帮忙找一篇关于国际贸易的英文材料阿,大约3000词左右吧,不要很难阿
发布网友
发布时间：2023-07-29 00:29
共1个回答
热心网友
时间：2024-01-15 07:44
by Robin J. Ely, Debra E. Meyerson, and Martin N. Davidson
A white manager fears she will be perceived as racist if she gives critical feedback to her Latino subordinate. A black engineer passed over for promotion wonders whether his race has anything to do with it, but he’s reluctant to raise this concern lest he be seen as “playing the race card.” A woman associate who wants to make partner in an accounting firm resists seeking coaching on her leadership style; she worries that doing so would confirm the notion that women don’t have what it takes to make partner.
These types of events occur daily in politically correct(PC) cultures, where unspoken canons of propriety gov- ern behavior in cross-cultural interactions – that is, inter- actions among people of different races, genders, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. We embrace the commitment to equity that underlies politi- cal correctness, and we applaud the shifts in norms wrought by that commitment. We are troubled, however, by the bar- riers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relation- ships fray, and performance suffers.Legal and cultural changes over the past 40 years ushered unprecedented numbers of women and people of color into companies’ professional and managerial ranks. Overt prejudice and discrimination in the work- place, historically sanctioned by society, are far less acceptable today. Laws now protect traditionally underrepresented groups from blatant discrimination in hiring and promotion, and political correctness has reset the standards for civility and respect in people’s day-to-day interactions. Despite this obvious progress, we believe that political correctness is a double-edged sword. While it has helped many traditionally underrepresented employees to expe- rience their workplace as more inclusive, the PC rule book can hinder employees’ ability to develop effective rela- tionships across potentially divisive group differences. Companies need to equip workers with skills – not rules – for building these relationships.
Our work suggests that high-quality relationships can- not be mandated. Sensitivity training and zero-tolerance policies at best impart some useful cultural knowledge or indicate that a company is serious about eliminating bias. At worst, such practices undermine relationships by rein- forcing a restrictive and fearful atmosphere. Those to whom corrective actions are directed – men and whites, for exam- ple – walk on eggshells for fear of unwittingly transgress- ing the rules of political correctness.
We have found that political correctness does not only pose problems for those in the “majority.” When ma- jority members cannot speak candidly, members of under- represented groups also suffer: “Minorities” can’t discuss their concerns about fairness and fears about feeding into negative stereotypes, and that adds to an atmo- sphere in which people tiptoe around the issues and one another. These dynamics breed misunderstanding, con- flict, and mistrust, corroding both managerial and team effectiveness.
Constructive engagement of differences – and, there- fore, effective leadership in culturally diverse contexts – requires majority and minority indivials to develop a mind-set and skills that all parties currently lack. This ar- ticle proposes how managers and employees can
engage with one another to reap the benefits cultural diversity has to offer. It represents our collective insights from research, teaching, and consulting over the past 15 years in the areas of race and gender relations, diversity, and organizational change. It also incorporates findings from our research with Learning as Lead- ership, a San Rafael, California–based leadership development organization, in whose seminars we have observed dozens
of managers and executives grappling with unproctive behavior patterns and experiment- ing with new ones. Applying our insights about these processes to classic diversity-related dilemmas, we have developed the following principles to guide people seek- ing a healthy approach to the tensions that commonly arise over difference:
• Pause to short-circuit the emotion and reflect.
• Connect with others in ways that affirm the importance of relationships.
• Question yourself to help identify your blind spots and discover what makes you defensive.
• Get genuine support that doesn’t necessarily validate your point of view but, rather, helps you gain a broader perspective.
• Shift your mind-set from “You need to change” to “What can I change?”
These five principles require that all parties adopt a learning orientation in cross-cultural interactions. In this article, we spell out the challenges and opportunities of adopting such an orientation and offer some guidelines
Robin J. Ely (rely@hbs.e) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at Harvard Business School in Boston; she
coauthored “Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity” (HBR September–October 1996). Debra
E. Meyerson (debram@stanford.e) is an associate professor of ecation and organizational behavior at Stanford Univer- sity’s School of Ecation and (by courtesy) Graate School of Business in California and the author of Tempered Radi- cals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work (Harvard Business School Press, 2001). Martin N. Davidson
(mdav@virginia.e) is an associate professor of leadership and organizational behavior at the Darden Graate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville for leaders. First, though, let’s explore the negative dynamics that result when open discussion is repressed and people fail to learn.
Identity Abrasions
Assaults to people’s identities occur daily in most organi- zations: A white person confuses the names of two Asian- American coworkers; a black executive is addressed less formally than her white male counterparts; a woman’s idea is misattributed to a male colleague. Repeated expe- riences of this kind can diminish people’s sense of how much others value and respect them. Offense at a per- ceived slight may or may not be well-founded, but an at- tempt to discuss the possible insult risks, for example, the charge that one is overly sensitive.
Such assaults occur on the flip side as well, as when mem- bers of majority groups are accused of being prejudiced or of treating others unfairly. Because they often have meant no harm, they tend to respond defensively, upset by any sug- gestion that their moral goodness is being questioned.
These experiences proce what we call identity abra- sions for people on both sides of the interaction. Identityabrasions cause people to burrow into their own camps,attend only to information that confirms their positions, and demonize the other side. The overall result is a num- ber of negative dynamics, with costs both to indivials and to organizations. Below, we offer several classic exam- ples; these and others throughout the article are real cases, but with the names changed.
Divisiveness. While participating in a large meeting,
Tom, a white vice president of manufacturing in a house- hold appliances company, describes his ordeal with the union as akin to “oriental torture.” The VP of HR passes him a note and tells him that his reference is offensive to some people in the room, so before he finishes his ad- dress, Tom apologizes for the insensitive remark. As the meeting is coming to a close, a white regional manager, who is married to a Japanese-American woman, openly voices his distress at the remark, though expresses his ap- preciation that the VP recognized his gaffe and apolo- gized. The following day, everyone in the firm knows about the incident. Some people feel that the regional manager has inappropriately shamed Tom. Others feel that Tom’s boss needs to call him onto the carpet for his insensitive remark. That evening, more employees gather to recount numerous similar incidents from the past.
The next day, some staff members call for the company to create a forum for ecating employees; others conclude that race is too hot to touch in any company forum and vow to assiously avoid the topic.
Self-doubt. Sophia, an African-American, is a newly appointed member of the board of a regional bank. In the first few meetings, she is relatively silent, but when the agenda ring one meeting turns to her area of exper- tise, she joins the conversation confidently and with a well-informed point of view. The board chair interrupts while Sophia is talking, urging members to be brief so that they can get through the agenda. Sophia notes to her- self that the chair never makes such comments when any of her white colleagues are speaking. She wonders, “Is he cutting me off because I’m a black woman?” – but she brushes off her worry. She thinks: “I can’t go there. It takes too much out of me. I just need to move on.” In subse- quent meetings, she becomes increasingly reluctant to share her perspective; ultimately, she comes to dread the meetings because she feels marginal. She begins to won- der, “Do I have what it takes to be a fully contributing member of this board?”
Overprotection and underdevelopment. Rob, a white partner at a management consultancy, has always been sensitive to the lack of diversity at his firm and would like to do his part to help women and other minorities suc- ceed. He mentors Iris, a young Latina associate who is competent, energetic, and well liked but is not doing enough to generate business. In a promotions committee meeting, a number of partners voice concerns about Iris’s prospects for promotion to partner. Rob thinks these concerns may have some merit but is reluctant to share them with Iris. He fears that hearing the feedback would convince her that the partnership is simply not ready to promote a woman of color. Uncomfortable with his ambivalence, he unconsciously distances himself from Iris, leaving her bewildered about what she’s done to alienate him.
Self-limiting behavior. Julie, an engineer, wants to prove to her overwhelmingly male colleagues that women are as good at engineering as men are. She con- sciously avoids being seen in gender-stereotypical ways: She doesn’t sit next to other women in meetings, tries to solve problems on her own, avoids asking for help or clarification, shuns opportunities to mentor junior women, and makes sure her personal life is invisible at work. As a result, she isolates herself from potential sources of support, works harder and less efficiently than she needs to, develops skills more slowly, and contributes less to her firm than she otherwise might.
Polarization. A friendship between coworkers Scott, an American Christian, and Mahmoud, a Muslim émigré from Pakistan abruptly falls apart after they discuss events in the news. Seconds after Scott makes what he naively intends to be a conciliatory comment, the two
become engrossed in a passionate debate in which Scott finds himself arguing for positions that he doesn’t even support. The exchange ends when Scott storms out of Mahmoud’s office while Mahmoud shouts after him. From then on, communication between them is minimal. Suspicion and withdrawal. Bill, a black associate in a consulting firm, consistently receives mediocre ratings from his white clients. He wonders whether these rat- ings reflect a racial bias and raises the issue with his white boss. She balks, insisting that their clients are not bi- ased. Bill is not convinced. He searches for evidence to bolster his claim, but the evidence is ambiguous, so he does not share it. He feels increasingly angry, resentful, and hopeless about his prospects at the firm. In his next review, his boss tells him she is concerned about his “bad attitude.”
In each of these cases, people’s judgments and their fears of others’ judgments – drive the negative dynamic. When we feel judged, it cuts to the core of our self-image as being good, competent, and worthy. To counter such identity abrasions, we deny our experiences, avoid diffi- cult conversations, react angrily, and seek advice only to confirm our innocence. These behaviors have only one goal: self-protection. When self-protection becomes more important than the work, the group’s mission, or relationships with others, people lose their connections to one another, making it difficult to take risks, learn, and solve problems creatively together. (While we have out- lined these dynamics as they occur in the United States, we believe that the impulse to protect oneself manifests similarly in all interactions among members of groups that are marked by a history of prejudice, discrimination, or misunderstanding.)
热心网友
时间：2024-01-15 07:45
by Robin J. Ely, Debra E. Meyerson, and Martin N. Davidson
A white manager fears she will be perceived as racist if she gives critical feedback to her Latino subordinate. A black engineer passed over for promotion wonders whether his race has anything to do with it, but he’s reluctant to raise this concern lest he be seen as “playing the race card.” A woman associate who wants to make partner in an accounting firm resists seeking coaching on her leadership style; she worries that doing so would confirm the notion that women don’t have what it takes to make partner.
These types of events occur daily in politically correct(PC) cultures, where unspoken canons of propriety gov- ern behavior in cross-cultural interactions – that is, inter- actions among people of different races, genders, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. We embrace the commitment to equity that underlies politi- cal correctness, and we applaud the shifts in norms wrought by that commitment. We are troubled, however, by the bar- riers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relation- ships fray, and performance suffers.Legal and cultural changes over the past 40 years ushered unprecedented numbers of women and people of color into companies’ professional and managerial ranks. Overt prejudice and discrimination in the work- place, historically sanctioned by society, are far less acceptable today. Laws now protect traditionally underrepresented groups from blatant discrimination in hiring and promotion, and political correctness has reset the standards for civility and respect in people’s day-to-day interactions. Despite this obvious progress, we believe that political correctness is a double-edged sword. While it has helped many traditionally underrepresented employees to expe- rience their workplace as more inclusive, the PC rule book can hinder employees’ ability to develop effective rela- tionships across potentially divisive group differences. Companies need to equip workers with skills – not rules – for building these relationships.
Our work suggests that high-quality relationships can- not be mandated. Sensitivity training and zero-tolerance policies at best impart some useful cultural knowledge or indicate that a company is serious about eliminating bias. At worst, such practices undermine relationships by rein- forcing a restrictive and fearful atmosphere. Those to whom corrective actions are directed – men and whites, for exam- ple – walk on eggshells for fear of unwittingly transgress- ing the rules of political correctness.
We have found that political correctness does not only pose problems for those in the “majority.” When ma- jority members cannot speak candidly, members of under- represented groups also suffer: “Minorities” can’t discuss their concerns about fairness and fears about feeding into negative stereotypes, and that adds to an atmo- sphere in which people tiptoe around the issues and one another. These dynamics breed misunderstanding, con- flict, and mistrust, corroding both managerial and team effectiveness.
Constructive engagement of differences – and, there- fore, effective leadership in culturally diverse contexts – requires majority and minority indivials to develop a mind-set and skills that all parties currently lack. This ar- ticle proposes how managers and employees can
engage with one another to reap the benefits cultural diversity has to offer. It represents our collective insights from research, teaching, and consulting over the past 15 years in the areas of race and gender relations, diversity, and organizational change. It also incorporates findings from our research with Learning as Lead- ership, a San Rafael, California–based leadership development organization, in whose seminars we have observed dozens
of managers and executives grappling with unproctive behavior patterns and experiment- ing with new ones. Applying our insights about these processes to classic diversity-related dilemmas, we have developed the following principles to guide people seek- ing a healthy approach to the tensions that commonly arise over difference:
• Pause to short-circuit the emotion and reflect.
• Connect with others in ways that affirm the importance of relationships.
• Question yourself to help identify your blind spots and discover what makes you defensive.
• Get genuine support that doesn’t necessarily validate your point of view but, rather, helps you gain a broader perspective.
• Shift your mind-set from “You need to change” to “What can I change?”
These five principles require that all parties adopt a learning orientation in cross-cultural interactions. In this article, we spell out the challenges and opportunities of adopting such an orientation and offer some guidelines
Robin J. Ely (rely@hbs.e) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at Harvard Business School in Boston; she
coauthored “Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity” (HBR September–October 1996). Debra
E. Meyerson (debram@stanford.e) is an associate professor of ecation and organizational behavior at Stanford Univer- sity’s School of Ecation and (by courtesy) Graate School of Business in California and the author of Tempered Radi- cals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work (Harvard Business School Press, 2001). Martin N. Davidson
(mdav@virginia.e) is an associate professor of leadership and organizational behavior at the Darden Graate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville for leaders. First, though, let’s explore the negative dynamics that result when open discussion is repressed and people fail to learn.
Identity Abrasions
Assaults to people’s identities occur daily in most organi- zations: A white person confuses the names of two Asian- American coworkers; a black executive is addressed less formally than her white male counterparts; a woman’s idea is misattributed to a male colleague. Repeated expe- riences of this kind can diminish people’s sense of how much others value and respect them. Offense at a per- ceived slight may or may not be well-founded, but an at- tempt to discuss the possible insult risks, for example, the charge that one is overly sensitive.
Such assaults occur on the flip side as well, as when mem- bers of majority groups are accused of being prejudiced or of treating others unfairly. Because they often have meant no harm, they tend to respond defensively, upset by any sug- gestion that their moral goodness is being questioned.
These experiences proce what we call identity abra- sions for people on both sides of the interaction. Identityabrasions cause people to burrow into their own camps,attend only to information that confirms their positions, and demonize the other side. The overall result is a num- ber of negative dynamics, with costs both to indivials and to organizations. Below, we offer several classic exam- ples; these and others throughout the article are real cases, but with the names changed.
Divisiveness. While participating in a large meeting,
Tom, a white vice president of manufacturing in a house- hold appliances company, describes his ordeal with the union as akin to “oriental torture.” The VP of HR passes him a note and tells him that his reference is offensive to some people in the room, so before he finishes his ad- dress, Tom apologizes for the insensitive remark. As the meeting is coming to a close, a white regional manager, who is married to a Japanese-American woman, openly voices his distress at the remark, though expresses his ap- preciation that the VP recognized his gaffe and apolo- gized. The following day, everyone in the firm knows about the incident. Some people feel that the regional manager has inappropriately shamed Tom. Others feel that Tom’s boss needs to call him onto the carpet for his insensitive remark. That evening, more employees gather to recount numerous similar incidents from the past.
The next day, some staff members call for the company to create a forum for ecating employees; others conclude that race is too hot to touch in any company forum and vow to assiously avoid the topic.
Self-doubt. Sophia, an African-American, is a newly appointed member of the board of a regional bank. In the first few meetings, she is relatively silent, but when the agenda ring one meeting turns to her area of exper- tise, she joins the conversation confidently and with a well-informed point of view. The board chair interrupts while Sophia is talking, urging members to be brief so that they can get through the agenda. Sophia notes to her- self that the chair never makes such comments when any of her white colleagues are speaking. She wonders, “Is he cutting me off because I’m a black woman?” – but she brushes off her worry. She thinks: “I can’t go there. It takes too much out of me. I just need to move on.” In subse- quent meetings, she becomes increasingly reluctant to share her perspective; ultimately, she comes to dread the meetings because she feels marginal. She begins to won- der, “Do I have what it takes to be a fully contributing member of this board?”
Overprotection and underdevelopment. Rob, a white partner at a management consultancy, has always been sensitive to the lack of diversity at his firm and would like to do his part to help women and other minorities suc- ceed. He mentors Iris, a young Latina associate who is competent, energetic, and well liked but is not doing enough to generate business. In a promotions committee meeting, a number of partners voice concerns about Iris’s prospects for promotion to partner. Rob thinks these concerns may have some merit but is reluctant to share them with Iris. He fears that hearing the feedback would convince her that the partnership is simply not ready to promote a woman of color. Uncomfortable with his ambivalence, he unconsciously distances himself from Iris, leaving her bewildered about what she’s done to alienate him.
Self-limiting behavior. Julie, an engineer, wants to prove to her overwhelmingly male colleagues that women are as good at engineering as men are. She con- sciously avoids being seen in gender-stereotypical ways: She doesn’t sit next to other women in meetings, tries to solve problems on her own, avoids asking for help or clarification, shuns opportunities to mentor junior women, and makes sure her personal life is invisible at work. As a result, she isolates herself from potential sources of support, works harder and less efficiently than she needs to, develops skills more slowly, and contributes less to her firm than she otherwise might.
Polarization. A friendship between coworkers Scott, an American Christian, and Mahmoud, a Muslim émigré from Pakistan abruptly falls apart after they discuss events in the news. Seconds after Scott makes what he naively intends to be a conciliatory comment, the two
become engrossed in a passionate debate in which Scott finds himself arguing for positions that he doesn’t even support. The exchange ends when Scott storms out of Mahmoud’s office while Mahmoud shouts after him. From then on, communication between them is minimal. Suspicion and withdrawal. Bill, a black associate in a consulting firm, consistently receives mediocre ratings from his white clients. He wonders whether these rat- ings reflect a racial bias and raises the issue with his white boss. She balks, insisting that their clients are not bi- ased. Bill is not convinced. He searches for evidence to bolster his claim, but the evidence is ambiguous, so he does not share it. He feels increasingly angry, resentful, and hopeless about his prospects at the firm. In his next review, his boss tells him she is concerned about his “bad attitude.”
In each of these cases, people’s judgments and their fears of others’ judgments – drive the negative dynamic. When we feel judged, it cuts to the core of our self-image as being good, competent, and worthy. To counter such identity abrasions, we deny our experiences, avoid diffi- cult conversations, react angrily, and seek advice only to confirm our innocence. These behaviors have only one goal: self-protection. When self-protection becomes more important than the work, the group’s mission, or relationships with others, people lose their connections to one another, making it difficult to take risks, learn, and solve problems creatively together. (While we have out- lined these dynamics as they occur in the United States, we believe that the impulse to protect oneself manifests similarly in all interactions among members of groups that are marked by a history of prejudice, discrimination, or misunderstanding.)
热心网友
时间：2024-01-15 07:45
by Robin J. Ely, Debra E. Meyerson, and Martin N. Davidson
A white manager fears she will be perceived as racist if she gives critical feedback to her Latino subordinate. A black engineer passed over for promotion wonders whether his race has anything to do with it, but he’s reluctant to raise this concern lest he be seen as “playing the race card.” A woman associate who wants to make partner in an accounting firm resists seeking coaching on her leadership style; she worries that doing so would confirm the notion that women don’t have what it takes to make partner.
These types of events occur daily in politically correct(PC) cultures, where unspoken canons of propriety gov- ern behavior in cross-cultural interactions – that is, inter- actions among people of different races, genders, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. We embrace the commitment to equity that underlies politi- cal correctness, and we applaud the shifts in norms wrought by that commitment. We are troubled, however, by the bar- riers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relation- ships fray, and performance suffers.Legal and cultural changes over the past 40 years ushered unprecedented numbers of women and people of color into companies’ professional and managerial ranks. Overt prejudice and discrimination in the work- place, historically sanctioned by society, are far less acceptable today. Laws now protect traditionally underrepresented groups from blatant discrimination in hiring and promotion, and political correctness has reset the standards for civility and respect in people’s day-to-day interactions. Despite this obvious progress, we believe that political correctness is a double-edged sword. While it has helped many traditionally underrepresented employees to expe- rience their workplace as more inclusive, the PC rule book can hinder employees’ ability to develop effective rela- tionships across potentially divisive group differences. Companies need to equip workers with skills – not rules – for building these relationships.
Our work suggests that high-quality relationships can- not be mandated. Sensitivity training and zero-tolerance policies at best impart some useful cultural knowledge or indicate that a company is serious about eliminating bias. At worst, such practices undermine relationships by rein- forcing a restrictive and fearful atmosphere. Those to whom corrective actions are directed – men and whites, for exam- ple – walk on eggshells for fear of unwittingly transgress- ing the rules of political correctness.
We have found that political correctness does not only pose problems for those in the “majority.” When ma- jority members cannot speak candidly, members of under- represented groups also suffer: “Minorities” can’t discuss their concerns about fairness and fears about feeding into negative stereotypes, and that adds to an atmo- sphere in which people tiptoe around the issues and one another. These dynamics breed misunderstanding, con- flict, and mistrust, corroding both managerial and team effectiveness.
Constructive engagement of differences – and, there- fore, effective leadership in culturally diverse contexts – requires majority and minority indivials to develop a mind-set and skills that all parties currently lack. This ar- ticle proposes how managers and employees can
engage with one another to reap the benefits cultural diversity has to offer. It represents our collective insights from research, teaching, and consulting over the past 15 years in the areas of race and gender relations, diversity, and organizational change. It also incorporates findings from our research with Learning as Lead- ership, a San Rafael, California–based leadership development organization, in whose seminars we have observed dozens
of managers and executives grappling with unproctive behavior patterns and experiment- ing with new ones. Applying our insights about these processes to classic diversity-related dilemmas, we have developed the following principles to guide people seek- ing a healthy approach to the tensions that commonly arise over difference:
• Pause to short-circuit the emotion and reflect.
• Connect with others in ways that affirm the importance of relationships.
• Question yourself to help identify your blind spots and discover what makes you defensive.
• Get genuine support that doesn’t necessarily validate your point of view but, rather, helps you gain a broader perspective.
• Shift your mind-set from “You need to change” to “What can I change?”
These five principles require that all parties adopt a learning orientation in cross-cultural interactions. In this article, we spell out the challenges and opportunities of adopting such an orientation and offer some guidelines
Robin J. Ely (rely@hbs.e) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at Harvard Business School in Boston; she
coauthored “Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity” (HBR September–October 1996). Debra
E. Meyerson (debram@stanford.e) is an associate professor of ecation and organizational behavior at Stanford Univer- sity’s School of Ecation and (by courtesy) Graate School of Business in California and the author of Tempered Radi- cals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work (Harvard Business School Press, 2001). Martin N. Davidson
(mdav@virginia.e) is an associate professor of leadership and organizational behavior at the Darden Graate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville for leaders. First, though, let’s explore the negative dynamics that result when open discussion is repressed and people fail to learn.
Identity Abrasions
Assaults to people’s identities occur daily in most organi- zations: A white person confuses the names of two Asian- American coworkers; a black executive is addressed less formally than her white male counterparts; a woman’s idea is misattributed to a male colleague. Repeated expe- riences of this kind can diminish people’s sense of how much others value and respect them. Offense at a per- ceived slight may or may not be well-founded, but an at- tempt to discuss the possible insult risks, for example, the charge that one is overly sensitive.
Such assaults occur on the flip side as well, as when mem- bers of majority groups are accused of being prejudiced or of treating others unfairly. Because they often have meant no harm, they tend to respond defensively, upset by any sug- gestion that their moral goodness is being questioned.
These experiences proce what we call identity abra- sions for people on both sides of the interaction. Identityabrasions cause people to burrow into their own camps,attend only to information that confirms their positions, and demonize the other side. The overall result is a num- ber of negative dynamics, with costs both to indivials and to organizations. Below, we offer several classic exam- ples; these and others throughout the article are real cases, but with the names changed.
Divisiveness. While participating in a large meeting,
Tom, a white vice president of manufacturing in a house- hold appliances company, describes his ordeal with the union as akin to “oriental torture.” The VP of HR passes him a note and tells him that his reference is offensive to some people in the room, so before he finishes his ad- dress, Tom apologizes for the insensitive remark. As the meeting is coming to a close, a white regional manager, who is married to a Japanese-American woman, openly voices his distress at the remark, though expresses his ap- preciation that the VP recognized his gaffe and apolo- gized. The following day, everyone in the firm knows about the incident. Some people feel that the regional manager has inappropriately shamed Tom. Others feel that Tom’s boss needs to call him onto the carpet for his insensitive remark. That evening, more employees gather to recount numerous similar incidents from the past.
The next day, some staff members call for the company to create a forum for ecating employees; others conclude that race is too hot to touch in any company forum and vow to assiously avoid the topic.
Self-doubt. Sophia, an African-American, is a newly appointed member of the board of a regional bank. In the first few meetings, she is relatively silent, but when the agenda ring one meeting turns to her area of exper- tise, she joins the conversation confidently and with a well-informed point of view. The board chair interrupts while Sophia is talking, urging members to be brief so that they can get through the agenda. Sophia notes to her- self that the chair never makes such comments when any of her white colleagues are speaking. She wonders, “Is he cutting me off because I’m a black woman?” – but she brushes off her worry. She thinks: “I can’t go there. It takes too much out of me. I just need to move on.” In subse- quent meetings, she becomes increasingly reluctant to share her perspective; ultimately, she comes to dread the meetings because she feels marginal. She begins to won- der, “Do I have what it takes to be a fully contributing member of this board?”
Overprotection and underdevelopment. Rob, a white partner at a management consultancy, has always been sensitive to the lack of diversity at his firm and would like to do his part to help women and other minorities suc- ceed. He mentors Iris, a young Latina associate who is competent, energetic, and well liked but is not doing enough to generate business. In a promotions committee meeting, a number of partners voice concerns about Iris’s prospects for promotion to partner. Rob thinks these concerns may have some merit but is reluctant to share them with Iris. He fears that hearing the feedback would convince her that the partnership is simply not ready to promote a woman of color. Uncomfortable with his ambivalence, he unconsciously distances himself from Iris, leaving her bewildered about what she’s done to alienate him.
Self-limiting behavior. Julie, an engineer, wants to prove to her overwhelmingly male colleagues that women are as good at engineering as men are. She con- sciously avoids being seen in gender-stereotypical ways: She doesn’t sit next to other women in meetings, tries to solve problems on her own, avoids asking for help or clarification, shuns opportunities to mentor junior women, and makes sure her personal life is invisible at work. As a result, she isolates herself from potential sources of support, works harder and less efficiently than she needs to, develops skills more slowly, and contributes less to her firm than she otherwise might.
Polarization. A friendship between coworkers Scott, an American Christian, and Mahmoud, a Muslim émigré from Pakistan abruptly falls apart after they discuss events in the news. Seconds after Scott makes what he naively intends to be a conciliatory comment, the two
become engrossed in a passionate debate in which Scott finds himself arguing for positions that he doesn’t even support. The exchange ends when Scott storms out of Mahmoud’s office while Mahmoud shouts after him. From then on, communication between them is minimal. Suspicion and withdrawal. Bill, a black associate in a consulting firm, consistently receives mediocre ratings from his white clients. He wonders whether these rat- ings reflect a racial bias and raises the issue with his white boss. She balks, insisting that their clients are not bi- ased. Bill is not convinced. He searches for evidence to bolster his claim, but the evidence is ambiguous, so he does not share it. He feels increasingly angry, resentful, and hopeless about his prospects at the firm. In his next review, his boss tells him she is concerned about his “bad attitude.”
In each of these cases, people’s judgments and their fears of others’ judgments – drive the negative dynamic. When we feel judged, it cuts to the core of our self-image as being good, competent, and worthy. To counter such identity abrasions, we deny our experiences, avoid diffi- cult conversations, react angrily, and seek advice only to confirm our innocence. These behaviors have only one goal: self-protection. When self-protection becomes more important than the work, the group’s mission, or relationships with others, people lose their connections to one another, making it difficult to take risks, learn, and solve problems creatively together. (While we have out- lined these dynamics as they occur in the United States, we believe that the impulse to protect oneself manifests similarly in all interactions among members of groups that are marked by a history of prejudice, discrimination, or misunderstanding.)
热心网友
时间：2024-01-15 07:44
by Robin J. Ely, Debra E. Meyerson, and Martin N. Davidson
A white manager fears she will be perceived as racist if she gives critical feedback to her Latino subordinate. A black engineer passed over for promotion wonders whether his race has anything to do with it, but he’s reluctant to raise this concern lest he be seen as “playing the race card.” A woman associate who wants to make partner in an accounting firm resists seeking coaching on her leadership style; she worries that doing so would confirm the notion that women don’t have what it takes to make partner.
These types of events occur daily in politically correct(PC) cultures, where unspoken canons of propriety gov- ern behavior in cross-cultural interactions – that is, inter- actions among people of different races, genders, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. We embrace the commitment to equity that underlies politi- cal correctness, and we applaud the shifts in norms wrought by that commitment. We are troubled, however, by the bar- riers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relation- ships fray, and performance suffers.Legal and cultural changes over the past 40 years ushered unprecedented numbers of women and people of color into companies’ professional and managerial ranks. Overt prejudice and discrimination in the work- place, historically sanctioned by society, are far less acceptable today. Laws now protect traditionally underrepresented groups from blatant discrimination in hiring and promotion, and political correctness has reset the standards for civility and respect in people’s day-to-day interactions. Despite this obvious progress, we believe that political correctness is a double-edged sword. While it has helped many traditionally underrepresented employees to expe- rience their workplace as more inclusive, the PC rule book can hinder employees’ ability to develop effective rela- tionships across potentially divisive group differences. Companies need to equip workers with skills – not rules – for building these relationships.
Our work suggests that high-quality relationships can- not be mandated. Sensitivity training and zero-tolerance policies at best impart some useful cultural knowledge or indicate that a company is serious about eliminating bias. At worst, such practices undermine relationships by rein- forcing a restrictive and fearful atmosphere. Those to whom corrective actions are directed – men and whites, for exam- ple – walk on eggshells for fear of unwittingly transgress- ing the rules of political correctness.
We have found that political correctness does not only pose problems for those in the “majority.” When ma- jority members cannot speak candidly, members of under- represented groups also suffer: “Minorities” can’t discuss their concerns about fairness and fears about feeding into negative stereotypes, and that adds to an atmo- sphere in which people tiptoe around the issues and one another. These dynamics breed misunderstanding, con- flict, and mistrust, corroding both managerial and team effectiveness.
Constructive engagement of differences – and, there- fore, effective leadership in culturally diverse contexts – requires majority and minority indivials to develop a mind-set and skills that all parties currently lack. This ar- ticle proposes how managers and employees can
engage with one another to reap the benefits cultural diversity has to offer. It represents our collective insights from research, teaching, and consulting over the past 15 years in the areas of race and gender relations, diversity, and organizational change. It also incorporates findings from our research with Learning as Lead- ership, a San Rafael, California–based leadership development organization, in whose seminars we have observed dozens
of managers and executives grappling with unproctive behavior patterns and experiment- ing with new ones. Applying our insights about these processes to classic diversity-related dilemmas, we have developed the following principles to guide people seek- ing a healthy approach to the tensions that commonly arise over difference:
• Pause to short-circuit the emotion and reflect.
• Connect with others in ways that affirm the importance of relationships.
• Question yourself to help identify your blind spots and discover what makes you defensive.
• Get genuine support that doesn’t necessarily validate your point of view but, rather, helps you gain a broader perspective.
• Shift your mind-set from “You need to change” to “What can I change?”
These five principles require that all parties adopt a learning orientation in cross-cultural interactions. In this article, we spell out the challenges and opportunities of adopting such an orientation and offer some guidelines
Robin J. Ely (rely@hbs.e) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at Harvard Business School in Boston; she
coauthored “Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity” (HBR September–October 1996). Debra
E. Meyerson (debram@stanford.e) is an associate professor of ecation and organizational behavior at Stanford Univer- sity’s School of Ecation and (by courtesy) Graate School of Business in California and the author of Tempered Radi- cals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work (Harvard Business School Press, 2001). Martin N. Davidson
(mdav@virginia.e) is an associate professor of leadership and organizational behavior at the Darden Graate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville for leaders. First, though, let’s explore the negative dynamics that result when open discussion is repressed and people fail to learn.
Identity Abrasions
Assaults to people’s identities occur daily in most organi- zations: A white person confuses the names of two Asian- American coworkers; a black executive is addressed less formally than her white male counterparts; a woman’s idea is misattributed to a male colleague. Repeated expe- riences of this kind can diminish people’s sense of how much others value and respect them. Offense at a per- ceived slight may or may not be well-founded, but an at- tempt to discuss the possible insult risks, for example, the charge that one is overly sensitive.
Such assaults occur on the flip side as well, as when mem- bers of majority groups are accused of being prejudiced or of treating others unfairly. Because they often have meant no harm, they tend to respond defensively, upset by any sug- gestion that their moral goodness is being questioned.
These experiences proce what we call identity abra- sions for people on both sides of the interaction. Identityabrasions cause people to burrow into their own camps,attend only to information that confirms their positions, and demonize the other side. The overall result is a num- ber of negative dynamics, with costs both to indivials and to organizations. Below, we offer several classic exam- ples; these and others throughout the article are real cases, but with the names changed.
Divisiveness. While participating in a large meeting,
Tom, a white vice president of manufacturing in a house- hold appliances company, describes his ordeal with the union as akin to “oriental torture.” The VP of HR passes him a note and tells him that his reference is offensive to some people in the room, so before he finishes his ad- dress, Tom apologizes for the insensitive remark. As the meeting is coming to a close, a white regional manager, who is married to a Japanese-American woman, openly voices his distress at the remark, though expresses his ap- preciation that the VP recognized his gaffe and apolo- gized. The following day, everyone in the firm knows about the incident. Some people feel that the regional manager has inappropriately shamed Tom. Others feel that Tom’s boss needs to call him onto the carpet for his insensitive remark. That evening, more employees gather to recount numerous similar incidents from the past.
The next day, some staff members call for the company to create a forum for ecating employees; others conclude that race is too hot to touch in any company forum and vow to assiously avoid the topic.
Self-doubt. Sophia, an African-American, is a newly appointed member of the board of a regional bank. In the first few meetings, she is relatively silent, but when the agenda ring one meeting turns to her area of exper- tise, she joins the conversation confidently and with a well-informed point of view. The board chair interrupts while Sophia is talking, urging members to be brief so that they can get through the agenda. Sophia notes to her- self that the chair never makes such comments when any of her white colleagues are speaking. She wonders, “Is he cutting me off because I’m a black woman?” – but she brushes off her worry. She thinks: “I can’t go there. It takes too much out of me. I just need to move on.” In subse- quent meetings, she becomes increasingly reluctant to share her perspective; ultimately, she comes to dread the meetings because she feels marginal. She begins to won- der, “Do I have what it takes to be a fully contributing member of this board?”
Overprotection and underdevelopment. Rob, a white partner at a management consultancy, has always been sensitive to the lack of diversity at his firm and would like to do his part to help women and other minorities suc- ceed. He mentors Iris, a young Latina associate who is competent, energetic, and well liked but is not doing enough to generate business. In a promotions committee meeting, a number of partners voice concerns about Iris’s prospects for promotion to partner. Rob thinks these concerns may have some merit but is reluctant to share them with Iris. He fears that hearing the feedback would convince her that the partnership is simply not ready to promote a woman of color. Uncomfortable with his ambivalence, he unconsciously distances himself from Iris, leaving her bewildered about what she’s done to alienate him.
Self-limiting behavior. Julie, an engineer, wants to prove to her overwhelmingly male colleagues that women are as good at engineering as men are. She con- sciously avoids being seen in gender-stereotypical ways: She doesn’t sit next to other women in meetings, tries to solve problems on her own, avoids asking for help or clarification, shuns opportunities to mentor junior women, and makes sure her personal life is invisible at work. As a result, she isolates herself from potential sources of support, works harder and less efficiently than she needs to, develops skills more slowly, and contributes less to her firm than she otherwise might.
Polarization. A friendship between coworkers Scott, an American Christian, and Mahmoud, a Muslim émigré from Pakistan abruptly falls apart after they discuss events in the news. Seconds after Scott makes what he naively intends to be a conciliatory comment, the two
become engrossed in a passionate debate in which Scott finds himself arguing for positions that he doesn’t even support. The exchange ends when Scott storms out of Mahmoud’s office while Mahmoud shouts after him. From then on, communication between them is minimal. Suspicion and withdrawal. Bill, a black associate in a consulting firm, consistently receives mediocre ratings from his white clients. He wonders whether these rat- ings reflect a racial bias and raises the issue with his white boss. She balks, insisting that their clients are not bi- ased. Bill is not convinced. He searches for evidence to bolster his claim, but the evidence is ambiguous, so he does not share it. He feels increasingly angry, resentful, and hopeless about his prospects at the firm. In his next review, his boss tells him she is concerned about his “bad attitude.”
In each of these cases, people’s judgments and their fears of others’ judgments – drive the negative dynamic. When we feel judged, it cuts to the core of our self-image as being good, competent, and worthy. To counter such identity abrasions, we deny our experiences, avoid diffi- cult conversations, react angrily, and seek advice only to confirm our innocence. These behaviors have only one goal: self-protection. When self-protection becomes more important than the work, the group’s mission, or relationships with others, people lose their connections to one another, making it difficult to take risks, learn, and solve problems creatively together. (While we have out- lined these dynamics as they occur in the United States, we believe that the impulse to protect oneself manifests similarly in all interactions among members of groups that are marked by a history of prejudice, discrimination, or misunderstanding.)
