In an article by Farhad Manjoo in the New York Times reports on Google's efforts to improve diversity. This is a compendable effort.
I was struck that while Google was utilizing scientists to devise the content of a diversity training program, it didn't seem to be utilizing research on the learning-to-performance process at all. It could be that Manjoo left it out of the article, or it could be that Google is missing the boat. Here's my commentary:
Either this article is missing vital information--or Google, while perhaps using research on unconscious biases, is completely failing to utilize research-based best practices in learning-to-performance design. Ask almost any thought leader in the training-and-development field and they'll tell you that training by itself is extremely unlikely to substantially change behavior on its own, without additional supports.
By the way, the anecdotes cited for the success of Google's 90-minute training program are not persuasive. It's easy to find some anecdotes that support one's claims. Scientists call this "confirmation bias."
Believe it or not, there is a burgeoning science around what successful learning-to-performance solutions look like. This article, unfortunately, encourages the false notion that training programs alone will be successful in producing behavior change.