A FIELD SURVEY OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE ADOPTION AND PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF DIVERSITY TRAINING
Abstract
Seven hundred and eighty‐five human resource professionals responded to a questionnaire about diversity issues in their organizations. Analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with (a) adoption of diversity training and (b) perceived training success. Results revealed that both training adoption and perceived training success were strongly associated with top management support for diversity. In addition, training adoption was associated with large organizational size, positive top management beliefs about diversity, high strategic priority of diversity relative to other competing objectives, presence of a diversity manager, and existence of a large number of other diversity‐supportive policies. Perceived training success was also associated with mandatory attendance for all managers, long‐term evaluation of training results, managerial rewards for increasing diversity, and a broad inclusionary definition of diversity in the organization. Suggestions for future research are offered.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Anti-bias training can activate rather than suppress bias.
“They suggest that anti-bias training can activate rather than suppress bias (Kidder et al., 2004;Naff and Kellough, 2003;Rynes and Rosen, 1995;Sidanius et al., 2001).”
From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Rynes and Rosen, 1995
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052 · see citing works
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189 · Cited by 685 · see citing works
A Multi-Level Process Model for Understanding Diversity Practice Effectiveness
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0044 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
A Company I Can Trust? Organizational Lay Theories Moderate Stereotype Threat for Women
Emerson, K. T. U., & Murphy, M. C. (2015) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167214564969 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017) · The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism · doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n32 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- RYNES, S., & ROSEN, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- RYNES, SARA
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 247-270
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W1991813310
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 4.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Iowa Research Online (University of Iowa) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- diversity training, top management support, organizational size, diversity policy, training evaluation, HR professionals
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
