Essays on Benefits and Disadvantages of Workplace Stereotypes Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Benefits and Disadvantages of Workplace Stereotypes" is a good example of business coursework.   Stereotypes can be described as labels, or certain beliefs and characteristics accorded to a particular group of persons. These traits seek to explain why a specific cluster of people behave the way they do. Stereotypes are found in almost all social aspects of society, from schools to workplaces. Some of them are positive while others are negative (Aina & Cameron, 2011). Their effects are equally varying, as they can be both catastrophic and advantageous at the same time.

Workplaces are one of the places that experience diversity in terms of race, culture, gender and religion. Anywhere there is diversity stereotypes are bound to thrive. This paper examines different types of stereotypes in the workplace by looking at their advantages, disadvantages and possible solutions. Stereotypes in the Workplace Diversity is a common feature of most workplaces, especially multinational corporations (Grewal, 2010). One of the most prevalent stereotypes is influenced by racial and cultural differences among employees. People of Asian origin are perceived to be highly intelligent and less social (Grossman, Kim, Tan & Ford, 2008).

African Americans are believed to be lazy and mostly unintelligent while those of Latin descent are seen as illegal immigrants even when they are not. Asian workers are likely to be given jobs that comply with the beliefs about them, and are regarded as office treasures due to their resourcefulness. Such employees are retained at the office and not made to interact with the company’ s clients. Latino workers, on the other hand, are not accorded permanent jobs due to the uncertainty of their availability. The government at any moment may deport them back to their respective countries.

There are religious beliefs that are also creeping into workplaces. Most Muslims are seen to be radical in their decision-making (Hafiz, 2011). All these different kinds of stereotypes influence various aspects of work. The effects can be either advantageous or detrimental. Marital status has also been the subject of stereotyping at the workplace. Single employees are perceived to be frivolous, irresponsible, and with more concern with their lives than work. This affects their concentration and efficiency when dealing with work-related issues.

Workers with family responsibilities are thought of as industrious people, with the ability to deliver satisfactory work because of their focus. Single people detest having to cover their married colleagues work in cases where they have to attend to family problems (Solovic, 2010). Age-related stereotypes are common in workplaces that employ people of varying ages. Globalization has also contributed to this phenomenon because many people are currently working even in their prime years. Technology and competence are at the core of this type of stereotyping. Technological advances have revolutionized today’ s places of work and people of previous generations might not be able to keep up with new trends.

Youthful workers often sideline their older co-workers due to their inability to cope with modern-day trends (Solovic, 2010). This may be the case, but there are a number of solutions for it, including training. Older workers believe the younger generation is lazy. This is not helped by the fact that employers sometimes target people of a certain age group as their potential employees. A 2011 study by consulting agency Achieve Global showed characteristics of a workplace plagued by age-related issues included workers judging one another based on their age (Blauth, McDaniel, Perrin & Perrin, 2011).

References

Aina, O.E. & Cameron, P.A. (2011). Why does gender matter? Counteracting stereotypes with young children. Dimensions of early childhood, 39 (3), 11-20.

Blauth, C., McDaniel, J., Perrin, C. & Perrin, P.B. (2011). Age-based stereotypes: Silent killer of collaboration and productivity. Florida: AchieveGlobal, Inc.

Blum, L. (2004, November). Stereotypes and stereotyping: A moral analysis. Philosophical Papers, 33(3), 251-289.

Conway, C. (2005). A psychological effect of stereotypes. Retrieved from http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/nerr/rr2005/q1/section3c.pdf

Grewal, D. (2010, November). Reducing the impact if negative stereotypes on the careers of minority and women scientists. Science Careers. Retrieved from http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2010_11_26/caredit.a1000113

Grossman, R.W., Kim, S., Tan, S. & Ford, T.E. (2008). ‘Stereotype threat’ and recommendations for overcoming it. Retrieved from http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/stereotype_threat_notes.pdf

Hafiz, D. (2011, January 1). What’s in a (Muslim) name? HuffingtonPost. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dilara-hafiz/whats-in-a-name_3_b_802429.html

Kray, L.J. & Shirako, A. (2009). Stereotype threat in organizations: An examination of its scope, triggers, and possible interventions. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/195-09.pdf

Kray, L.J., Thompson, L. & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (6), 942-958

Paul, A.M. (2012, October 6). It’s not me, it’s you. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html

Sinclair, S., Hardin, C.D & Lowery, B.S. (2006). Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 529-542.

Solovic, S.W. (2010, May). Workplace stereotyping: A silent productivity destroyer. HuffingtonPost. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-wilson-solovic/workplace-stereotyping-a_b_564233.html

Walton, G.M. & Cohen, G.L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 456-467.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us