Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
F. Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev (2007)
The Architecture of Inclusion: Evidence from Corporate Diversity ProgramsCGN: Equity & Diversity (Topic)
R. Bigler, Lecianna Jones, Debra Lobliner (1997)
Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children.Child development, 68 3
R. Anand, M. Winters (2008)
A Retrospective View of Corporate Diversity Training From 1964 to the PresentAcademy of Management Learning and Education, 7
J. Bremmer (2003)
Remember the Titans
M. Gazzaniga (2008)
Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique
Shawn Smith, Rebecca Mazin (2004)
The HR Answer Book: An Indispensable Guide for Managers and Human Resources Professionals
W. Johnston (1987)
Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century.
M. Boer, H. Suryapranata (2012)
It’s a small world after allNetherlands Heart Journal, 20
C. Wildermuth, Susan Gray (2006)
Diversity Training
Robert Kurzban, J. Tooby, L. Cosmides (2001)
Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorizationProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98
Milton Bennett (1986)
A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivityInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10
Marcus Stewart, Marcy Crary, B. Humberd (2008)
Teaching Value in Diversity: On the Folly of Espousing Inclusion, While Practicing ExclusionAcademy of Management Learning and Education, 7
Purpose – During a typical diversity program, participants are encouraged to recognize, evaluate, and appreciate differences. The purpose of this paper is to explore the rationale for “Conversity ® ”: an alternative approach to diversity training that is based on connections. Design/methodology approach – The paper is based on a review of the literature on “traditional” diversity training paradigms, the impact of diversity on the brain, and basic social psychology concepts such as categorization and social affiliation. The authors relate literature review findings to their experiences conducting “connections‐based” (“Conversity”) diversity training. Findings – The human brain is already wired to perceive differences. Further, human beings tend to prefer others who share their group affiliations. Possible consequences of “typical” diversity training programs may include a “backlash” against diversity, an increase in participants' fears, and a reinforcement of inter‐group divisions. Practical implications – This paper offers practitioners an alternative paradigm for diversity training design including alternative categorization (i.e. emphasis on non‐traditional diversity categories such as personality or team color) and an intentional search for connections between participants. Originality/value – Historically, diversity training programs have focused on the value of differences rather than on the power of common ground.
Industrial and Commercial Training – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jul 12, 2011
Keywords: Diversity training; Human resources; Intercultural relations; Prejudice; Discrimination; Team effectiveness; Diversity management; Human resource management
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.