Author: Andie Burjek

Posted on

Why Cultural Sensitivity Training Is Ineffective and Insensitive

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12Lately I’ve been getting inquiries about doing cultural sensitivity training. Such requests usually rub me the wrong way and prompt my curiosity. What’s underneath is usually benign and sometimes inspiring, but requires some education and exploration.

Cultural sensitivity rubs me wrong because it’s ineffective and even insensitive. There are three reasons. First, it indirectly calls out a limiting belief that the solution is that “we” need to be more “sensitive” to “them.” This belief is well-intended, but often has negative effects. Typically it carries an unspoken, even unconscious racial tone — a belief that white people need to be more sensitive to people of color, or to a particular racial or ethnic group. It reinforces a perceived or real power imbalance — a notion that the solution to a problem is that I be more sensitive to you. This implies that you are fragile and need to be handled gently so you don’t break. It also implies that the success of our relationship is entirely my responsibility — perhaps because you are incapable of being a full adult or equal partner. My colleague Simma Lieberman makes a strong case for how sensitivity training is patronizing and even damaging to the targets of the sensitivity.

The “we need to be more sensitive to them” belief is incomplete and imbalanced, which is why white people tend to eye roll or resist anything called sensitivity training. Also, communities of color and non-dominant groups in general don’t want cultural sensitivity training, nor do they want to be the subjects of such training. They don’t want more compassion. They want meaningful action, tangible results, an inclusive culture and equitable treatment — a work environment where everyone feels safe and welcome to bring their full and best selves to work. Perhaps in your organization the intended subjects of cultural sensitivity want something else. Have you asked?

Second, not only does “cultural sensitivity” training (indirectly) place responsibility entirely on white/dominant group members, but it also doesn’t usually build new skills. Participants are given generalized, sometimes stereotypical information about cultural or racial groups, perhaps walked through ways to build awareness, then sent back to their job duties tasked with being more sensitive. This can create an environment of walking on eggshells that is a barrier to effective communication and authentic relationships. Because what does “sensitive” mean? What does it look like? How does it feel? What are the behaviors that come across that way? Those are the key, more meaningful questions to ask.

Rather than just learn about other groups, we need to develop intercultural effectiveness — the ability to be creative and flexible, connect authentically and equitably, and communicate effectively across human differences however and whenever they show up.

Third, cultural sensitivity training rarely has clear goals that get at the root of whatever problem needs to be solved. What is the problem that cultural sensitivity training is intended to remedy? Often it’s poor morale, communication disconnects, the fallout of a conflict, customer complaints or any number of human relationship problems. And what are the undesirable outcomes stemming from this human relationship problem? Attrition? Low productivity? High rate of major errors? Lawsuits? Lost market share or profit?

Getting clear about the problem allows you to get clear about your goals. What is the intended goal of the cultural sensitivity training, or your desired outcomes in general? Implementing a training program that has no goals, measurable results or clear outcomes tied to organizational mission and values is a waste of time and resources and one reason they fail. Is the goal more effective communication and authentic relationships? More joy, ease and humor in the workplace?

And what will you have once you have those things, that the organization values? Improved efficiency? Greater employee or customer satisfaction that leads to better results? Being better equipped for growth or change? Wilder innovation and creativity? Larger market share and higher profit? Once you know the goal, the next question is: What will get us there? Leadership coaching, better accountability or process improvement may be the answer, not training.

Knowing the true problem that cultural sensitivity training is intended to address, the organizational and business goals that will be served once that problem is remedied, aligning good intentions with positive and equitable impacts, and building effective communication skills across your organization will set you up for better success. Who knows, you might not need cultural sensitivity training after all!

Posted on

3 Surprising Reasons Diversity Training Fails

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12One of the most common requests that companies like mine receive from organizations is to do training. When done right and well, training increases knowledge, builds awareness and teaches effective behaviors. When done wrong or poorly, training is a waste of money at best, and harmful at worst.

To be effective and provide a high return on investment, diversity training should:

  • Be directly and clearly tied to measurable, meaningful business goals.
  • Yield a measurable improvement in participants’ awareness, knowledge and skills.
  • Be conducted by a company or individual who:
  • Conducts a thorough needs assessment around your training request, listens well and makes specific, well-supported recommendations that will meet your goals (which may look different from what you initially requested).
  • Is a good fit for your organization’s culture, values, goals, geography and stage of the D&I journey you’re in.
  • Is a strategic partner in meeting your needs — which means he or she will advise you and even push back in service of your goals and excellent results!
  • Demonstrates a concrete, meaningful return on your investment of dollars and the time participants spend in training. (If your training partner doesn’t know what a level 3 or 4 evaluation is, find someone who does!)
  • Build skills that are supported and sustained by your organization’s culture, systems and processes.
  • Be only one element of your organization’s broader commitment to excellence and high performance.

 

Having these elements in place will probably get you a B or B+ training. But to obtain a high ROI and an “A grade” diversity training, ensure the training includes at least two of these three additional surprising — yet critical — pieces:

  • Knowledge of how our brains work and why “bad stuff” persists despite all “the good stuff” we do. Exciting advances in brain science and evolutionary biology give us new and inspiring insight into our mammalian and primate heritage, and how most of our behavior is driven by unconscious biases outside our awareness, control and intention. Educating participants about how unconscious bias works and why our brains function the way they do opens up dialogue, awareness and receptivity in a way that the old “respect each other and be sensitive to differences” script hasn’t. It also tends to inspire buy-in, individual responsibility and meaningful change as long as unconscious bias training includes teaching effective behaviors that mitigate the negative effects of bias.
  • Sufficient work on the necessary internal self-awareness and emotional skills which build long-term competence that can apply to a variety of situations. A training that provides lists of tips or “do’s and don’ts” is narrow and even dangerous. Not only do such lists tend to (unintentionally) narrow our thinking or provide a false sense of security, they can reinforce stereotypes. They can also be incomplete or simply inaccurate since any identity group is extremely diverse and cultures are constantly changing. Effective training should build emotional intelligence, critical thinking, resilience, creativity, problem-solving abilities and a well-stocked toolbox of communication skills.
  • Attention to power differences and how these affect relationships, communication and outcomes. True, the workplace isn’t a democracy. But ignoring the existence of power imbalances — in your organization, on your team and in the world at large — is a tremendous blind spot. Poorly navigated power structures and ineffectively wielded power are demoralizing, inefficient and expensive. Looking at power differences and how these are working (or not) may be messy, but offers tremendous potential in clearing a path to the brilliance and excellence that are the rewards of a meaningful commitment to D&I.

 

Posted on

5 Myths About Unconscious Bias — And 6 Ways to Reduce It

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12There’s no denying it, unconscious bias is trendy. It’s so trendy, it’s even become an acronym in some of my circles, known affectionately as “UB.” But as often occurs when a term or concept becomes common or mainstream, myths and misinformation abound:

Myth 1: We don’t need to worry anymore about conscious bias or bigotry. We are not “post-racial.” Individual acts of verbal, physical and emotional violence against people due to their real or perceived group membership are still relatively common. One of my least favorite statistics is that the number of active hate groups in the U.S. has increased by 56 percent — to over 900 — since 2000, particularly since President Obama took office in 2008.

Myth 2: I don’t have any unconscious biases. It’s frightening to think we may not be 100 percent aware or in control of what we think and do. But brain science shows that if you’re a human being, your brain operates through biases. Homo sapiens evolved to constantly and unconsciously make immediate decisions based on limited data and pre-existing patterns. We are descended from the more skittish members of our species, so we’re hypersensitive to anything the old parts of our brain deems dangerous. Biases have thus served us for eons, and continue to do so, but are not effective in helping us interact effectively with diverse humans in today’s workplace. Bias elimination is not only ineffective, it’s impossible — the focus should be on bias reduction (see myth 5), choosing behaviors more mindfully, and mitigating any negative impacts of those behaviors. Check out “Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good People” for a fascinating read.

Myth 3: I know what my unconscious biases are. By definition, UB is — well — unconscious. You may have a sense of what some are, but be blind to others. Consider taking one or more of the well-researched Implicit Association Tests. Keep in mind that our UB can often conflict with our conscious beliefs and values, and we may even hold negative UB against our own group! I’ve been doing some form of intercultural or diversity work for almost 25 years and many of my early role models were African-American women, and yet I showed a negative bias toward African-American men on one of the tests. Rather than deny our UB, we can be curious about where they come from and how they get so ingrained in our minds despite our good intentions and be more mindful of our actions. UB only become problematic when they manifest in ineffective behaviors.

Myth 4: Hooray! Since everyone’s biased, we can move on from that tired conversation about racism/sexism, etc.! Although everyone’s biased, biases are not equal in their impact at a group level. Negative UB held by a numerical majority or power-dominant group have a disproportionate ability to do harm to numerical minorities or power non-dominant groups.

Myth 5: Since UB is unconscious, there’s nothing I can do about it. Excellent suggestions abound about how to mitigate the effect of negative UB in talent management and hiring practices through awareness, calibration and effective behaviors. However, there seem to be few evidence-based strategies to reduce harmful negative biases in the first place other than these:

  • Awareness of what our particular unconscious biases are (Pope, Price & Wolfers, 2014).
  • Empathy, particularly “perspective taking,” or the ability to feel or imagine what another person feels or might feel (Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson & Galinsky, 2011).
  • Exposure to counter stereotypical role models. (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004 and three other studies).
  • Exposure to positive images to counteract negative bias (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001).
  • Using imagery to imagine alternatives to negative stereotypes  (Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001).
  • Training to improve one’s ability to distinguish between faces of individuals in “other” racial groups (Lebrecht, Pierece, Tarr, & Tanaka, 2009, January).

 

What will you put in motion today to reduce the negative impacts of your unconscious biases?

Posted on

One Size Does Not Fit All: A Parable About Equity

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12I’m on planes a lot for business. Recently, on a full Southwest flight, I ended up in the middle seat of an exit row next to a very large man who was seated by the window. He was cordial, but visibly uncomfortable. His long legs extended into the empty space in front of him where a seat would have been had he occupied any other row. He politely tried to retract his substantial arms enough to allow my petite frame to have some room on the arm rest. I thought about what it must be like for him to have to cram his generous body into a “regular” seat, among unfamiliar faces, smiling uncomfortably next to a tiny porthole of a window, for three hours. I wondered how he’d gotten this particular seat — one of only two on the plane he fit into. Did he pay extra for business select priority seating? Did he wait by his computer to check in exactly 24 hours before his flight to win a low boarding position? Did he just hope an exit row seat would be available, or rely on the generosity of an earlier stranger to willingly give one up?

The airline’s well-intended, equal approach to seating was having an inequitable impact on its passengers. And such is the status quo in many well-intended organizations.

Equality does not equal equity. Equality is about being fair by treating everyone the same. It’s centered within the actor and focuses on their intent. Equity is about being fair by treating everyone differently, because people are different. We have different strengths, perspectives, qualities and needs — therefore treating everyone equally (the same) lands inequitably. Equity is centered within the recipient of the action and focuses on the actor’s impact. Equity requires more thought, creativity and collaboration, but equity is superior to equality when it comes to creating an inclusive environment where people can bring their full selves and do their best work.

Good intentions aren’t enough. A well-intended, equal approach can create inequities like suppression of creativity, diminishing of talent, unfair advantages and harmful conformity. Even well-intended organizations with a commitment to inclusiveness run rampant with “covering” — employees downplaying their differences in response to overt or subtle messages of “Don’t be 100 percent you, that will hurt you. Fit in to the dominant group.”

Even equal approaches aren’t always equal. The airline’s “first come, first served” approach still privileges those who know about it, who have a computer and Internet access, and who know how to work the system to their advantage. There are options to bypass the system altogether, such as paying extra money to purchase early boarding privileges.

There’s a common metaphor about organizational and team effectiveness that you have to have the right people in the right seats on the bus to move forward. But how do we determine what “right” means? How can we create an environment that celebrates the myriad ways people are unique and brilliant when all the seats are the same size (and move the same way, face the same direction, are served from front to back, etc.)? And where exactly is this bus going?

Creating a more inclusive environment requires clarity about what is needed to support brilliance and diversity, plus ongoing responsiveness to the diverse needs of individuals. It may be as involved as tearing out all the seats and starting over, reupholstering them in some colorful new fabrics and textures, or charting an entirely new destination. But it may be as simple as just noticing who’s lined up to board, and allowing the larger people to go first or saving them a seat that fits them better than anyone else.

Posted on

Four Steps to Achieve Inclusiveness

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12The new year is an ideal time to reflect on past triumphs and tribulations, and set the course for the days and months to come. Thoughtful attention to language is a critical way we create reality and set the stage for D&I success (see this post on the term “cultural competence.”)  One way to do this is to turn the “I” of “inclusion” into “inclusiveness.” To some, inclusiveness may sound the same as inclusion, but inclusiveness offers a subtle one-degree shift from old ways of thinking and better orients your compass toward the wildly successful results that D&I offers.

Inclusion, while a necessary counterpart to diversity, is a noun. It implies a static state, a reachable endpoint. It suggests something that can be easily measured and recognized. It’s a diversity 1.0 concept that might be achieved through what I call the Skittles approach: ensuring we have a colorful mix — gathering some of those (color, race, gender, age, type, etc.), and a couple of those, and a few of those. Colorful mix equals done! However, diverse mixes don’t achieve superior results by themselves — in fact, the mix without effective communication and positive relationships gets us more of what we don’t want in organizations, and less of what we do (see Scott E. Page’s work).

Inclusiveness is also a noun, but its root — inclusive — is an adjective that describes a state of being. Inclusiveness implies a dynamic, changing state that’s a moving target. It’s a diversity 2.0 (or 3.0) concept in that achieving inclusiveness requires ongoing attention, monitoring and dialogue. It’s never completely done. Its measurement requires creativity and flexibility.

How would you measure and achieve inclusiveness? First, get super clear on your D&I goals. This helps prepare your organization for the journey. D&I is not just about the mix but about leveraging the mix and making it work effectively to generate more brilliance and excellence. That brilliance and excellence should yield measurable results the organization cares about. Quantifying the impact of D&I on those measurable results should be the goal.

Second, determine what’s getting in the way of employees and leaders doing their best work, bringing their full selves to work, and enthusiastically contributing their brilliance and excellence. Is it substandard onboarding and training? Is it a lack of accountability and integrity? Oppressive or unfair policies or practices? Ineffective leadership behaviors? Poorly managed stress or ineffective communication? A little of each? What is at the heart of these gaps?

Third, identify what’s already working. Organizations can unintentionally damage or destroy what’s working well while attempting to solve problems. Identify what’s working and keep doing those things!

Fourth, act, with measurable milestones and a system of accountability to ensure goals are reached on time. Also, remain flexible and creative. Since inclusiveness is a shifting state of being, the challenges, opportunities, strengths, demographics and market are moving targets that require constant monitoring and nimble responses.

Arguably, one could follow the same four steps and obtain similar results while calling it inclusion, but if your goal is inclusiveness — a shifting state of being where diverse people bring their brilliance and excellence to work and generate results beyond your wildest dreams — why not call it that?

Posted on

Cultural Competence: What’s in a Name?

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12Some believe that words are mere descriptors of reality, but there is evidence that words also create reality. Scholars such as Benjamin Lee Whorf, and more recently George Lakoff and Lera Boroditsky, (also here) make a compelling case for the power of language to actually shape our experience, thoughts and perception.

As the term “cultural competence” grows as a buzzword in the D&I field, so does discussion about its appropriateness. Since the term is still fairly new, now is the time to consider what reality this word creates, and whether it’s the best expression of our ultimate goal. If our goal is to create commitment, initiatives and behaviors that result in all people receiving equitable, excellent and the most appropriate services, patient care and products possible, then cultural competence is an inadequate term for two reasons.

First, while competence is attractive and familiar in sectors like health care, it implies an end point or a check box. Neither exists when it comes to effective communication across differences. Providing the best, most appropriate services to a variety of people and populations is a moving target — fluid, contextual and evolving. And who gets to decide when this box is checked? Who defines, assesses and grants the competence at the fictional end point? Second, “cultural” is vague. For many, culture is proxy for race just like diverse often means people of color. While we in D&I know culture includes multiple identity groups, the word tricks people into thinking we’re only talking about race and language.

There are other possibilities, but most are also inadequate. Cultural empathy points to an adaptive internal emotional state, but no actions, behaviors or impact. Also, empathy is difficult for certain personalities, thinking types and industries to take seriously. Cultural humility has similar drawbacks. Cultural capacities refers to a finite end state and implies that some folks have it, and some don’t. Sensitivity and awareness are incomplete – an internal state only – and for many, cultural sensitivity elicits the fearful specter of blame-shame-walking-on-eggshells sensitivity training.

My colleague Andrés Tapia suggests we embrace crosscultural dexterity.  Dexterity is a vast improvement, but still implies a way of being instead of a way of behaving that meets a goal. Also, the term cross cultural refers to the comparing and contrasting of one group’s cultural patterns to another. Intercultural is the accurate term to describe what occurs when individuals from different cultures interact with each other. We need people to show behaviors that are effective during the (intercultural) interaction among members of different identity groups; we don’t need people to develop sophisticated (cross cultural) knowledge of different cultural beliefs and practices devoid of context.

Right now my preferred term is “intercultural effectiveness.” Effectiveness focuses on action. It focuses on impact, not intent. Effectiveness is fluid, contextual and constantly evolving. It moves us toward our goal of equity, excellence and appropriateness. To be effective, we need three things — awareness, knowledge and skills. Skills are useful insofar as they are effective, and one’s awareness, knowledge or internal emotional state (empathy, humility, etc.) are irrelevant if one lacks skills. The point of empathy, humility and sensitivity is what we do next in a situation to interact effectively with others and get a better result for everyone.

A close second is cultural responsiveness, used widely in Australia. Their Cultural Responsiveness Framework and Cultural Responsiveness Plans required for health care are excellent examples ahead of what we are doing in the USA.

Words create reality. What is your goal with cultural competence? What is the reality you want to create? Perhaps using a different term will be more effective!

Posted on

Is Our Goal Equality or Equity?

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12On Aug. 28, we will mark 50 years since the March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech. With the recent not guilty verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman for having shot and killed unarmed African-American teen Trayvon Martin, racial tensions and familiar questions are bubbling to the surface, and many are questioning how much progress has been made in diversity and inclusiveness since 1963.

One of the ways we can move forward and change the old scripts is to focus on equity, not equality.  Equality, according to Webster’s Dictionary, means “as great as,” “the same as,” or “like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.” King only mentioned equality twice in his “I Have a Dream” speech, and while he was likely referring to the “as great as” meaning of the word, it’s the latter definition — a sense of uniformity and sameness — and its lack of desirability that seems to be coming out in many opinions lately regarding race in the U.S.

While most people profess valuing human differences to some degree, and decry any attempt to make us all “the same,” few truly believe or comprehend the real and profound differences in people’s perspectives and lived experiences. We assume that people are like interchangeable machines, believing that the justice system metes out objective decisions equally to all, and that had Zimmerman’s and Martin’s roles or races been reversed, the outcome of the trial would have (should have) been the same.   We assume that the N-word uttered by young black males to each other in friendly social settings is the exact same N-word spoken by white celebrity chef Paula Deen to her husband and employees.

However, these assumptions are naïve at best and dangerous at worst. We are not apples and apples. Even when we speak the same words and perform the same actions, they are not the same. There is a different context, history and impact in those scenarios depending on who the players are. Arguing about whether or not it should be that way is moot.

Equality is a “universalist” approach, centered within oneself, applying one set of rules to vastly diverse people and situations. It focuses on keeping my behavior consistent. It says “I treat everyone equally.”  Equity, defined by Webster’s as “the quality of being fair or impartial” and “that which is just,” is centered on others, on keeping the impact of my behavior on diverse others consistent. For instance, my parents had one set of rules for all three of us kids about how old we had to be before getting our first watch, first bicycle, first bra, etc. The well-intended, theoretically “fair” uniformity (equality) of those rules turned out to be very unfair (inequitable) in their practical application given that we had different needs and maturation rates.

King didn’t mention equity in his speech, but he did mention justice eight times, and injustice three times. I suspect he’d think that fairness and justice (equity) is preferable to sameness (equality). And I suspect he’d believe that regardless of our good conscious intentions, it’s the impact of our words, actions, policies and systems, and whether or not those are equitable, that matter more. Besides, “equity” also refers to a security representing an ownership interest in an investment. And isn’t it time we all held more equity in D&I and its dream deferred of excellence and brilliance?