Author: Andie Burjek

Posted on

Doughnuts and Dialogue: Something to Chew on to Communicate Benefits

 

WF_0816_pg15It all started with a doughnut.

For PR firm Walker Sands Communications, that round, sometimes frosted dessert didn’t just pack a lot of cream — it packed a lot of punch as well.

Mike Santoro, president of Walker Sands, wanted to learn how news traveled across his company. He turned his head toward the regular internal employee newsletter, wondering if it was an effective communication tool.

“When you’re a small company, it’s easy to spread the word. You stand up in the middle of the floor and yell, ‘Attention!’ As we’ve grown, it’s definitely been more challenging,” Santoro said. “We wanted to do an actual experiment to find out how they [employees] behave.”

Then, he thought about that popular breakfast treat. Santoro said he thought to himself, “What can we do with doughnuts?”

Besides making Homer Simpson the happiest man in the world?

At 9 a.m. on a Friday, two different versions of the same e-newsletter went out. One read, “Donuts in the Conference Room” at the top; the second placed the same phrase toward the bottom. By 10:30 a.m., 91 percent of the newsletter’s recipients were aware of the information but in a way that interested Santoro. Nearly half of the employees in the conference room had heard about the pastries from a source other than the newsletter. Santoro learned that the office newsletter is only slightly better than word of mouth — and that word of mouth only travels so far.

Walker Sands’ recent study raises an interesting question about effective perks and benefits communication strategies, which can be just as tricky and sticky as the icing on that pastry. How can employers effectively spread the word?

“Today’s employee and the ways of communicating have changed,” Santoro said. “It used to be, you could do direct mail, face-to-face. You could do phone calls. Now, people are consuming information” through many different kinds of outlets.

“As much as you can, communicate with pictures and video,” Santoro said. “That’s really important to be able to tell that story.”

Social media sites, Santoro said, are great methods of doing just that.

“Our own employees tend to be younger people,” he said, “who tend to communicate across Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram.”

But just because the digital age provides more communication tools, Santoro said the traditional in-person meetings should not be overlooked.

“We have quarterly meetings; we have monthly town halls where we gather everyone in the company together and tell them: ‘This is what’s most important for the month.’ Then you have these other secondary mechanisms, like the newsletter and active social channel,” Santoro said.

But communicating those perks and benefits doesn’t always have to revolve around “Who’s bringing the doughnuts?” David Daskal has also seen some unique strategies as director of business development at The Jellyvision Lab Inc., a business that creates interactive software to help employees learn about workplace benefits.

“Being human means you also have the freedom to have a little fun,” Daskal said. “Engaging posters and fliers in the break room, a raffle for everyone who participates in a benefits webinar. We’ve even worked with HR teams who have dressed up in costumes to help promote open enrollment.”

Sarah Foster is an editorial intern at Workforce. Comment below or email at editors@workforce.com.  Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Cliches Weaken Feedback: Choose Words Wisely!

I’m guessing you’ve heard this phrase before. Either it came out of someone else’s mouth, or you said it: “Don’t take this the wrong way, but
”  I’m also guessing you know what follows the “but”: an awkward clichĂ© or unflattering feedback, perhaps even a downright insulting or blatantly bigoted or sexist statement. Common examples include:  “you talk too loud,”  “people think you’re aggressive,” “you’re so articulate and competent” or “you’re overly emotional.”

“Don’t take this the wrong way” is a poisonous preamble that should be eliminated from interpersonal communication, especially in the workplace. Here’s why:

  • This phrase signals that the speaker knows what follows is inappropriate, perhaps offensive. It’s a gesture designed – intentionally or not – to give the speaker carte blanche to say inappropriate or offensive words.
  • This phrase places all responsibility for the speaker’s impact on the receiver. Speakers exempt themselves from all accountability for what they say.
  • This phrase is an exercise in coercive “power over.” Would you tell your boss, a respected elder, or other authority figure “don’t take this the wrong way, but
”? I doubt it.
  • There is no such thing as “the wrong way.” The receiver is going to take the speaker’s words the way they take it. No one has the right to legislate or dictate someone else’s feelings or reactions. What the speaker really means is, “don’t take this in a way that I don’t mean, or that makes me look like a bad person.” However, it’s the speaker’s responsibility to communicate in a way that aligns with their meaning and come across like a good person, not the receiver’s.

“Don’t take this the wrong way” can be used consciously to manipulate others and inappropriately leverage power, but it’s most often used unconsciously by well-intended people to communicate a sensitive idea or to deliver uncomfortable feedback. This is especially likely in conversations across differences like race, gender, sexual orientation and social class. But rather than softening an uncomfortable message, “don’t take this the wrong way” actually communicates disrespect, impedes dialogue and erodes trust.

If the intent is to soften difficult communication, provide context, and come across as a good person, try these approaches instead:

Own and express your own anxiety: “It’s uncomfortable for me to say this out loud, and I’m not sure how it’s going to come across to you.” Then say the rest without saying “but” first.

  • Example: It’s uncomfortable for me to say this out loud, and I’m not sure how it’s going to come across to you. I’ve heard from some of our customers that they see you as aggressive. I’d like to give you some specific examples, then problem solve together.

Take responsibility for your words: “I want to give you some feedback to help you succeed.” [Insert uncomfortable words]. “I realize that may come across as [acknowledge potential negative impact on the receiver].” Express next steps.

  • Example: I want to give you some feedback to help you succeed. I’m hearing from customers that you’re being aggressive with them. I realize that feedback may come across as insulting, especially coming from your male boss. I’d like to give you some specific examples, then problem solve together.

Frame what you’re going to say, using your knowledge about diversity and intercultural communication. “I understand that [insert knowledge or stereotype here].” Don’t say “but”. “My intention is to [be transparent about your goal for the communication].”

  • Example: I understand that there’s a stereotype about women being seen as “aggressive” when they’re confident go-getters. My intention is to give you some specific feedback about how our customers experience you this way, then problem solve together to get better results.

Silence. If you know a certain idea, stereotype or clichĂ© can be triggering, potentially insulting, or inappropriate, don’t say it at all. This includes during casual, informal office conversation.

  • Example: Don’t take this the wrong way, Silvia, but you are so loud and aggressive for a woman! Say nothing instead.

Intent does not equal impact. Having good intentions isn’t enough to be effective and produce excellence, even as a leader. It requires awareness, knowledge and skills like these to communicate effectively across differences and have the positive impact that matches your intent.

Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting LLC. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

HR and IT: The Dynamic Duo in Fighting Cybersecurity Risks

Cybersecurity in an Organization

Companies have undergone significant changes in the past few years. Before, employee would come into the same workspace and be connected via the same on-premise system. Now people can work from almost anywhere, bring their own devices, use cloud-based applications and access work files on their mobile devices. The result? An increase in threats to cybersecurity.

However, just because cybersecurity threats affect, well, cyberspace, doesn’t mean a human element isn’t necessary to mitigate them.

“People often mistake security risk in a company as being primarily a technology risk — making sure you have the right systems in place, etc.,” said David Meyer, vice president of product at OneLogin, an identity management and cybersecurity company based in San Francisco. “But it’s just much, if not more, a cultural risk.”

The information technology and human resources department, together, make a smart team in fighting these risks, Meyer said, because most cybersecurity threats come from inside the company.

This is especially concerning because of the great financial effect a security breach can have on a company. For example, there has been a 64 percent increase in security breaches from 2014 to 2015, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the average breach costs a business $3.8 million, according to a 2015 Ponemon Institute study.

The HR department has the skills necessary to mitigate two potential insider threats, Meyer said. The first threat is well-intentioned employees who make a mistake, such as using a personal email rather than a work email or accidentally sharing something classified on social media. HR can deal with these cases by making sure employees are properly trained and educating them on a regular basis.

The second threat is disaffected employees who have ill will toward the company. Because part of an HR person’s job is understanding employee behavior, HR is the best department to notice early warning signs that an employee could be being disloyal or headed in that direction, experts say.

Meanwhile, the IT department has the technical skills to put certain systems in place — another key ingredient to stopping insider threats. There are systems such as Elastic Search, CloudLock, OneLogin and others that can detect when employees access or download documents they normally don’t and alert HR.

The connection between HR professionals and security professionals needs to be the closest it’s ever been in history, said Pete Metzger, vice chairman at executive search firm DHR International. The chief human resources officer and the chief information security officer, for example, should communicate with each other about important security issues, like securing mobile devices, hiring trustworthy people (more of an HR issue) and implementing good kinds of authentication (more of a technical issue), he added.

“If it’s not an important relationship, it certainly should be,” Metzger said.

Moreover, he added, HR and IT should brief all the company leadership on important security issues, keeping everyone updated on any potential risks.

Once HR and IT team up, they can cooperate to put together an effective cybersecurity training program.

HR should educate employees point-blank on the do’s and don’ts, Metzger said. There are certain things employees should always do, such as calling IT about any suspicious emails.

From an IT perspective, Meyer recommends integrating HR with identity systems. If an employee changes roles or departments, the integrated system will automatically give the employee new access and remove old access. This keeps HR from having to manually take old employees out of systems, and it verifies that employees only have access to files or applications that they actually need. 

“In the modern era where employees are using every app on every device,” he added, security “comes from a combination of good IT systems, which protect employees and give them the right guard rails and effective cultural training.”

Andie Burjek is a Workforce editorial intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on

To Assimilate, or Not to Assimilate

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12I recently had lunch with a dear friend and colleague who used to be my mentee in a former role.  We celebrated his recent professional success, caught him up on mine, and explored next steps after he completes his master’s in public health. The topic of race came up a few times — he is a Canadian-born, African American of Nigerian parents — and turned to the matter of “acting white.” My friend, whom I’ll call Nick, decried the number of times he’s been told by other people of color he’s “acting white” for speaking the way he does. He expressed his offense at the bigoted notion that speaking in such an “intelligent, articulate, educated” way is viewed as exclusively white, and not a feature of black culture as well.

At the same time, Nick described his experience living in a majority Hispanic state where not only is he a part of a racial group that is 2 percent of the population but also as a dark-skinned man, he stands out even among “his people.” He’s been called the N-word more than a few times, and he often senses pressure in professional meeting — where he’s often an “only” — to act “less black.”

It’s a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario for up-and-coming leaders of color. If Nick “acts black,” he maintains solidarity with allies that look like him and avoids being viewed as a sell-out but is taken less seriously in his career. If he “acts white,” he advances professionally but at the cost of hurting his identity and relationships with his community. He even wonders if he’s imagining it all.

Despite the fact that no one would ever mistake me for African American, Nick asked me for advice. I’ve never had to face such a dilemma personally when it comes to race, but as a cisgender woman, I have had to face choosing when and how to “act like a man” at work, and I’ve heard the struggles of dozens of friends and colleagues of color over the years. Here’s what I told Nick:

1.     Know you’re not imagining it.  Even though it’s very subtle and usually entirely unconscious, that pressure to “act white” to get ahead in a white-dominant (either numerically or powerwise) environment is real. Don’t think you’re crazy for believing this.

2.     Know you have an advantage for being forced to be multilingual and multicultural.  White and white-looking people don’t have to develop code-and style-switching skills to succeed in life like you do. Expanding and using your already large toolbox of communication and relationship behaviors makes you a more flexible, resourceful leader, better adapted to thrive in a diverse, global work environment.

3.     Consciously choose different behaviors and ways of “acting” to meet your goals.  The problem comes when we believe we must choose one identity over the other, or we find ourselves adapting mindlessly to our environment. Try different ways of communicating and showing up in meetings and one-on-one conversations. Notice how your choices affect others and get you what you want, or not.

4.     Try pushing the envelope. If “we” just assimilate to the way “they” speak and act, then things will never change for those coming after us. Maybe it’s making a subtle wardrobe choice, deciding to laugh a little louder, or saying a certain word or phrase. Maybe it’s a bolder statement. In my most recent internal leadership role, I chose — for reasons that included my professional integrity, personal job satisfaction, and solidarity with the community — to get a small nose piercing in an organization where this was against the human resources policy but still tolerated in many areas. The response to my choice was revealing in terms of the organization’s true commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, and my place in it.

5.     Know that your choices may change as you age and advance in your career. I find myself more willing to be bold and more comfortable taking risks now in my 40s than I did in my 20s. My life priorities and professional goals have changed, and now that I wield more power through experience and credibility, I can get away with showing more of myself and pushing the envelope harder.

6.     Maintain relationships, mentorships and open dialogue with professionals and friends who look like you. They will check you, hold you accountable, and remind you you’re not crazy for thinking that “acting _____” or “acting white” exists, with real consequences.

The answer to the “assimilate or not?” question is both-and, not either-or. Sometimes assimilate, sometimes not, but always be aware of what you’re choosing, notice the effects on your goals, and own your power to make this decision.

Posted on

Should White People Do Diversity Work?

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12As a multilingual, culturally and racially ambiguous woman who’s been doing some form of diversity work for almost 25 years, I occasionally find myself having awkward conversations with potential clients about my identity. These conversations involve questions like, “Are you diverse?” or “Wait, you’re white?” or statements like “Thank you, but we’re looking for a ‘diverse’ person.” Given the growing attention that race is getting in the broader media, it’s time to frankly discuss an underlying question that often plagues the diversity and inclusion field: Should white people do diversity work?

I say yes. Here’s why:

  • When only people of color do diversity work, this gives the false impression that diversity is only about, and for, people of color.D&I is about, and for, everyone, without exception. Multiple studies have shown that diversity, plus inclusiveness, is essential to excellence, innovation and high performance — including one demonstrating that the mere presence of people of color improves group results.
  • White people are the ones that most need diversity work, and we tend to most trust and believe other white people.Whites are still the numerical majority in the U.S., and we’re the disproportionate majority holding power positions in government, business, education, health care and media. We are the ones that need to change the way we do things, and because humans evolved over millennia to function in small groups of similar people, our brains — like it or not — lend more credibility to people who look like us.

Beyond the question of whether white people should do diversity work is an even more provocative question — can we? I’ve heard about, and witnessed, situations where diversity work conducted by white people went wrong in ways that were ineffective at best, and horribly damaging at worst. To this question, I say it depends on the following:

  • What brings the white person to diversity work?For people of color, diversity work is usually intensely personal. If a white person comes to D&I with a purely intellectual mindset or a goal to change or help someone else, they might miss the mark. If they jumped on the bandwagon a couple years ago when unconscious bias training became chic, they might not have the commitment or broad knowledge necessary to be effective. Like many white allies, I come to the work from a decades-long commitment to dismantling racism because of painful childhood incidents I both experienced and witnessed. While my pain doesn’t equal that of a person of color’s daily experience, and I acknowledge I have the white privilege of walking away any time I want, I’m dedicated to doing my part to prevent more people from having their humanity denied and gifts crushed just because of the bodies they inhabit.
  • How much does the white person know, own and use their various identities?Every human being has multiple identities that situate them both inside, and outside, power structures. Straight black men face racism, but enjoy male and heteronormative privilege. I enjoy white privilege, but have faced sexism and classism. Some of my white colleagues face homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or ableism. White people doing effective diversity work own, check and use their white privilege for positive change. They step into and out of their various identities to connect with diverse people, or to make powerful points during effective diversity training.
  • How much personal work has the white person done?The most effective D&I professionals of any race or ethnicity do ongoing personal work. They build awareness of their biases and privilege and actively mitigate their harmful effects. They strive to know their personal and cultural history, strengths and weaknesses. They constantly seek and incorporate feedback, even if they don’t like how it’s offered. They build their emotional resilience, emotional intelligence and critical thinking skills. They strive to be in integrity with the work, even when they’re not working. They are curious, good humored and nimble with people. They take care of themselves and have healthy boundaries. This is a tall order for anyone, but especially for white people because doing personal work also requires unlearning what we’ve been taught: that we know everything, that we have a right to always speak and take up space, and that others must cater to our feelings. White people doing effective D&I work aren’t perfect, but embody the changes most want to see in our workforce and leadership.
  • What will best meet the needs or goals of your organization or team? I speak Spanish better than most U.S.-born Latinos and pass for Hispanic all the time. I’ve lived, worked and traveled extensively abroad, including in developing nations. I’ve experienced many challenges because of my nondominant identities, many of which are invisible. I can present D&I concepts in an engaging way that creates lasting breakthroughs. Yet, none of that matters if what will best serve an organization is a person with a brown or black face, or the lived experience of a person of color in the U.S. Part of being a white person doing diversity work is to acknowledge that much of the time, no matter what qualifications or street cred we bring, we’re not always the right person for the job, and we’re not entitled to dominate the D&I field. If indeed we’re here to co-create a world that works for everyone, the least we can do when we hear “no” is to move on and be grateful yet another person of color is hearing “yes.”
Posted on

Re-engaging With William Kahn 25 Years After He Coined Term Employee Engagement

employee engagement

Photo courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Today it’s not uncommon to see article after article about the ubiquitous term employee engagement, such as: “This percentage of employees are disengaged,” a study finds; “How do I keep my employees engaged?” one article asks; and “How does engagement affect overall business?” another wonders.

Although a popular talking point now, the term “employee engagement” is relatively new. Professor William Kahn of Boston University coined “engagement” in terms of the workforce setting 25 years ago in his 1990 paper, “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work.”

Workforce caught up with Kahn via email to discuss the genesis of the term, its evolution over the past 25 years and what leaders can do to re-engage the disengaged.

Workforce: Before you first used the word ‘engagement’ in the business setting, how did you identify the problem of employees being disengaged?

William Kahn: The presenting issues revolved around employees’ lack of motivation and involvement. People were often doing only what needed to be done, as defined and directed by others, and their work had very little of their own personal selves, very little of what they thought and felt ought to happen as they went about their work. Managers did not really understand the problems, which they thought had to do with employees not being the right fit for the job or not being rewarded enough for their work.

WF: What was the ‘aha’ moment when you hit on engagement as a business case? Why did you use that word, that terminology?

Kahn: There was no particular ‘aha’ moment. It was simply the accumulation of noticing, studying and writing about employees who were unfulfilled at work, and why that might be. I used ‘engagement’ and ‘disengagement’ because those words evoke very clearly the movements that people make toward and away from their work, other people and the roles that they had. Engagement is a word that suggests betrothal — the decision to commit to a role, an identity and a relationship that offers fulfillment.

WF: Why was it an issue then?

Kahn: Leaders of organizations had very little understanding of modern concepts of empowerment, and believed that motivating others was mostly a matter of hiring the right people and giving them the right incentives. The engagement concept was developed based on the premise that individuals can make real choices about how much of their real, personal selves they would reveal and express in their work. That premise was radically different than the operating assumptions of the time.

WF: Has employee engagement evolved or is it still rooted in the same problems as 25 years ago?

Kahn: The problems are much the same, although there is more sophistication about how they appear and are dealt with. The problems of giving people voice over what they do and how they do it, of ensuring that people find their work intrinsically meaningful, and enabling them to craft their roles still exist, as managers wish to exert control over others when they are made anxious by the demands to produce and perform.

WF: What’s your one key way to improve engagement?

Kahn: Approach employees as true partners, involving them in continuous dialogues and processes about how to design and alter their roles, tasks and working relationships — which means that leaders need to make it safe enough for employees to speak openly of their experiences at work.

Posted on

Tenaris: Optimas Gold Winner for Training

Tenaris, which is a global supplier of tubes and services for the energy industry, sought to position itself as a leader in corporate education using an innovative new technology.   

The initiative, MOOCs and SPOCs: Pioneering Innovation in Corporate Education, took advantage of the recent, cost-effective and global phenomenon in education, massive open online courses. The mass classes that can be accessed from around the world were especially useful to Tenaris, which has highly specialized employees across the globe. It also took advantage of small private online courses, which offer more specialized classes to Tenaris employees.

The New York Times labeled 2012 as the “Year of the MOOC,” and by 2013 the Buenos Aires, Argentina-based company had launched the MOOCs and SPOCs project at TenarisUniversity, which was created to reduce the cost of corporate education while improving quality. Creating an online university also appealed to Tenaris’ digitally fluent employees.

The 2014-15 MOOCs, which reached an audience outside of Tenaris employees, included introduction to steel and introduction to numerical control courses. The SPOCs, geared toward specialized employees, included relationship marketing, thermo-mechanical processing of metals and other specialty courses. Tenaris University plans to develop more MOOCs and SPOCs for the 2015-16 calendar year.

The formation of Tenaris University has helped the company teach on a global scale, and attract a new generation of digitally inclined employees to the oil and gas industry.

The initiative was cost-effective and provided solid results in strategic positioning. Tenaris said by using MOOCs and SPOCs it was able to spend 20 percent of the amount it would have cost using traditional methods to the tune of $800,000 in savings.

For its use of emerging MOOC and SPOC technology to improve its corporate education and reduce costs, Tenaris is the gold 2015 Optimas Award winner for Training.

Andie Burjek is a Workforce editorial intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Editor's note: This article was updated Nov. 23, 2015, to clarify that the MOOCs and SPOCs project began in 2013. TenarisUniversity was created in 2005.

Posted on

Unconscious Bias Training Is Anti-Racism Training

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12Unconscious bias training is in. It’s neat; it incorporates lots of cool new science. It’s sexy; it incorporates lots of cool images and eye opening exercises. It’s trendy; all the cool kids are doing it. And it’s safe; no one talks about racism.

That’s where the legitimate criticism comes in. As with other “in” diversity topics of the past, some raise concern that unconscious bias training won’t make a difference. It’s another fad that doesn’t address real issues or lead to meaningful change. Straight white men will go to these workshops, learn everyone’s biased (“See! It’s not just me; they’re biased too!”), learn it’s unconscious (“See! It’s not my fault; it’s unconscious!”) and change nothing.

I agree that there is this potential, as well as the danger of seeing little-to-no return on investment for the millions of dollars spent on such training. This degrades the reputation of diversity and inclusion as nice-to-have window dressing instead of the results-driven, value-add, must-have that it is — or should be.

There’s another possibility: use unconscious bias training to shift inequitable power dynamics along lines of race and other identity differences. This requires courage, clarity, leadership and the inclusion of the following seven elements:

1. Always make the business and results case for diversity and inclusion up front.This provides essential context and increases training participant interest and buy in. Research by scholars like Scott E. Page, James Surowiecki and Nancy Adler have shown the superior results created by diverse groups compared with individuals and nondiverse groups, but only if there is inclusion and effective management of diversity.

2. Encourage curiosity and critical thinking about common collective biases. The research on implicit, or unconscious, bias shows clear tendencies. Biases aren’t random or equally distributed among groups. Overwhelmingly, more people hold more negative unconscious biases about people of color; women; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; and people with disabilities than they do about white people, men, straight and “able bodied” folks. Also, being a member of a group doesn’t inoculate someone against carrying negative unconscious bias toward their own group. Many African Americans carry negative unconscious biases toward African Americans, women toward women, and so on.

  • This is about racism. Racism is not individual acts of meanness toward someone who looks different — that’s prejudice. Racism is about ways we collectively assign value, make assumptions and distribute resources inequitably along racial lines defined by physical traits. This process is driven by unconscious biases — databases in our reptilian brain that come from centuries of inherited messages about members of other racial groups as well as current messages our brains capture from our environment and catalog outside our awareness. If left unconscious and unchecked, these biases express in our decisions and behavior, which have disproportionately negative effects on people of color. The word “racism” need never be uttered to facilitate curiosity and awareness of this important feature of unconscious bias.

3. Address the inequitable effect of negative and positive biases on members of different groups. Anyone can find themselves on the receiving end of meanness or prejudice. But not everyone finds themselves getting the short end of the unconscious bias (racism) stick. Our unconscious biases and the resulting behaviors don’t affect others equitably. The multiple positive biases toward whites serve them way more than any positive biases toward people of color. The multiple negative biases toward people of color harm them way more than the few negative biases toward white people.

  • Try this for yourself: Make lists for each of those four categories. Notice how easy or difficult that was for each, and how long each list is. Notice how much or how little the qualities on each of those lists affect the material quality of life for the majority in that category.
  • This is also about racism. Left unconscious and unchecked, our negative unconscious biases have disproportionately negative impacts on people of color. The word “racism” need not be stated to make this important point. This discussion may take place during exploration of “insider-outsider” groups, which form along all aspects of human difference.

4. Allow participants to feel some degree of unease. Guilt is healthy, but shame is not. Guilt — highlighting a gap between a person’s intent and impact, between their values and behavior — can be a powerful motivator for change. It’s powerful and generative as long as they stay out of shame — feeling like a bad or wrong person for having the gap.

5. Focus on behavior, not thoughts.It’s not effective to tell people to constantly monitor their minds for biased thoughts, or imply this is the way to go. Such a message increases anxiety, guilt and a sense of powerlessness that doesn’t lead to creativity or more effective behavior. It’s also neither possible nor effective to focus on thought policing — it’s exhausting, and there are always mental processes operating outside our awareness. Instead, focus training participants on noticing their thoughts (with humor, curiosity and compassion), then disrupting their behavior by slowing down and choosing actions more deliberately. Unconscious bias only harms others or gets in the way of results when it translates into an action that has an inequitable or ineffective outcome — thoughts alone are relatively harmless.

6. Encourage responsibility and commitment to concrete actions.Learning about unconscious bias does not, and should not, let people off the hook — especially those who benefit more from positive biases and are harmed less by negative ones. Any unconscious bias training should include a discussion of the handful of research-based methods to reduce unconscious biases — total elimination of unconscious bias is neither possible nor desirable) and mitigate their undesirable effects. Training should also help participants identify specific effective behaviors and commit to implementation.

7. Follow up. Follow up. Follow up.Behavior change doesn’t come automatically after a workshop. Change is challenging and requires focused attention, opportunity and time to form and practice new habits, a culture that supports and reinforces the change, and accountability.

Racism — both our past history and current reality — shows up in our deep, collective unconscious biases. Overwhelmingly, these unconscious biases enhance white people and diminish people of color. They then express in our decisions and behaviors, reinforcing them in our brains. Disrupting such actions and putting systems in place to correct for our biases — without getting caught up in shame, guilt or silence — will, over time, allow for more diversity, inclusion and equity in the world and workplaces.

As diversity, inclusion and equity increase, our collective brain database about who belongs where and who has worth will shift. This will reduce our brains’ tendency to make snap decisions about other humans based on limited data that is inaccurate and inequitable.

Posted on

6 Reasons to Not Say ‘Caucasian’

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12

COVID-19 is rapidly changing how businesses operate. We recognize that organizations need an extra helping hand right now. So we’re offering our platform for free to new sign-ups over the coming months.

Sign up today and our Workforce Success team will gladly provide a personal, online walkthrough of our platform to help you get started.

Much has been made about how to refer to members of racial and ethnic groups of color in the United States — even how to refer to people in color in general. I myself have researched and written quite a bit on what to “call” Hispanics/Latinos and why. Yet very little is said about what to call white people.

I’ve noticed discomfort among white people with saying “white” or “white people” out loud. Perhaps this is because we don’t typically hear ourselves saying the word, but others (people of color) saying it about us — often when we’ve done something “wrong.” “Caucasian” seems to be considered a “more polite” term for whites, which is ironic because there really are no deeply offensive, racially traumatizing terms for white people anywhere comparable to those we use in great quantities for people of color. Really? “White” is an impolite term?

It’s this penchant for politeness that is whites’ Achilles’ heel when it comes to confronting racial issues. Beliefs about politeness get in the way of telling the truth, or talking at all. The history of race in the U.S., and its current reality, is anything but polite. Yet even young people have the sense that just making an observation about the race of a person or group of people is “racist.” This is dangerously superficial and borderline ridiculous. If recent events across the nation are any indication, our — and by “our” I mean white people — silence and overemphasis on politeness is stifling. Our discomfort with messiness, anger and guilt are major barriers to getting down to business and solving our deep problems of racial tension, mistrust and inequities. These are not going away, and in some ways they’re getting worse. Not naming them or not talking about them isn’t working.

In the interest of adding depth, clarity and frankness to our much-needed national dialogue on race, we should refer to white people as such, and not as Caucasian. Here are six reasons why:

1. Most white people in the U.S. today have no significant cultural or linguistic connection to their European countries of origin. I’m half German biologically — also French, Scots-Irish, English and Dutch. While I know a decent amount about these nations, resonate with the Scots-Irish heritage and know a lot about my family history, to call myself German American would not only be incomplete, it would diminish the more legitimate claims to that identity by Americans of recent German descent with meaningful cultural ties to that homeland.

2. Physical whiteness plays a much bigger role in white Americans’ lives than our European-ness, just like blackness determines African Americans’ lives and experiences more than their African-ness. Compare how a white African is perceived and treated with how a black African is, or how a black African immigrant’s experience differs from an African American’s. Culture does play a role, but much evidence indicates skin color (and its historical context) affects how others perceive and treat us — and then how we perceive ourselves and behave. Even though we share DNA, grew up in the same family and are “white,” my two darker-skinned siblings have experienced negative treatment and attitudes that I never have. Like us, people from mixed-race families or multiracial ethnicities like Hispanics/Latinos and African Americans have many stories to tell about how looking white, despite one’s actual DNA, cultural identity, or primary language eliminates barriers and brings advantages darker relatives don’t enjoy.

3. “Caucasian” is an outdated term that refers back to three limited, subjective anthropological categories created in the late 1700s. No person of color I know would find it more “polite” to be called “Negroid” or “Mongoloid” — the historical companions to “Caucasoid.”

4. “Caucasian” is geographically inaccurate. Most white people in the U.S. aren’t descended from the Caucasus region between Europe and Asia (touching Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) but from western and northern Europe. This was part of the confusion in identifying the Boston Marathoner bombers — they were Muslims from the Caucasus and therefore technically Caucasians, but few would identify them as white.

5. “White” is the racial option used in all federal data collection methods, not “Caucasian.” To be consistent is to communicate more effectively and reduce confusion and stress.

6. At its root, “Caucasian” is a pseudo scientific term used to create distance from race discussion or racial identification, often indicating discomfort with the topic. We do not need more distance or “polite” euphemisms to keep an awkward but increasingly necessary conversation at arm’s length.

There is some leeway. “European American” may work well for some, as “African American” does. In my part of the U.S. (New Mexico and parts of Texas), we prefer “Anglo.” But in general, let’s call ourselves what we are — white people — and phase “Caucasian,” along with its attitude of distancing and discomfort, out of our vocabulary.

Posted on

Why Treating Others With ‘Respect and Dignity’ Doesn’t Work

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12My last post, “Why Cultural Sensitivity Training Is Ineffective and Insensitive,” got more attention on social media than my typical Diversity Executive posts. One of the feedback themes was “How about treating everyone with respect and dignity?” It troubles me that such comments all came from D&I or intercultural professionals. We practitioners have a responsibility to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the concepts of our field than the public and our clients. Therefore, I will explain why the admonishment to “treat everyone with respect and dignity” is well-intended but limited, old thinking that’s even disrespectful and dangerous.

Everyone knows we’re supposed to treat everyone with respect and dignity.If this were all we needed, we wouldn’t have so many problems with people not feeling, or being, respected in our workplaces and societies at large. If you believe treating everyone with respect and dignity is a solution to our D&I (and human) problems, what evidence do you have that lack of respect is a cause of those problems? How many people have you met who do not have this value or intention? Are you 100 percent sure that was the cause of their unpleasant behavior? Does Donald Sterling not have this value? Do the white police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, not have this value? How about straight people? Men? Immigrants? Are you sure?

Personally, I’ve been in some pretty rough situations and I can’t be certain the entirety of our D&I problems can all be traced to the maybe five fearful, damaged people I’ve met in my life who might fall into that category.

Besides, values and intentions aren’t the problem — behavior is. Thus, treating everyone with respect and dignity doesn’t get at the root of the problem. I’ve come to three conclusions about the problem.

1. We don’t always know how to behave to comes across as respectful to others.Because what does respect look like? Dignity? This isn’t as simple as it sounds, and good intentions aren’t enough. This is where the Platinum Rule (do unto others as they would have done unto them) is far more effective than the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule works to teach basic empathy in a community where people are generally similar. That is no longer our reality, and the good intentions of the Golden Rule can have devastating negative impacts.

One of my main examples is from a tension-wrought neighborhood of the 1990s of my native Los Angeles, where an older female Korean shopkeeper gave her young male African-American customer his change by not touching him and pushing the coins across the counter. This was the most respectful way to interact with a customer in her cultural context, but this came across as deeply insulting to him, sparking community outrage and violence.

Workplace training programs that focus on respect, dignity and sensitivity weaken the more powerful, inspirational, evidence-based truth that should be the goal of all diversity and inclusiveness efforts: D&I gets us better results in what matters. Such programs are a lost opportunity and contribute to the “eye-roll” factor among our clients because this approach implies that people are childish or bad and don’t know or believe in the basic human value of treating others with respect. They don’t need a sermon or finger-wagging. They need concrete information about effective behaviors, help understanding why those behaviors are effective, opportunities to practice new behaviors and tools to develop ongoing self-awareness and the ability to be nimble and flexible with whatever shows up in their interactions.

2. We don’t listen or respond effectively to feedback (direct or indirect) saying that we are not coming across as respectful.When we get this feedback, we usually react defensively, trying to justify our good intentions and why the other person shouldn’t feel that way. We respond that they should feel grateful. We might imply they’re imagining things or exaggerating. We don’t believe that their experience is real, and patronize them by categorizing their reality as perception and ours as fact. Ferguson is just one more example of the myriad ways the African-American community has been giving the white, European-American community feedback about how disrespectful our behavior is, and most of us have yet to truly hear, believe their experience is real and change our behavior.

3. When a human’s reptilian “downstairs brain” is triggered by a perceived threat, our brain’s higher functions literally go offline, and we often behave in a way that is neither respectful of others, nor an expression of our best selves.Knowing such behavior isn’t OK doesn’t keep us from doing it. Reminding us we’re supposed to be more respectful doesn’t help. What helps is developing emotional intelligence and self management skills. What can also help is holding each other fiercely accountable and co-creating cultures — in the workplace and beyond — where clearly defined disrespectful behaviors are not tolerated.

Let’s evolve the conversation about respect to a more effective, inclusive — respectful! — level and assume that people already know they are supposed to treat each other with respect and dignity. Instead, let’s get curious about why it’s not happening. Let’s focus on improving our behavior in ways that make a real difference by developing our communication skills, improving our ability to hear and respond to feedback, honing our emotional self management and holding each other accountable.