|
Micro-inequity is a theory that refers to hypothesized ways in which individuals are either singled out, overlooked, ignored, or otherwise discounted based on an unchangeable characteristic such as race or gender.〔Sandler, Bernice. "The Campus Climate Revisited: Chilly for Women Faculty, Administrators, and Graduate Students." Association of American Colleges. 1986.〕 Micro-inequities are subtle, often unconscious, messages that devalue, discourage and impair workplace performance. They are conveyed through facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, choice of words, nuance and syntax. Repeated sending, or receiving, of micro-inequities can erode commitment and loyalty and have the cumulative effect of diminishing overall workforce performance. Micro-inequities, micro-affirmations, and micro-advantages all fall within the broader category of micro-messaging. All represent the three ways we send subtle messages negatively, neutrally or positively. Each of the three fall within the broader category of micro-messaging. A micro-inequity generally takes the form of a gesture, different kind of language, treatment, or even tone of voice. As they are characteristically subtle, "only the most astute and aware communicators recognize how () are received and perceived," as described in The Star Ledger article, "Micro-messages Matter" by Steve Adubato, Ph.D. These subtle messages, sent either consciously or unconsciously, can reveal more about the true nature of a relationship than the surface words alone. They function as the core of how unconscious bias is communicated and how workplace inclusion is experienced. In the Profiles in Diversity Journal article, “The DNA of Culture Change”, Joyce Tucker states, “Organizations have done a great job at controlling the big, easily-seen offensive behaviors but have been somewhat blind to what is rarely observed. Organizations have done great work at controlling the few elephants, while being overrun by a phalanx of ants. Listening with your arms folded, losing eye contact with the person you’re speaking with, or even how you move your lips to shape a smile—in any given conversation, we may send hundreds of messages, often without even saying a word. Just as television or radio waves surround us yet we never see them, these micromessages are just as pervasive and nearly as difficult to discern In the original articles on this subject in the 1970s, (see references below), Mary Rowe defined micro-inequities as “apparently small events which are often ephemeral and hard-to-prove, events which are covert, often unintentional, frequently unrecognized by the perpetrator, which occur wherever people are perceived to be ‘different.’" These differences reach beyond unchangeable characteristics such as race or gender. In his book, "Micromessaging: Why Great Leadership is Beyond Words" (2006 McGraw-Hill), Stephen Young describes the damaging impact micro-inequities have on an individual's workplace performance through additional factors such as; one's political views, marital status, tenure, style, resistance to comply with status quo and other characteristics that are changeable. Young states that these drivers of unconscious bias reflect the positions we hold about others that are influenced through past experiences forming filters that cause conclusions to be reached, about groups or ethnicities, through methods other than active thought or reasoning. The critical limitation of Unconscious Bias is that it is a concept, a state-of-mind and therefore not actionable. One cannot “do” an unconscious bias. The only way unconscious biases are manifested is through the subtle messages we send—typically, MicroInequities that affect the performance of others. A micro-affirmation, in Rowe's writing, is the reverse phenomenon. Micro-affirmations are subtle or apparently small acknowledgements of a person's value and accomplishments. They may take the shape of public recognition of the person, "opening a door," referring positively to the work of a person, commending someone on the spot, or making a happy introduction. Apparently "small" affirmations form the basis of successful mentoring, successful colleagueships and of most caring relationships. They may lead to greater self-esteem and improved performance. There is a difference between the concepts of "inequality" and "inequity." An inequality implies there is some comparison being made. For example, if your boss doesn't listen attentively to you, that in and of itself is not a micro-inequality. However, if your boss listens attentively to all of your co-workers, but not to you, that might be a micro-inequality. An inequity by contrast is simply something (that may be perceived to be) unfair or unjust under the circumstances. Thus a micro-inequity may occur with only one person on the scene, if that person is treated in an unfair or unjust manner. (Of course it is possible and even likely that many micro-inequities support or lead to an unequal environment for people of a given group, but the two concepts are different.) A micro-affirmation may, in a similar fashion, refer to "only one" person and does not, in and of itself, imply any sense of advantage over others, but rather support to the individual who is affirmed. An alternate perspective to Mary Rowe's "reverse phenomenon" of micro-affirmations theory is Stephen Young's introduction of a third layer, micro-advantages. Micro-advantages are subtle, often unconscious, messages that motivate, inspire and enhance workplace performance. They are conveyed through facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, choice of words, nuance and syntax. Applied effectively, micro-advantages can unlock employee potential enabling one's engagement, creativity, loyalty and performance. Micro-advantages are central to effective leadership. An affirmation is a statement asserting existence or truth, whereas; a Micro-advantage is a subtle message that motivates and inspires performance in the workplace or classroom. Micro-affirmations have the limited effect of neutrality thereby being neither positive nor negative, while micro-advantages enhance an individuals engagement and overall performance. == Origin == Mary Rowe, PhD of MIT coined the terms micro-inequities and micro-affirmations in 1973. She wrote samizdat papers virtually every year stressing the importance of micro-behavior. Originally the papers were named the “Saturn’s Rings Phenomenon” because the planet Saturn is surrounded by rings which are made just of tiny bits of ice and sand—but these rings partially obscure the planet. Some of these papers were published in whole or in part in 1974 and thereafter (see References below). A relatively complete version came out in 1990: “Barriers to Equality: the Power of Subtle Discrimination”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, June, 1990, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 153–163. Rowe published a longer article ("Micro-affirmations and Micro-inequities" ) in the Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, Volume 1, Number 1, March 2008 which includes more of her hypotheses about the importance of micro-affirmations. Works done earlier in the same genre include that of Jean Paul Sartre who wrote about small acts of anti-Semitism, and Chester Pierce, MD who wrote about “micro-aggressions” as acts of racism. Mary Rowe's original research targeted the impact micro-messages have on students and the academic community. The first broad introduction of micro-inequities in the corporate workplace was initiated in 2002 by (Insight Education Systems ). It established the inextricable link between micro-messaging and corporate diversity & inclusion initiatives. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Micro-inequity」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|