<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01409nam a2200181   4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">510087</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">510087</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">190723b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Foley, Meraiah</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">7284</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Managerial perspectives on implicit bias, affirmative action, and merit</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2019</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.35-45.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Public sector organizations concerned about gender inequality have increasingly sought to address the effect of implicit biases on merit&#x2010;based employment practices through bias training and affirmative action programs. Applying qualitative content analysis to interviews with 104 managers in three government agencies in which bias training and affirmative action were being implemented, the authors find that many managers acknowledge the existence of implicit biases and their potential to create unequal employment outcomes. However, this recognition of bias does not translate into support for affirmative action, which is seen by many managers to be an unacceptable violation of merit. The authors argue that implicit bias training and affirmative action are unlikely to create a cultural &#x201C;tipping point&#x201D; to progress gender equality without a critical reassessment of merit. - Reproduced.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Bureaucracy</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">7285</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Affirmative action</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">7286</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Williamson, Sue</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">7287</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Public Administration Review</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Public sector</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">384036</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2019-07-23</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">79(1). Jan/Feb, 2019: p.35-45.</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR120447</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2019-07-23</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
