Diversity in the Business World

Many people think that diversity in the business world is solely a numbers game. It can be conceptualized that way, but it usually fails. The first step is to define your terms. What do you mean by diversity? It is often helpful to have a broad definition, which can be broken down to focus on specific areas. For example, if you define diversity as “all the ways in which we differ,” you will need to then provide specifics that are relevant for your group. It might also be important to examine what aspects of diversity are represented in your community, potential customers, vendors, etc. These are populations which often go unexamined when discussing diversity. Increasing diversity in these areas might not immediately affect your bottom line but over time can make a real impact.

Training is essential. Trainings not only educate and motivate but also foster growth. In my consulting, I have found that some people refuse to get on board with diversity initiatives, because they don’t see the relevance. Take race for example, where I often here: “Race is no longer and issue,” or “I’m colorblind.” However, quality training can provide evidence for the unfortunate fact that 1) race continues to influence the distribution or wealth and resources in our country and 2) the construct affects us all to varying degrees. During one training, I showed a film of two professional discrimination testers- one White and one Black. Hidden cameras followed them as they attempted to get a job, buy a car, find a place to live and shop in the mall. Basically, the Black man experienced overt and covert racial discrimination. For example, the White man went to look at an apartment and was given the master key. When the Black man came, the apartment was “unavailable since a woman put a hold on it that morning.” This film was an “ah-ha” moment for several White males in the training. What struck one of the men the most was that these instances were real and unambiguous. He had heard people complain about discrimination but assumed that they were hypersensitive, overreacting or misinterpreting the situation. Not only were these instances that he witnessed occurring, but without the cameras we would have had no way of knowing due to their subtlety. Beyond the discrimination experienced by the Black man, the trainee also became aware of ways he might have been advantaged in unknowing and unsolicited ways. He left that training more aware of the ways in which race influences daily experiences.

Once you get people on board, through education, personal revelation or simple economics, you can begin moving forward with initiatives. Nothing is worse than individuals feeling as if diversity is being shoved down their throats. If you push ahead without buy-in, you are in for resistance and push-back. It’s no small feat, but it is essential to make it clear that diversity is a shared goal that cuts across the company. One way this can be done is by having leadership model the value of diversity through acknowledging (through awards or simple recognition) individuals who have engaged in company initiatives or developed new ways to foster interaction across lines of difference. It does not take long for employees to gravitate towards behavior that is being consistently rewarded.

If you are interested in examining company models, there a numerous options, but consider Kraft Foods or Aflac. They are clear about valuing diversity and making it something that is not only encouraged but rewarded from entry-level to upper management. Both companies also have employee councils, which provide support and develop initiatives geared towards various groups.

Still not convinced? More than 70% of Fortune 500 companies have diversity initiatives. It’s an important investment.

Got Diversity?

It’s worth pondering. How do you measure it? Some would quickly say it’s a numbers game. But is that the whole story? If we had the “ideal” mix of people, but those people simply coexisted in the same space, would that be diversity? OK, enough with the questions. I want to suggest that we consider multiple aspects of the term “diversity.” Social psychologist Patricia Gurin and colleagues have differentiated between structural, classroom, and interactional diversity. Structural diversity refers to the numerical representation of diversity and is necessary, but insufficient, in guaranteeing that people will have meaningful cross-racial interactions. Classroom diversity refers to knowledge of diverse people; whereas, informal interactional diversity involves the frequency and quality of intergroup interactions. Of these types of diversity, interactional seems to come closest to reaching the ideals espoused in vision statements. In part, these statements are put forth because diversity has become a sought after attribute of many institutions- colleges and universities in particular. They want to prepare students for a diverse and democratic society, and that cannot happen by osmosis. It takes more than diverse groups co-existing. It takes intergroup contact, relationships and engagement. Along the way, knowledge is gathered and perspective-taking skills increase. Even still, classroom diversity has its limits since book knowledge lacks the dynamics of real-life interaction.

Although this theory is rooting in the college setting, it also has implications for the wider population. As a society, we also need structural, informational (classroom), and interactional diversity. I believe the most transformative of these types is interactional, because a person who engages across lines of difference most likely also seeks knowledge about other groups and supports efforts of structural diversity. To answer my initial question, we need to examine our social circles, neighborhoods, workplaces and communities. It should not be expected that we can answer affirmatively for all of these domains given that our country remains quite segregated in various regards. However, it’s worth the reflection. We can look at the make-up of our social circle, neighborhood, schools, boards and city officials to examine structural diversity. Then, we can reflect personally and as a community about our knowledge of people who are different from us. Do we harbor misperceptions about our neighbors who have different traditions? Do we accurately portray various groups in the media? To examine interactional diversity, we can think about who we have invited to our home over the past year or which neighbors we actually associate with. These are all just suggestions to get you started on your own self-reflection.

You might ask, “Why?” Well, research has found that there are benefits to diversity. Basically, we all experience cognitive gains from enriched environments and encountering new stimuli. We know that a diverse educational environment has positive impacts on student learning, critical thinking, interpersonal competencies, self confidence and civic engagement. Although the research has not been replicated beyond college samples, it might not be too far of a leap to suggest that some of these benefits could also occur in a diverse community, workplace or social network. So, it seems a question worth asking- got diversity?

Who's Playing Who?

I was struck by the political commentary asserting Obama made a huge mistake in accusing McCain of using his “risky traits” to instill fear.

I think we could pretty much agree that there are numerous ways to disrupt or halt conversation. For some it might be bringing up religion or politics in casual conversation. In racial dialogues a surefire way to shut someone down is to accuse them of being racist. End of conversation. You win. They lose. We all know it is more complicated, but that’s the long and short of it in our society. We rarely stop to analyze the situation. We simply pick sides and talk past each other. It’s kind of like throwing a grenade and trusting it will do major damage- no need to worry about the details. It’s a really dirty way to fight- especially when the accusations are false and are simply used to smear the reputation of another. When that is the case, we’re being passive-aggressive. We’re trying to appear as if we’re not being confrontational, yet we are being just that. It’s subtle, might be accomplished through omission rather than commission, but there is no mistaking it. Well, sometimes there is.

I believe McCain succeeded is being similarly passive aggressive today while hurling the assertion that Obama is “playing the race card.” He did it in two ways. The first way he accomplished it was by never coming out and saying it directly. He agreed with a reporter’s assertion that Obama was playing the race card, called it “unfortunate,” and refused to comment further. So, we can’t really claim that he said it, right? I think his approach was to throw out the grenade and see how much damage it would do. By refusing to engage, he didn’t give us any direction, any understanding of how he came to the opinion, or what evidence he gleaned and weighed.

The other way in which he succeeded was by having what little detail there was about his position come from others who were extremely vague. Members of his campaign called Obama’s comments divisive, shameful, wrong, and from the bottom of the deck. Oh, now I understand.

I don’t think McCain’s accusation of Obama playing the race card without being willing to engage in details of why he feels this way is any more defensible than someone calling another person racist and upon being asked why saying “because.” These are loaded accusations. To not discuss the nuances, in my opinion, leaves McCain playing the race card just as much as he accuses Obama of doing so. By not delving further, we don’t know what he thinks. If people agree with him, they can simply insert their own reasons. We are left unable to critically analyze, and maybe even accept, his argument. He’s killed the conversation before it’s even started. He’s hoping we declare him the winner (in this round and the ones to follow).

Obama simply stated observations: his name is not mainstream, he is very different from the Presidents on the dollar bills- namely with relation to race. Rather than acknowledge that these reflections are in line with the reality of the circumstances, McCain interpreted them as “playing the race card.” At least that is what I can surmise since he refuses to engage in conversation.

Personally, I don’t think it’s clear who has won this round, but I do know that we have a new way to, without explanation, bring conversations to a halt. Add “You’re playing the race card” to the list of conversation killers 101.

Getting Paid To Learn: Is it Enough?

CNN’s special report on being Black in America raised a host of issues, but the one that stood out to me most is education. The achievement gap is not a new problem. Black children continue to under-perform and we continue to be unsure how to remedy the situation. The special raised the question of whether students should receive monetary incentives for good grades. A Harvard economist, Roland Fryer, has instituted a program in New York City which pays students for test scores. Other cities, such as Baltimore and Atlanta, are following suit. The data aren’t in as to whether this approach works in the long-run, but short-term results suggest that the incentives are motivating students.

It’s important, though, to critically examine the variables at play and the methodology that would be needed to deem this approach a success. Those who support this perspective, say that money is an easy way to motivate students to perform in the short-term so that they can be better positioned for the long-run. However, some students are making the decision to work hard and study without these incentives. The difference is intrinsic motivation- the desire to engage in a behavior in the absence of obvious external reinforcers. An example would be the student who studies for studying’s sake. Adding money as an incentive for studying introduces an external reinforcer- rather than an internal reason to study, an individual now also has an external motivator. Some research suggests that when you reward someone for behavior that intrinsically motivating, it can decrease the motivation to continue the behavior. So, if we apply this finding, we could spoil the intrinsic motivation that some students have for learning by offering the monetary reward.

However, we can’t be too quick to bash these programs. My hunch is that it works for certain students. The incentive programs have been mostly aimed at low-income youth and inner city schools. A number of students attending these schools have a host of factors influencing their lives which complicate the idyllic “your job is school” mentality. For example, these students have to possibly contend with financial stress, neighborhood violence, and schools lacking physical and human resources just to name a few stressors. On average a student in a middle-class or upper-middle class family have fewer of these extraneous variables to tackle in addition to focusing on their schoolwork. Perhaps for those students whose lives are already full of demands beyond their years, a basic monetary reward is enough to re-focus their attention towards school. We’ll have to wait until the results start to roll in to know for sure. We’ll know more if we have data from students who were and were not a part of the program from 1) inner-city, resource-poor schools 2) suburban, resource-rich schools, and 3) students from a variety of sociodemographic backgrounds. With that information was can compare results and have a greater understanding of who these incentives work for and for whom they do not.

That last point reminds us that closing the achievement gap is not going to happen with one approach. These interventions are not one-size-fits-all. We have to understand that while we develop programs to students achieve, we also have a responsibility to provide them with educated teachers, safe environments and current resources. Those are the missing variables. Say we find that the monetary incentives work. We can pay kids to study but that does not change the fact that some are learning in dilapidated buildings out of old books with no computer in sight. There are institutional changes that would help support individual students in their pursuit of education. I recall a story of a young girl from Appalachia who graduated at the top of her class and dreamed of being a doctor. Yet, when she entered college, she was years behind her peers in math and science. Whether she earned money for her grades through her early education or had the intrinsic motivation to succeed, as a country we failed her in not providing access to up-to-date resources. We need to do better by our students. Since we don’t seem to be intrinsically motivated, perhaps we need some monetary incentives.

Ethnic Notions

Intent does not equal impact. After all is said and done, that phrase holds true- in the court of law and in personal relationships. If you hit someone with your car unintentionally, it does not make the impact (i.e. bodily harm and legal charges) any less real. If you make an honest statement about a friend or colleague and they are offended, you can talk at length about the person being overly-sensitive or your motive not being malicious- the impact will most likely remain. Think of a time you have felt wronged. Did the perpetrator telling you they didn’t mean to make it better?

Thank goodness for the freedom of speech that our country allows. However, that freedom does not absolve us of accountability for the consequences of such speech. The New Yorker cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama raises a host of issues. Even if you are not personally offended by the image, it is a good exercise in perspective-taking to consider why it might offend or simply unsettle others.

The main critique of the New Yorker’s cover is that it too closely resembles what some believe to be true. I get the joke, but there’s no “ha-ha,” because too many others see it as an accurate reflection of their beliefs about Obama. The magazine has acknowledged that the cover incorporates many of the stereotypes and falsehoods which have been pumped into the media. That was the point. However, given the number of people who honestly believe these falsehoods, it seems a dangerous line to walk.

A recent Newsweek poll suggests that a number of Americans believe Obama was raised as a Muslim, attended an Islamic school, is a practicing Muslim, and took his oath of office on a Koran. All of this information is false. So inferring from the data, it seems that there are plenty of Americans feeling validated by the cover rather than amused by the satire. Even if the New Yorker intended to be clever, that does not ensure that the impact will be in line with that intent. So, for those defending the New Yorker on the grounds that they did not intend it to be offensive or controversial, or hold up the fact that the source has been pro-Obama, that is not the whole story. We must also attend to the implications of the cover.

Given the power of media images, I think it is reasonable to be concerned that the intended message of the cover could get lost. Sometimes caricatures take on a life of their own and rather than getting us closer to the “truth” by poking fun through exaggeration (which is what the New Yorker claims) they can take us further from the reality at hand. The magazine suggests that the cover will cause us to reflect on how ridiculous the portrayal of Obama has been. Perhaps. And if so, all is not lost. However, I think we need to recognize that the intent of the magazine does not dictate the impact of the image. We cannot control how others perceive, appraise and make sense of materials. And for that reason alone, it is unfair to minimize the concerns surrounding this cover.

Jackson, Obama Comments Highlight Interconnection Rather than Division

The recent controversy regarding Rev. Jesse Jackson’s comments directed at Senator Barack Obama along with the larger commentary drive home the complexities of the various levels of racism. If we fail to recognize these complexities, we miss the real issue at hand- that racism is not one-dimensional rather it exists on individual, cultural and institutional levels. Essentially, Jackson feared that the tone of Obama’s message- highlighting personal responsibility- would overshadow the collective responsibility of the government. It’s the age old debate of where to focus our attention: on individual or institutional matters. Some have written that the statements highlight a “divide” in the Black community. Rather than a divide, these perspectives represent pieces of the larger web of racism. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

Obama has a point. Institutional barriers have been and need to continue to be removed, but that does not take the place of individual action. Jackson has a point. There are institutional- as Dr. King would call them structural- disparities that are not caused by individual actions (e.g. over-representation of Black students in schools that are lacking resources and credentialed teachers relative to the average public school). They are coming at similar issues from different angles. Far from divided, these assertions are interconnected. If we take education, for example, even if we rise to the occasion as a collective entity to provide access to equal public education, each student still has to be personally accountable and engage in that education. Failings at the different levels could be exacerbated by the other, but broad-reaching success needs movements on both fronts.

Individualism alone will not solve the problems of the Black community nor will the government. I do not think it furthers the discussion on race to blast Obama (or Bill Cosby) for encouraging accountability, nor is it fair to dismiss Jackson (or Rev. Al Sharpton) for pointing out the institutional racism that has perpetuated disparities. Some have urged Jackson to step down or asserted that his time has passed. I would like to suggest that even if that shift were to happen, the institutional racism that he so persistently points out would not disappear. But, perhaps that is why some would like him to be quiet. If we only focus on individual responsibility, this conversation about race gets a great deal more manageable. We get uncomfortable when systemic, long-standing inequalities are highlighted. We long to believe the myth of meritocracy that we promote as a nation. We would rather believe that if you work hard, you will succeed while turning a blind eye to the reality that the mantra is not equally applied (starting with the disparities in infant mortality).

What I find most disturbing about Jackson’s comments actually stems from his apology rather than the initial statements. In his press conference, he seems to suggest that his comments would be less hurtful to Obama because they were made in a one-on-one interaction rather than a public forum. Really? I’m not convinced that I would be comforted by the knowledge that someone saves their offensive comments for private conversation. But, perhaps, that’s a larger discussion of overt versus covert discrimination or even still the cultural acceptance for holding such contradictions (e.g. as long as you keep your biases private, you won’t be called to task).

Fighting racism requires that we recognize the relevance in addressing both the individual and the institution while also holding each other accountable for our actions. We miss the opportunity to have true dialogue when we force comments into camps. Our sound bite culture seems to have limited our ability to tolerate complexity; oversimplifying issues inherently filters out those nuances. Obama and Jackson are not divided. Their comments are as interlinked as the discussion on alternative fuel sources and decreasing consumption when addressing climate change.

All Tangled Up

All this talk of “race,” “racism,” people being “racist,” and the rise in hate groups makes me think we need to step back and make sure we’re all on the same page with what we mean when we use these terms. One of the factors that I think has made the conversations on race most tangled is the failure, or perhaps unwillingness, to understand racism at multiple levels. We’re too quick to label some action or person as racist and “condemn” it or “disown” the person rather than fully analyze the situation. It is such an emotionally charged topic that it makes sense that dwelling on the complexities might be avoided (especially, when we want so badly to believe that race doesn’t matter anymore). However, it is that sort of analysis which will arm us with the ability to have true dialogue. Otherwise, we are left talking around each other while assuming we are actually communicating directly.

We don’t have to agree, necessarily, on the definitions to have these conversations, but we do need to understand how each party is defining their terms. So, let’s start with race. Biologically, we know that there is more genetic variation within groups, we call races, rather than across these groups. Penguins and fruit flies have more genetic variation between each other than we do as humans. So, all that scientific evidence from early 20^th century which claimed racial deficiencies on the basis of skull size, etc. has been found false- social opinion posing as objective research. Therefore, that leaves us with the reality that race is a social construct, which we have created and reified through laws and social dynamics.

Building on that definition, racism is a system of advantage based on racial classifications, which benefits one group over others. Another way to think of it is prejudice plus power. For example, I might have bias, or prejudice, towards red-headed individuals. But unless I (as a non-red-head) hold the power to dictate outcomes for red-heads, we don’t have an ism. If our society had a classification system that separated individuals based on hair color, and over and over non-red-heads were in power and made sure through laws and personal decisions that red-heads did not have access to positions of power, education, and basic services, we might say that it was a system of advantage based on hair color that systematically benefited non-red-heads over red-heads. Getting closer to home, it can be argued that while women can be hatemongers towards men that only men can be sexist. Men have had the power to systematically disadvantage women (i.e. withholding the right to own property, vote, etc.) but not vice versa. So, it’s all based on who has the power in an institution and what they do with that power.

Getting back to my original concern about lack of understanding of the various levels of racism- it occurs on three levels. There is institutional, cultural and individual racism. I would argue that institutional is the most insidious type; however, we’ll start with individual racism since we are most familiar with it and most adept at pointing it out.

Individual racism includes actions such as telling racially derogatory jokes, choosing not to speak to/hire/support/etc. someone because of their racial group membership, or engaging in hate crimes. We can easily think of more examples of individual racism. It’s what most easily comes to mind when the word is brought up- the KKK and cross burning is one of the most common examples I hear when introducing these distinctions. Since Obama has emerged as the presumptive democratic candidate, White supremacy groups have touted an increase in interest and activity. While this is of concern and does suggest that individual racism is still a relevant construct, it’s important not to lose sight of the ways in which other acts, which aren’t so extreme- also constitute individual racism.

Cultural racism involves the larger society (e.g., whose values are promoted or denigrated, who is omitted or distorted in the media?). An easy way to grasp this concept is to consider religious values. The post office, schools, etc. are closed during Christmas and usually over Easter. As a Christian, this set-up is really convenient for me. Society caters to the fact that I might want to travel to be with family, or be off of work to commemorate the holiday. However, the same cannot be said for Yom Kippur, Ramadan or Divali. Some might say, “Well, we can’t have all of those holidays off!” I’m not advocating what we should do about this cultural racism; I’m simply trying to raise our awareness of it as one ways in which we enact this thing called racism. Another example might be the way in which you see people of color in limited roles in primetime television (e.g. narrow portrayals of Indian Americans or Latinos).

Institutional racism occurs on another level where decisions made by the system (e.g., government, corporation) enact systematic advantage. Education is a prime example. There was a time when, regardless of whether an individual wanted to integrate or not, separate but equal education was supported by law. Of course, there is an intersection of these levels. Individuals as a group are the ones who ultimately pass the legislation which govern the institutions. This example is where you can see why it’s important to understand the various levels to understand how they interact and subsequently how to better combat them. Housing, healthcare and the judicial system are other institutions where you can see historical examples of institutional racism. The outcomes of these various institutions differ by an individual’s race. It’s not biological differences that dictate these outcomes (see above). It’s the way in which we as a society limit access that then creates discrepancies which over time look natural. For example post WWII, we had a wonderful opportunity as a country to integrate housing. However, the FHA chose redlining, and we continue to see the ramifications today- both in segregated housing and economic outcomes. For example, the same house in the suburbs might be worth three times the same house in a formerly redlined district. When those parents take the equity out of their home to send their child to college, one set has access to a great deal more money compared to the other. This difference is not a matter of one set of parents being lazy and not taking care of their child. It is linked to institutional decisions that were made on the basis of race. The difference in housing prices is just one example of how institutional laws trickle down to affect a whole host of issues.

I share these examples to say that we need to understand the difference between these levels of racism. The rise in White supremacy groups is fueled by individual racism and most recently the personal fear that Obama will win the presidency. The controversy over LeBron James’ Vogue cover was not about the magazine being racist. It was an issue of cultural racism given the historical ways in which Black men- in relation to White women in particular- have been portrayed. The issue of the achievement gap has a number of causes but unequal resources (e.g., teachers with advanced degrees, books, computers, etc.) rank top on the list of ways our government has enacted institutional racism and disproportionately provided access to some but not others.

These distinctions can be expanded to help examine other types of isms in our society (e.g., classism, sexism, heterosexism). Unfortunately, they are linked and if you understand one ism well you can understand another. I do think that having a more complex understanding other these systems can help us not feel so overwhelmed, not knowing where to start when something happens in our town, office or country related to race. Knowledge really is power- to be able to analyze an incident for yourself rather than relying on someone else to label it for you. You can have a better handle on things while the media continues to get tangled up in messy definitions.