MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W217217612

The Holistic Approach to Diversity Management: HR Implications

2009· article· en· W217217612 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anita Ollapally, Jyotsna Bhatnagar

Notice bibliographique

RevueIndian journal of industrial relations · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGender Diversity and Inequality
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWorkforceDiversity (politics)Public relationsGlobalizationArgument (complex analysis)Competitive advantageSociologyBusinessMarketingEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Importance of Diverse Workforce Globalization has led lot of activity across borders of countries leading mobile workforce, which has intensified diversity related interventions in organizations. Literature in West is replete with data on increase of non-whites that is Hispanics and African- Americans and also women entering workforce. The nations' answer this growing multiculturalism was provide equal opportunities minorities and that involved having quota for them. Organizations normally adhered this, satisfy legal requirements. However it was very reactive and contingent approach and did not and still does not have any support, even among minorities. Today organizations worldwide are realizing importance of diverse workforce as source of competitive advantage. Donkin (2007: 18) articulates it, the popular argument I have encountered time and again is that, diversity is good for business, nothing much is however done in organizations. The author asserts that diversity will actually help reduce unconscious bias and prejudices. Organizations are realizing benefits of diverse workforce with respect access wide range of information, better decisions, better problem solving and more innovation. They are seeing direct impact on bottom line, besides fact that it increases brand image of organization. Management Defined Many definitions of diversity and diversity management exist. Miller and Rowney (2005) have cited definition of diverse workforce, provided by Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and Society of Management Accountants of Canada (1996:307) as a workforce made ... distinct by presence of many religions, cultures or skin colours, both sexes (in non-stereotypical roles), differing sexual orientations, varying styles of behaviour, differing capabilities, and usually, unlike backgrounds. Douglas (2008) has described what diversity in US stands for and what it strives for and stresses that the goal is inclusion, systematic business strategy make certain that everyone in an organization shares same advantages: voice that is heard, access information necessary for success, productive links other coworkers and management, chance contribute, and opportunity advance professionally (in press). White (2000: 2-3) uses metaphor level playing field elaborating that it is necessary create an environment where each individual has same opportunity to score. Respect for employees, customers, communities, dealers, and suppliers; appreciation of and inclusion of every person and every perspective has been described as diversity. Hewlett, Luce and West (2005) have stressed on need redefine diversity, broaden definition from just inclusion, creating culture of which minority groups feel part of and can express themselves freely. They suggest innovative policies meet this end. Diversity management is voluntary corporate approach dealing with increasing demographic diversity in workplace (Ng & Burke 2005:.1196). It is suggested by Robinson and Dechant (1997:22) that lot of companies prefer using broad definition of diversity include, differences in gender, racio-ethnicity, age, physical abilities, qualities, and sexual orientation, as well as in attitudes, perspectives and background. Vedpuriswar (2008: 76) defines diversity as variety arising out of educational, cultural, racial, ethnic, age, religious and gender differences. Scholars and practicing managers alike have tried differentiate between policy of affirmative action and providing equal opportunity, with managing diversity. management allows organizations leverage diversity, accruing benefits from it, besides organizations embark on it voluntarily as compared affirmative action (Ng &Burke 2005). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,765
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,263
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,070 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations22
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIndian journal of industrial relationsMême sujetGender Diversity and InequalityTravaux en français237 207