 2011). "When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures" (PDF). American Journal of Sociology. 117 (117 #3): 888–954. doi:10.1086/661984. S2CID 31192421. Archived from the original on 2021-12-17.
19. Krieger, Linda Hamilton; Best, Rachel Kahn; Edelman, Lauren B. (2015). "When "Best Practices" Win, Employees Lose: Symbolic Compliance and Judicial Inference in Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Cases". Law & Social Inquiry. 40 (4): 843–879. doi:10.1111/lsi.12116. hdl:10125/66112. S2CID 153033615. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-12-17.
20. ^ Nakamura, Brent K.; Edelman, Lauren B. (2019). "Bakke at 40: How Diversity Matters in the Employment Context" (PDF). UC Davis Law Review (52): 2627–2679. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-12-17.

Further reading

• Beddoes, Kacey (2017). "Institutional influences that promote studying down in engineering diversity research". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 38 (1): 88–99. doi:10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.1.0088. JSTOR 10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.1.0088. S2CID 151771023.

• Prejudice and discrimination
• Education by subject
• Linguistic controversies
• Politics and race
• Social justice terminology
• Diversity (business)