Week 3 Assignment: Annotated Bibliography
Chuck Bragg
MGT 360: Human Resource Management
Professor Stephen Ball
November 11, 2016
Annotated Bibliography
Dias, L. (2011). Human resource management. Saylor.org/books. ISBN 13: 978-1-4533194-3-7. Downloaded Jan. 9, 2014 from https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/BookDetail.aspx?bookId=71
Dr. Laura Dias received a MBA from City University of Seattle and a doctorate of business administration from Argosy University. Laura teaches at Central Washington University in the Department of Information Technology and Administrative Management, part of the College of Education and Professional Studies. Before becoming a professor, Laura worked for several small and large organizations in management and operations. She is also an entrepreneur who has performed consulting work for companies such as Microsoft.
This textbook examines the many facets of human resource management, including the role of human resources, creating a strategic HRM plan, and the benefits of diversity. This textbook will be used in my paper as reference for the benefits of a diverse workplace, including new ideas and increased profitability.
Forman, T. (2003). The Social Psychological Costs of Racial Segmentation in the Workplace: A Study of African Americans' Well-Being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 332-352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519783
Tyrone Forman, the author of this article, is a sociologist and nationally recognized voice on intergroup prejudice, discrimination, comparative race and ethnic relations, and survey research methods. As Associate Chancellor and Vice Provost for Diversity at the University of Illinois, he leads the Office of Diversity, overseeing the university’s strategic efforts to advance access, equity, and inclusion as fundamental components underpinning all aspects of campus life.
This article examines the effects of perceived racial segmentation in the workplace on the psychological well-being of African Americans. It shows there is a correlation with perceived racial bias and a negative outlook. This article may be helpful in determining some negative aspects of affirmative action from the African American viewpoint to show both sides of the debate.
Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (2000). What Does Affirmative Action Do? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(2), 240-271. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696075
Harry J. Holzer is Professor of Economics at Michigan State University, and David Neumark is Professor of Economics at Michigan State University and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. The authors use data from a survey of employers to investigate how affirmative action in recruiting and hiring influences hiring practices, personnel policies, and ultimately, employment outcomes. They find that affirmative action increases the number of recruitment and screening practices used by employers, raises employers’ willingness to hire stigmatized applicants, increases the number of minority and female applicants as well as employees, and increases employers’ tendencies to provide training and formally evaluate employees. When affirmative action is used in recruiting, it generally does no lead to lower credentials or performance of women or minorities hired. When it is also used in hiring, it yields minority employees whose credentials are somewhat weaker, though performance generally is not. Overall, the more intensive search, evaluation, and training that accompany affirmative action appear to offset any tendencies of the policy to lead to hiring of less-qualified or less-productive women and minorities.
I will use this article to show the benefits of affirmative action and show that it can lead to successfully employing women or minorities with no drop in qualifications or productivity.
Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008). The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 181-209. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737787
Devah Pager is Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at Harvard University. She is the Susan S. and Kenneth L. Wallach Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Her research focuses on institutions affecting racial stratification, including education, labor markets, and the criminal justice system. Hana Shepard is Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Rutgers University and obtained a PhD in sociology from Princeton University.
This article seeks to quantify discrimination in employment, housing, and credit now that discrimination has become less overt. It will be useful in my paper to have some quantifiable data to show the need for affirmative action and other programs designed to aid in the hiring of women and minorities.
Reyna, C., Tucker, A., Korfmacher, W., & Henry, P. (2005). Searching for Common Ground between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action. Political Psychology, 26(5), 667-682. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792306
This article was written by four professors from DePaul University. Christine Reyna is a Professor in Psychology. PJ Henry is currently Associate Professor of Psychology at New York University. I was unable to find information on Amanda Tucker and William Korfmacher.
Supporters and opponents of affirmative action are often characterized as debating about a single, consensually understood type of affirmative action. However, supporters and opponents instead may have different types of policies in mind when thinking about affirmative action and may actually agree on specific manifestations of affirmative action policies more than is commonly believed. A survey conducted using a student sample and a sample from the broader Chicago-area community showed that affirmative action policies can be characterized into merit-violating versus merit-upholding manifestations. Supporters of affirmative action in general were more likely to think of affirmative action in its merit-upholding manifestations, whereas opponents were more likely to think of the merit violating manifestations. However, both supporters and opponents showed more support for merit-upholding rather than merit-violating manifestations of affirmative action. The same pattern of results was upheld even when splitting the samples into those who endorsed negative racial attitudes versus those who did not, suggesting that even those who may be considered racist will endorse affirmative action policies that uphold merit values. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of clarifying the political discourse about what affirmative action is and what it is designed to do.
I will use this article to describe the most common opposition to affirmative action and where to find the middle ground between those who support and those who oppose affirmative action.
Sweet, S., & Baker, K. (2011). Who Has the Advantages in My Intended Career? Engaging Students in the Identification of Gender and Racial Inequalities. Teaching Sociology, 39(1), 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41308920
Stephen Sweet and Kimberly Baker are both Assistant Professors of Sociology at Ithaca College. This article describes and assesses two learning modules designed to make students aware of gender and racial inequalities present in their own intended careers. Students identify their intended occupation in respect to the Standard Occupational Classification system and then use that code to determine the composition and earnings in that occupation with data provided. Analysis of student papers shows that this assignment contributes not only to the awareness of inequalities, but also to the development of quantitative literacy skills. Panel survey methods reveal substantial changes in students’ beliefs about the extent of gender and racial inequality. Conclusions consider directions for the development of additional strategies to advance students’ understandings of inequalities in adulthood and later life.
This article will be useful in my paper to note which careers seems to have a gender or racial bias which may influence whether people choose to pursue that career or move on to something easier to attain.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Stainback, K. (2007). Discrimination and Desegregation: Equal Opportunity Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces since the Civil Rights Act. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 609, 49-84. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097875
Donald Tomaskovic-Devey served as a visiting professor at the University of South Carolina for one year (1983-1984) and has held visiting appointments at Stockholm University, Queensland University of Technology, SciencePo, and Bielefeld University. He then taught at North Carolina State University for 17 years before joining the faculty of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2005. As of July 1, 2015, he was also working with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to inform its goals and those of other nondiscrimination employment organizations. He was also the president of the Southern Sociological Society for one year (2012-2013). Dr. Kevin Stainback is a professor at Purdue University. Dr. Stainback’s primary area of research examines racial and gender inequality in jobs, work, and organizations. A central theme in much of this work is the role organizations play in shaping contemporary inequality dynamics
Numerous commentators have concluded that the Civil Rights Act was effective in promoting increased access to quality jobs for racial minorities. Many have worried the pace has been too slow, particularly after 1980. Few have directly discussed under what conditions we might expect equal employment opportunity (EEO) to flourish. Explanations of status inequalities in the workplace have primarily relied on theories of social conflict and discrimination. Organizational perspectives on stratification, while completely absent from previous research, remains the road less traveled. In this paper we present trend race-sex inequality in U.S. workplaces since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and describe the organizational practices and discrimination processes that are likely to maintain status inequalities in the workplace and those which might be catalysts of change.
This article will be used to ascertain inequality in the workplace and examine programs that are working and those that are not. I also hope to discover some new ways to combat discrimination in hiring and how to implement them.
Van Boven, L. (2000). Pluralistic Ignorance and Political Correctness: The Case of Affirmative Action. Political Psychology, 21(2), 267-276. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791790
Dr. Leaf Van Boven is a Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder. He received his PhD from Cornell University.
The pressure to appear politically correct can have important consequences for social life. In particular, the desire to appear politically correct, and to avoid being seen as racist, sexist, or culturally insensitive, can lead people to espouse publicly support for politically correct issues, such as support for affirmative action, despite privately held doubts. Such discrepancies between public behavior and private attitudes, when accompanied by divergent attributions for one's own behavior and the identical behavior of others, can lead to pluralistic ignorance. Two studies investigated pluralistic ignorance with respect to affirmative action among undergraduates. Their survey responses indicate that people overestimate their peers' support for affirmative action and underestimate their peers' opposition to affirmative action, that people's ratings of the political correctness of supporting affirmative action are correlated with their overestimation of support for affirmative action, and that people view their own attitudes toward affirmative action as unique.
This article would be helpful in introducing sources for the opposition to affirmative action whom appear to be allies publicly, but privately hold doubts or are opposed entirely.
e to edit.