دانلود ترجمه مقاله تبعیض و فرق گذاری رسمی و غیر رسمی در برابر زنان در محل کار

بخشی از ترجمه:

زمانی که از ما پرسیده میشود در مورد یک رفتار خصومت آمیز برای زنان در محیط کاری فکر کنیم، اولین چیزی که به ذهن ما میرسد، نمونه ای از آزار های جنسی یا تبعیض قائل شدن در استخدام می-باشد. چنین وابسته سازی هایی قطعاٌ شگفت انگیز نخواهند بود: حتی در سنی که چنین رفتارهایی ننگین به شمار میرود و در حد زیادی نیز غیرقانونی میباشد، چنین بدرفتاری های سازمانی به نظر بسیار رایج میباشد. در طی چند سال اخیر گزارشات زیادی مبنی بر تأیید چنین رفتارها و تبعیضاتی در سازمان گزارش شده است(Morris,Bonamici&Neering,٢٠٠۵). برای مثال، مورگان استنلی در یک سرمایه گذاری بانکی، ۵۴ میلیون دلار را برای کارمندان زنی پرداخت کرد که مدعی بودند حقوق و مزایای آنها با سایر همکاران مرد آنها برابر نبوده است. علاوه بر این، ١.۶ میلیون زن در حال حاضر و قبلاٌ که در wal-Mart کار میکردند واجد شرایط برای حضور در دادگاه های حق و حقوق شهروندی بوده اند: مانند زنان مورگان استنلی، آنها ادعا میکردند که قربانی تبعیضات جنسی بوده اند(greenhouse ٢٠٠۴). در اصل، با توجه به آمار و ارقام کمسیون فرصت های برابر شغلی، در طی ١٢ سال اخیر ، دادخواهی های مربوط این تبعیضات و یا میزان خسارات پولی حاصله از این دادخواهی ها کاهش یافته است.
نه اینکه تمامی تبعیضات در محیط کاری چنین توجهاتی را به خود معطوف کنند. مدارک فعلی حاکی از تبعیضات جنسیتی میباشد. یک سری مطالعات اخیر نشان داده است که بسیاری از زنان در موقعیت های شغلی بالا در شرکت ها و کارخانجات، مدعی هستند که محروم سازی اجتماعی جدایی از تبعیض، مانعی برای پیشرفت شغلی زنان میباشد. مثال هایی از این تبعیض شامل فقدان موعظه و نصیحت، محروم شدن از شبکه های ارتباطی غیر رسمی، و فرهنگ همکاری ناعادلانه میباشد. یافته های بیشتر نشان میدهد که چنین رفتارهایی برای هر شخصی در محیط کار قابل قبول نیست: مردان به طور قابل ملاحظه ای نسبت به زنان در مورد این فاکتور ها حساسیت نشان میدهند.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

When asked to think about a hostile environment for women in the workplace, many of us would first envision overt instances of sexual harassment or blatant employment discrimination. These associations are certainly not astonishing: even in an age in which these behaviors are denounced and in large part illegal, such organizational misconduct seems almost commonplace. There have been many high-profile allegations of discrimination leveled against organizations within the last several years (Morris, Bonamici & Neering, 2005). For example, Morgan Stanley’s investment banking business recently paid out $54 million to over 300 female employees who claim to have been denied pay and promotions equal to those received by their male colleagues. Additionally, 1.6 million women who are currently, or were formerly, employed at Wal-Mart are eligible to participate in what is poised to become the largest-ever civil rights lawsuit: like the women of Morgan Stanley, they claim to have been victims of sex discrimination (Greenhouse, 2004). In fact, according to statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there has been no systematic decline over the last 12 years in the number of discrimination lawsuits filed, or the amount of monetary damages awarded to the plaintiffs of these suits (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004). Not all forms of workplace discrimination generate such attention, however. Current evidence suggests that gender discrimination is expressed in less visible ways as well. A series of recent studies revealed that many women in high-level positions in corporations and firms believe that social exclusion, not just overt discrimination, is a barrier to women’s career advancement. Examples of this less visible bias include a lack of mentoring, being ostracized from informal networks of communication, and an inhospitable corporate culture (Catalyst, 1996, 2001, 2001b, 2004). Further demonstrating the subtlety of these barriers, they were not readily perceptible to everyone in the work environment: men were significantly less likely than women to believe that any of these factors hindered women’s advancement in their companies and firms. Indeed, research has shown that the ways that men and women are treated differently in the workplace can be nearly imperceptible at the level of the individual and emerge only when aggregated across individuals. Crosby (1984), for example, demonstrated that by and large, women do not acknowledge the ways that gender discrimination may have affected their own career experiences. They are more likely to assume personal responsibility for receiving fewer organizational resources than their male coworkers. These same women, however, believe that gender discrimination exists in the workplace and affects the resources that other women receive. It has been argued that gender discrimination is difficult to perceive because it accounts for a small portion of variance in organizational decision-making (e.g., Barret & Morris, 1993). But this does not mean that discrimination does not have significant consequences for working women. Martell and colleagues provide one example of how the most subtle bias can influence the distribution of men and women within an organization. A computer simulation showed that if men and women are equally qualified for advancement, yet 5 percent of the variance in promotion decisions is due to a negative bias against women candidates, then the proportion of women can decrease from over 50 percent of the workforce at lower levels to 29 percent seven hierarchical levels further up in the organization (Martell, Lane & Emrich, 1996). Thus, an imperceptible expression of bias at the unit level can have a notable effect on top-level representation, perhaps explaining why we continue to see gross inequality between the sexes at the highest levels: 493 of the Fortune 500 CEOs are men, as are 84 percent of the corporate officers of these companies (Catalyst, 2002). However, we see gender parity within lower levels, where women account for just over 50 percent of employees occupying “managerial and professional specialty occupations” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003). 25 F O R M A L A N D I N F O R M A L D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A G A I N S T W O M E N AT W O R K The continued expression of gender discrimination begs for redress within organizations, not only because it may affect the optimal movement of talent between organizational ranks, but also because it affects the quality of employees’ organizational experiences. The presence of gender discrimination causes women to experience work environments as exclusive and difficult to navigate (Catalyst, 2001; Mor Barak, Cherin & Berkman, 1998). Indeed, the pressure of operating within such a work environment exacts a toll from women employees beyond the discrimination that they may experience there, engendering less-positive attitudes toward their jobs and less engagement in their work (e.g., Ensher, Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001). Understanding the underlying dynamics of discrimination is necessary before organizations can take effective action to reduce it. In other words, we must educate the business community about the psychological processes that drive the attitudes, behaviors, and decisions that disparately affect men and women at work. Interventions that target root causes of these behaviors will inevitably prove more effective than those that target more surface-level indicators of disparate treatment. This paper explores the psychological dynamics that drive the expression of discrimination in the workplace. We review research demonstrating that the unfavorable experiences of women in the workplace result from a basic social psychological process: stereotyping. Further, we propose that organizations, through their policies and practices, can moderate the extent to which these processes influence actual behaviors.