急求英译汉高手进！拒绝在线翻译！非常感谢！走投无路。。。跪谢！
6.ImplicationsofleadershipcommitmenttomanagingdiversityAlthoughallthreemotivationalba...
6. Implications of leadership commitment to managing diversity
Although all three motivational bases for top executive commitment are related to the adoption of diversity management, an important reason for identifying and distinguishing among them is that they can have different implications on a firm's diversity 2 .The idea of moral responsibility can be traced to the works of Immanuel Kant, a Prussian philosopher (Bowie, 2000). What is morally right is not dependent upon producing the greatest good, but rather by the behavior itself. The moral worth of an action cannot be dependent upon the outcome because these outcomes are so indefinite and uncertain at the time decision is made. Instead the moral worth of an action depends upon the intentions of the CEO. Top executives are said to display moral responsibility if they care about the outcomes of their actions (Singer, 1994 outcomes. The level and type of commitment to diversity a leader espouses can have an impact on organizational response to workplace diversity. Following Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), individual response to different commitments can range from resistance to compliance, and from cooperation to championing. In the case of workforce diversity, top executives can resist, comply with EEO/AA prescriptions, or proactively manage its diverse workforce. In addition, Herscovitch and Meyer differentiated between focal and discretionary behavior, where the former reflects behavior that is constrained (i.e., obligation), while the latter is discretionary (i.e., out of personal choice or volition). Regulatory focus theory (cf. Markovits, Ullrich, van Dick, & Davis, 2008), which describes how people pursue goals, also supports the two basic self-regulatory processes in managerial cognition, which are termed promotion and prevention focus. In promotion focus, individuals see their commitment as hopes and aspirations, while in prevention focus, individuals see their commitment as duties and obligations (Markovits et al., 2008). Markovits and colleagues found promotion focus (hopes and aspirations) to be more strongly related to affective commitment, while prevention focus(duties and obligations) is more strongly related to continuance commitment. Likewise, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) also tested and found that both affective and normative commitment correlate positively with discretionary behavior, while continuance commitment was unrelated to discretionary behavior. Consistent with this and other perspectives (e.g., environmental determinism, regulatory focus theory), CEO commitment to managing diversity can be divided into external regulation (i.e., compliance with EEO/AA laws) or internal regulation (i.e., out of personal choice or volition). On this basis, we propose that: 展开
Although all three motivational bases for top executive commitment are related to the adoption of diversity management, an important reason for identifying and distinguishing among them is that they can have different implications on a firm's diversity 2 .The idea of moral responsibility can be traced to the works of Immanuel Kant, a Prussian philosopher (Bowie, 2000). What is morally right is not dependent upon producing the greatest good, but rather by the behavior itself. The moral worth of an action cannot be dependent upon the outcome because these outcomes are so indefinite and uncertain at the time decision is made. Instead the moral worth of an action depends upon the intentions of the CEO. Top executives are said to display moral responsibility if they care about the outcomes of their actions (Singer, 1994 outcomes. The level and type of commitment to diversity a leader espouses can have an impact on organizational response to workplace diversity. Following Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), individual response to different commitments can range from resistance to compliance, and from cooperation to championing. In the case of workforce diversity, top executives can resist, comply with EEO/AA prescriptions, or proactively manage its diverse workforce. In addition, Herscovitch and Meyer differentiated between focal and discretionary behavior, where the former reflects behavior that is constrained (i.e., obligation), while the latter is discretionary (i.e., out of personal choice or volition). Regulatory focus theory (cf. Markovits, Ullrich, van Dick, & Davis, 2008), which describes how people pursue goals, also supports the two basic self-regulatory processes in managerial cognition, which are termed promotion and prevention focus. In promotion focus, individuals see their commitment as hopes and aspirations, while in prevention focus, individuals see their commitment as duties and obligations (Markovits et al., 2008). Markovits and colleagues found promotion focus (hopes and aspirations) to be more strongly related to affective commitment, while prevention focus(duties and obligations) is more strongly related to continuance commitment. Likewise, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) also tested and found that both affective and normative commitment correlate positively with discretionary behavior, while continuance commitment was unrelated to discretionary behavior. Consistent with this and other perspectives (e.g., environmental determinism, regulatory focus theory), CEO commitment to managing diversity can be divided into external regulation (i.e., compliance with EEO/AA laws) or internal regulation (i.e., out of personal choice or volition). On this basis, we propose that: 展开
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
