Diversity is being heralded as both the right thing to do and a smart business decision for employers. But does the data show widespread diversity in the workplace yet?
Human Capital Media’s Talent Tracker is a custom analytics service developed by the HCM Research and Advisory Group. Talent Tracker integrates data from open sources originating from the U.S. Census, the National Center for Educational Statistics, World Bank and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here are some of the latest statistics about diversity in the workplace.
Progress has been made in terms of women’s equality and protection over the past 10 years.
In fact, it was recently the 10th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.
While there have been significant strides in reducing gender bias, harassment and sexual misconduct, clearly there is still work to be done. The #MeToo movement has been an important driver in bringing to light numerous cases of sexual abuse and misconduct.
However, it has also had the unintended consequence of causing men to refrain from interacting with women for fear of retaliation. Considering that male executives play a key role in advancing women into higher levels of leadership, this fear must be taken seriously because if unaddressed it leads to workplaces where there are fewer opportunities for women’s career advancement and informal coaching. Bloomberg recently conducted interviews with more than 30 senior executives that suggest many are startled by the #MeToo movement — some for good cause while others succumb to fear and retreat from supporting leadership diversity.
This is a huge problem for women, men, the companies they work for and society as a whole. When men shy away from mentoring women and helping them advance in their careers, it hurts everyone. Likewise, it is shameful and unacceptable when women are objectified, threatened or harmed.
In both cases no one wins. The outcome of the #MeToo movement should not be that we reverse progress on increasing diversity in leadership but that we are creating opportunities for women and men to thrive.
This shift needs to happen at the organizational level with changes implemented by leaders so that men can invest in the career advancement of women without fearing they will be classified as #MeToo participants and so that women will have confidence that they are working in a safe environment. These changes should include:
Providing sexual harassment and communications training for men and women. Employees and managers need to understand what is acceptable and what is not. Men and women respond to nuance differently, and everyone needs to understand what behavior crosses the line. Insight on how to be friendly, kind and foster appropriate relationships will benefit both men and women at all levels within the organization.
Ensuring there are confidential reporting protocols in place. All employees need to have a clear and confidential venue to report misconduct so they will not be retaliated against by their colleagues. Similarly, they need to know that because they are empowered to report any misconduct (perceived or overt), their concerns will be taken seriously and senior leadership will take appropriate and supportive action. By formalizing the process, men will feel confident that if a woman retaliates and misuses her power in a destructive way there is a recourse. Both men and women should not be driven by fear but rather they should understand that if they adhere to clearly specified boundaries and are treated unfairly, they will be supported.
Making evaluations less ambiguous. We know that when there is ambiguity in assessments it can lead to bias. An article in the Harvard Business Review sums it up as, “Without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race and other stereotypes when making decisions — instead of thoughtfully constructing assessments using agreed-upon processes and criteria that are consistently applied across all employees.” When managers use comparable data to evaluate employees and include insight from subordinates, peers and other leaders as well as self-evaluations it will help ensure that constructive criticism relayed to a subordinate is not viewed as subjective, but in fact is based on data and information gathered from multiple sources.
Rewarding positive behavior and swiftly addressing inappropriate or illegal actions. By recognizing men and women who serve as successful models of mentoring colleagues, leaders will gain confidence and others will better understand the best way to help both men and women advance in their careers. Likewise, punishing the bad actors will improve working conditions for everyone.
Men and women are asking some important and tough questions about the workplace. Women have earned a seat at the management table and are rightfully demanding it. The #MeToo movement has been a powerful force for change in bringing to light sexual harassment and misconduct and removing perpetrators from positions of power. It’s time to capitalize on that momentum and change our workplace policies — starting from the top down — so that we can turn the #MeToo era into a movement that is constructive, encourages human interaction and supports appropriate career advancement.
The first — a boy bullied and called a “sissy,” a man grabs at a woman’s behind, a businessman condescending to a female employee. During, a voice over notes that men make “the same old excuses”: Boys will be boys.
Then, vignettes of men doing better — intervening against sexual harassment, being attentive fathers to their daughters, promoting peace over violence.
The tagline: “Bullying. Harassment. Is this the best a man can get? It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more, that we can get closer to our best. To say the right thing, to act the right way.”
This message should not be controversial. But it has been. Very.
Piers Morgan: “The subliminal message is clear: men, ALL men are bad, shameful people who need to be directed in how to be better people.”
A slew of folks on Twitter who are calling for people to #BoycottGillette.
Here’s the thing. Gillette’s add calling for an end to toxic masculinity isn’t the problem. Toxic masculinity is the problem.
We men can, should, and must do better. #MeToo isn’t a catchphrase, it’s a philosophy. Equality should not be controversial.
And yet, it is. Until we men do better — until we stop bullying those we see as weak or un-masculine, until we stop grabbing and groping, until we stop condescending to those who we view as different or weaker, and start treating women as equals, intervening to stop harassment, and being better role models — harassment and discrimination will continue to plague our society and our workplaces.
I fully recognize that a sizable portion of my readers will take issue with my stance on this commercial and this issue. And that’s OK.
The ad is designed to spark debate. So let’s have a debate. Defend your position that the ad insults men. Without debate nothing will change.
And on issues of gender equality and sexual harassment, change is long overdue.
“How can I do what you do?” asked a bright young woman on the phone one spring morning. She enthusiastically described how she’d studied and experienced various cultures and was inspired to do work that makes a difference.
She’d read some of my articles, saw me speak and felt a spark of connection. She wanted to turn her passion and values into a career, like I had. And because she was resourceful, she reached out for advice.
One of the joys of being a mid-career D&I professional is that I often get inquiries like this. One of the burdens, however, is providing a helpful response to new professionals facing a world that’s quite different from the early ’90s landscape I navigated, yet troublingly similar.
What’s different is our technology, our demographics, our polarized politics and a resurgence of overt white supremacy and bigoted violence. What’s the same is the lack of credibility many D&I professionals command relative to other professionals and organizational functions. I believe one of the reasons is insufficient rigor in developing the necessary skillset to garner results that matter and exude excellence.
Here are four keys that will equip D&I professionals at any career level to embody excellence and establish themselves as best-in-class D&I professionals, indispensable to those we serve.
Identify and live from your personal “business case.” I’m struck by D&I practitioners who have no substantive answer to the question: “Why do you do this work? (How do you benefit?)” “New school” D&I isn’t just about helping others. It’s about creating a world that works better for more of us and attaining meaningful results that matter. Best-in-class professionals work from their heart, mind and soul, and have personal skin in the game. Being grounded in the heart balances intellectual rigor, and adds depth, integrity and authenticity to our work. A personal business case provides motivation and inspiration when we’re weary. My personal business case is that from a very young age I experienced and witnessed firsthand how traits over which people have no control (sex, race, nationality and social class) can cause other people to treat them as less than they are, thwarting their happiness and ability to contribute.
A personal business case requires not just knowledge of self, but clarity of values and vision. I deeply value integrity, authenticity, excellence, connection and expression. My vision is a world where everyone has access to all the knowledge and resources necessary to live their happiest, healthiest life, contributing their brilliance for personal fulfillment and collective benefit. I stand for a world where we get out of each other’s way — and our own way.
Do your personal work. Having personal skin in the D&I game and caring about people means that the work can be emotionally triggering and exhausting. Those of us who are especially sensitive and empathic can experience second-hand trauma or be re-traumatized by interpersonal dynamics in a workshop or workplace. I’ve witnessed how a facilitator can injure workshop participants through ineffective behaviors driven by their unresolved anger or guilt. I’ve seen how leaders driving organizational D&I initiatives can subvert their own efforts through counterproductive behaviors stemming from exhaustion, mistrust or shame. Many of us who do D&I work do it because we (or a loved one) have been wounded in some way. Do not allow the impact of this important work to be diluted or tainted by you trying to resolve your personal pain through the work alone.
There’s a saying: “If you don’t heal what hurt you, you bleed on those who didn’t cut you.” While it’s true that if we all waited to tackle D&I work until we were fully healed that the work would never happen, it’s critical to be on a path of personal growth. Become intimately acquainted with (and honest about) your motivations, triggers, weaknesses and sore spots. Build keen self-awareness and be in ongoing curious dialogue with yourself about what’s going on with you and how you can develop. Build your emotional intelligence and resilience. If you’re a facilitator, hone your ability to self-manage, and develop a superpower around being present, relaxed and extremely attentive to the subtleties of human communication. Engage difficult questions — in the classroom and the field — with curiosity and courage. Establish healthy boundaries in all areas of life, practice radical self-care, and invest in your physical, mental, emotional and spiritual wellness. And forgive yourself for your shortcomings and bad days!
Be highly competent in multiple areas of D&I. D&I professionals who seek to be expert trusted advisers should be able to effectively answer a broad array of “diversity” questions. At the very least, you should have sophisticated knowledge about the history, terminology and practical applications of: (1) race/ethnicity (including racism), (2) sex and gender (including sexism), (3) LGBTQQIA+, (4) disability, and (5) major local racial/ethnic/cultural groups (in the U.S.: African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans). You must also be well-informed about the growing body of research establishing the organizational business case for diversity and the myriad tangible benefits of inclusion. You should know the basics of the latest brain science that impacts our current understanding of bias and interpersonal communication. You should read widely, listen to podcasts, attend conferences and lectures and stay informed about local and global current events. As a bonus, become familiar with the decades of theory and knowledge amassed in intercultural communication, a field similar to D&I.
Be highly competent in an area outside of D&I. Best-in-class D&I professionals are well-versed in at least one additional area outside D&I, such as organization development, leadership development, human resources, professional coaching, training facilitation/design, adult learning, assessment, business administration or international management. Many have first-hand leadership experience, have worked abroad, and/or speak more than one language. These skills equip the D&I consultant to accurately assess a client’s current state, identify strategic opportunities, and make impactful recommendations (read this article for more guidelines for consultants). They also equip the D&I facilitator to establish credibility, better understand their workshop participants and serve them where they are.
“Some think my standards are too high,” I told my caller that morning. “It’s true these are high expectations,” I added, “but they’re not unreasonable.” No one says the professional standards set for attorneys or accountants are too high, and we’re just as necessary. Expecting anything less than these four keys from D&I professionals is to diminish the quality of our expertise and its crucial importance to the success of organizations and the societies they shape and inhabit.
Estefany Martinez-Gonzalez and Imelda Lucio Lopez, both crew members at a McDonald’s restaurant in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and both Hispanic, claimed that their employer discriminated against them by requiring them to speak English at work (as opposed to their native Spanish).
Taking the record as a whole, no reasonable finder of fact could find that Lakeshore had a policy and culture of requiring its employees to speak only English. Lakeshore … filed seven declarations demonstrating that the so-called English-only policy could not exist because employees attested that they speak Spanish in the workplace or know of employees who openly speak Spanish in the workplace without reprimand. Martinez and Lopez do not contest either the factual veracity or the legal significance of the declarations. Instead, in support of their argument, Martinez and Lopez cite to two instances where Martinez stated she was told to speak English and one instance where Lopez testified she was told to speak English. Martinez and Lopez cite no disciplinary records in which they were reprimanded because they were speaking Spanish.
Thus, there was no evidence to support the existence of an English-only policy. That said, English-only policies certainly raise legal red flags.
As immigration and immigration reform continue to be hot-button political issues, employers take a big risk when they require all of their employees to speak only English at work.
The EEOC’s position is that a “rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace is a burdensome term and condition of employment” and presumptively “violates Title VII.” According to the EEOC, an “employer may have a rule requiring that employees speak only in English at certain times where the employer can show that the rule is justified by business necessity.”
The majority of federal courts, however, have shown slightly more tolerance of “English-only” rules. Generally, courts will uphold an English-only rule if the employer can show a legitimate business justification for the requirement. Examples of legitimate business justifications that have been found to justify an English-only requirement are:
Stemming hostility among employees.
Fostering politeness to customers.
Promoting communication with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English.
Enabling employees to speak a common language to promote safety or enable cooperative work assignments.
Facilitating a supervisor’s ability monitor the performance of an employee.
Furthering interpersonal relations among employees.
Thus, employers should be careful to limit the reach of an English-only requirement only as far as is necessary to reach the articulated business rationale for the policy. For example, English-only requirements have been struck down as discriminatory where the policy included lunch hours, breaks and even private telephone conversations.
If you are considering an English-only requirement for your business, you should not do so without consulting with employment counsel to ensure that the policy is not discriminatory as written or as applied.
It’s tempting to focus on the naysayer. It’s easy to give those loud voices of dissent all our attention. It’s not our fault.
We evolved to be somewhat anxious and pessimistic since hedging our bets and lowering our risks kept our ancestors safe. We focus on the loud voices of dissent because they might be right, and heeding their warnings might avert disaster. But sometimes the naysayers are simply afraid, and not only is there no significant danger in the valley beyond, its abundance could sustain us for generations to come.
When it comes to leading diversity and inclusion efforts in an organization, there are three major pitfalls in the way D&I champions treat D&I naysayers.
Allowing efforts to be distracted or derailed by the naysayers. Change theorists have found about 14 percent of people are “early adopters” who immediately jump on board with a new idea, while up to 15 percent resist. D&I changemakers who focus most of their attention on converting the small minority of D&I naysayers allow early adopters to languish with no direction for their crusading energy. Meanwhile, the undecided or neutral majority stays neutral — or worse, begins to be swayed by the naysayers. Either way, precious time and opportunities are lost.
Ignoring the naysayers’ voices completely. Depending on who the naysayers are and what they’re saying, ignoring their voices completely can stall or destroy progress. When I was the internal D&I changemaker in a former organization, I made a critical error by trying to minimize and circumvent a naysayer who also happened to be the chief human resources officer. While his political influence was waning, and that of my C-suite boss was on the rise, the CHRO still had the ear of the CEO, and he was the ultimate decision maker regarding personnel policies and the training and leadership development department. If I had been more strategic in my relationship building and more patient with the pace of power shifts in my organization, we could have gained traction more quickly and I could have increased my credibility and influence more easily.
Dismissing or shutting down naysayers during trainings. An unskilled facilitator may minimize the questions or opinions of a person pushing back on D&I concepts during training, communicating indirectly (sometimes directly) that their point of view is less important than others in the room. The facilitator may try to convince the naysayer to “get on board,” wasting precious time proselytizing to the D&I naysayer while neglecting the session objectives and ignoring other participants’ learning needs. Both tactics are ineffective because they are not inclusive behaviors and therefore lack integrity with D&I principles. The first is disrespectful to the naysayer; the second is disrespectful to the entire group. Both are unwise because D&I naysayers are often bright, caring people who raise valid concerns, or important fears that must be taken seriously and addressed to ensure the success of the initiative, especially if the naysayer is a major stakeholder!
To avoid these three pitfalls, implement the following best practices for easier, quicker D&I success:
Harness the enthusiasm of the early adopters. Give formal and informal D&I champions something to do right away. Make sure these tasks are meaningful and aligned with broader strategic D&I goals so you don’t waste energy and lose momentum.
Focus on converting the undecided middle. Harnessing the early adopters will do much of this work for you. In addition, determine what the barriers are for the undecided. Are they overworked? Tired of flavor-of-the-month initiatives, waiting to see if this one is for real? Unsure why the organization is launching a D&I initiative? Unsure what it has to do with their job? Invest in internal marketing and communication to ensure your messaging is simple, accurate, inspirational, aligned and addressing the barriers of the undecided. Tell people what to expect, why it matters, and how they can contribute. Also, give change time!
Listen to, and involve, the D&I naysayers. This may be especially difficult for D&I changemakers if the naysayers represent a demographic or political affiliation the changemakers find difficult or threatening. But naysayers typically express their concerns because they care about the organization and want to make a difference, and inclusion includes everyone. Listen openly and with curiosity to their concerns — one-on-one, in training sessions, and in meetings. Role model inclusive leadership by checking your assumptions and seeking to understand. The naysayer may give you the gift of identifying a misperception that can be clarified, a valid concern that must be addressed, or a blind spot you missed. I’ve found that some naysayers become powerful allies once they’ve been heard, taken seriously and included in problem solving.
Leverage the skills and energy of your natural champions, focus most of your efforts on the undecided middle and don’t ignore the power of the D&I naysayer. Because while any change requires fired-up champions equipped with the proper tools, there are few with more zeal than the convert!
Susana Rinderle is a principal consultant with Korn Ferry, and a coach, speaker, author and diversity and inclusion expert. The postings on this website represent my own personal views and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Korn Ferry International or any other organization with which I may be affiliated. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
A new survey questions many of the stereotypes attached to millennial workers.
I do not like stereotypes.
They’re simplistic and occasionally – maybe more than occasionally – stupid. And while there is some truth to them in the same way people who share an astrological sign also share some personality traits, large group assumptions are so easy to disprove it’s ridiculous. There’s always one or two standouts in the group who are so fabulous. Then, if you’re reasonable, you have to question everything.
For instance, popular generational comparisons posit that most millennials are entitled and lazy. It’s just not true. You know why the older generations are so quick to pooh-pooh millennial ideas and work habits? Fear. Fear and faulty memories.
Gen X or boomer leaders see all of that energy, that certainty not yet terribly shaken by life’s turbulence, and they forget that they were once like that. We forget that we too wanted information and opportunity sooner rather than later, and that we didn’t – we don’t – necessarily want to wait until someone else is ready to give it to us.
Take my former direct report Kate, for instance. Tall, white, perennially cute with short, spiky brown hair and an excellent earring aesthetic, she’s upper middle class, funny, smart and one of the hardest workers I’ve met of any age. The girl is a rock star, and I miss her every day. She asked questions, yes, lots of them; but she was respectful, she always took the initiative, pitched in when our backs were to the deadline wall, never shirked a task – no matter how small – and she listened, very well.
She saw the value in my old lady wisdom – my words, not hers – and she soaked it up like a sponge. She also skipped off to a better job after less than two years, and I wasn’t mad at her. It was an opportunity, and one should never turn one’s nose up at a great opportunity.
You know what else? Millennials have much better attitudes about diversity and inclusion than other generations. This is my personal observation as well as the dominant message from some new research I was briefed on this week.
The Institute for Public Relations partnered with Weber Shandwick to survey more than 1,000 U.S. adults this past August, then they analyzed the data to determine various perceptions about diversity and inclusion by generation. The result was Millennials@Work: Perspectives on Diversity & Inclusion, and one of the standout findings was that 47 percent of the millennials surveyed believe that diversity and inclusion is important criteria they actively look for in potential employers.
Sarab Kochhar, director of research for the Institute for Public Relations, told me the idea that millennials are the least engaged of other generations, that they’re primarily seen as job hoppers, is faulty. Then she reiterated that D&I is an important factor in millennials’ job search. She didn’t say it explicitly, but I’m comfortable making a connection between those two pieces of information: Diversity and inclusion is important for working millennials. Maybe it’s so important, when they don’t get it on a job, they bounce.
The survey data also showed only 44 percent of millennials agree that their employers do a good job communicating their diversity and inclusion goals. That’s not good. Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist for Weber Shandwick, said diversity and inclusion has to be mandated and discussed at the top to cascade throughout an organization. If it isn’t, and it’s important to you as an employee, that lack is a pretty good reason to leave a gig, no?
The survey also asked respondents to what extent do they hear or see any form of discrimination at work. Gaines-Ross said across the board the numbers were pretty high, but some 69 percent of employed millennials have seen or heard something related to discrimination at work; racial discrimination is a leading topic among millennials and Gen Xers. For boomers it’s age discrimination.
Not only are they good at spotting it, according to the data, millennials are also more comfortable talking about workplace diversity and inclusion than other generations. I’ve seen that at play many times. Older adults are more likely to change the subject when D&I topics come up. They’re eager to defend themselves and are far more interested in reducing any semblance of taint than they are in listening.
Kate, for instance, is great at listening with the purpose of understanding, not waiting for her turn to talk. Even when I can see that what I’m saying is making her uncomfortable or confusing her, she doesn’t shy away from the discussion. She just listens and asks questions. That’s what we should all do when it comes to diversity and inclusion. There’s no shame in not knowing, only in refusing to learn.
I’m not saying my former direct report is the poster child for millennials. Kate’s a special person, period. But she proves my point neatly: when it comes to generational stereotypes – any stereotypes – there’s an exception to every rule.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below, or please email editor@workforce.com.
A few people have emailed me since the election wanting me to write something scathing and heated about the outcome, but I didn’t for two reasons. One, the less I talk about that situation the better I feel. I have to live it, as do many Americans, and that’s more than enough. Two, politics has its connections, but not necessarily a place in this workplace diversity-themed blog.
That changed when I ran across an NPR article detailing the drama diversity trainers are facing post-election. The piece, from writer Kat Chow, described it as a heightened sense of us vs. them, and spoke from multiple diversity consultants’ perspectives.
For instance, consider Dorcas Lind. As the election results rolled in and it became clear that Donald Trump would be the next president, Lind, founder and president of Diversity Health Communications, wondered if she should think about another career.
Lind was shocked when she saw how many people supported Trump — “the stretch of red in her district, a New Jersey suburb, which she said had once been celebrated for its diversity.” She experienced feelings of hopelessness and futility as she contemplated the amount of work that needed to be done and her marked lack of interest in doing it.
Like many, Lind associated a vote for Trump with a vote for intolerance, the antithesis of strategic diversity and inclusion practice. But Chow wrote that many consultants are expecting an increase — however slight — in calls for business in the near future. Why? “The corporate world is a microcosm of the larger world. People who voted for Trump work at the same companies as those who voted for Hillary Clinton or other candidates. And with a contentious post-election environment, employees will inevitably clash over matters of race.”
Basically, HR and business leaders will be super busy, and many have little to no experience dealing with the kind of problems that will crop up thanks to the political polarization in the country right now. Lind said leaders will need to create an entirely new language to deal with the election aftermath. It sounds exhausting.
Chow also interviewed Luby Ismail, head of Connecting Cultures, a diversity consulting business in the Washington, D.C., area. Ismail, an Egyptian-American Muslim, helps companies like Sodexo, Nike and Walt Disney Co. better understand American Muslims and Arab-Americans. She said the quandary in the workplace — should we talk about politics and religion or not — is tricky because right now, since people actually need to talk about these things. They’re actively processing what’s happened and what are the potential implications for them and for their families.
There is no if. That us vs. them feeling, Trump vs. Clinton, or whatever camp you may fall into, will filter into the workplace. To ignore it, feeling that avoidance of this particular issue is possible because professional courtesy will mitigate or suppress issues, simply won’t work. To coin the popular vernacular, people are feeling some type of way about the current state of political affairs. And that’s putting it mildly.
Now more than ever diversity executives have to ensure that everyone’s concerns are addressed — including white men, said Doug Harris, head of the Kaleidoscope Group, a Chicago-based diversity company. “I think right now there’s a temperament within society of exclusion on both sides of the table,” Harris said. “And those who may have been seen to have been historically included are feeling just as excluded as everyone else.”
On the one hand, that shared sentiment might be used as a connector, common ground — however wretched and ill conceived — but it doesn’t make things any easier for diversity trainers and consultants who have to deal with this angst on top of historically rooted bias, ignorance, racism and all the other dimensions of diversity that we shake our heads over.
Lind said one can’t think of all challenges as equal because the rhetoric at play is, “One side has lost, one side has won, and everybody needs to get together and move forward for all Americans in the country.” Diversity executives and consultants are left to walk a very narrow and rocky line to keep everyone engaged in productive dialogue and to promote positive action and behavioral change.
Even using the word diversity before the word consultant is a problem for some. Leah P. Hollis, president of Patricia Berkly LLC in Philadelphia, specializes in workplace bullying. She said as soon as she uses the word diversity “she loses the room.”
It’s tough. Rather, it was tough before, and it’s even tougher now. Diversity executives have to not only pursue their individual missions to advance equality and tolerance and strategic diversity management for their respective workforces and businesses, they have to navigate a sticky layer of political sensitivity as well. I don’t envy them the task.
It reminds me of an old Guns N’ Roses tune, “Welcome to the Jungle.”
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Leaders must help establish a balance between politics and the workplace.
With the election just a couple of weeks away, one thing seems certain regardless of the outcome: It’s tough being American right now. Anxieties and tensions are high, and most of us feel threatened by the political rhetoric and what’s at stake, not to mention regular news about police shootings and other violence.
As we grapple with redefining ourselves as a nation, forward-thinking leaders in organizations are wondering: Do I say something about this? Do I do something? If so, what should I do?
The stakes are high and impact tangible. Like it or not, employees and leaders bring their fears and frustrations to the workplace, affecting communication, team dynamics, accountability, productivity and employee engagement. On top of that, organizations are struggling with new laws and policies about bathroom access, same-sex marriage and workplace safety. Add constantly evolving technology and the mandate to serve an increasingly diverse population, it’s a wonder we don’t see more nervous breakdowns and violence at work.
In deciding how to lead in the age of Donald Trump and #BlackLivesMatter, consider the following:
Inclusion means everyone is included. This includes Trump supporters, #BLM supporters, Clinton supporters, Bernie Sanders supporters, former cops and young activists alike. Diversity and inclusiveness isn’t about including only the type of diversity you like.
Inclusion does not mean all behaviors are included. People don’t have to agree on politics or even values to do effective behaviors that are experienced as cordial, respectful, professional and productive by others. Our nation — and others — were founded on this principle, and still strive to put it into practice.
The story you’re telling about conflict and change determines how you lead. Does our societal turmoil signal the destruction of our nation’s fabric? Labor pains of our emerging demographics and shifting values? An opportunity? The story you choose to tell about what this means and what’s possible will guide your decision making, problem solving, employee engagement and financial decisions.
Taking a stand on important issues of the day isn’t necessarily a “partisan” act, but a moral one driven by mission and values. A growing number of organizations (Huffington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, AT&T, Ben & Jerry’s) have made clear, public statements about race, Donald Trump or #BlackLivesMatter. Doing so may be exactly what your target market and employees — especially millenials — need to hear. Doing so may be an act of integrity in clear alignment with your vision, mission and organizational values. And while endorsing a political candidate might be strategically unwise or violate a core business agreement (as for many nonprofits), many issues that are labeled as “partisan” really aren’t. The #BlackLivesMatter platform is clear and could be supported by any political candidate or party, and one might make a statement about Trump’s behavior without endorsing Clinton.
This is about the legacy you create and the legacy you leave. As a leader and as an organization, how do you want to be remembered? What kind of future are you preparing to thrive in? What future are you creating? We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. but he was widely unpopular and considered a dangerous radical in his day. What side of history do you want to be on?
If you decide to take a stand:
Articulate the clear business case for your stand in terms of impact on your employees and customers, fulfillment of your mission and values, and the legacy you’re creating.
Provide clear, reasonable expectations for workplace behavior, and hold everyone equitably This includes top leadership. Banning conversations, personal opinions or expressions of support for candidates or movements may suppress energy that could be put to better use. However, behaviors that can be fairly and clearly identified as bullying, sexual harassment, disrespect, workplace violence, creating a hostile work environment or interfering with business operations should not be tolerated. Weigh the pros and cons of your policies and expectations in alignment with your values and business goals, focusing on impact over the intent of a behavior.
Go to the facts whenever there is confusion or disagreement. Research shows which direction our country’s demographics, values and beliefs have long been headed. Just look at Millenials. There are abundant data on what Trump has said and done, and the impact he’s having on kids and our mental health. There’s clear information about whether #BlackLivesMatter is a hate group, and what their goals are. While humans tend not to change our opinions based on facts (regardless of political affiliation), insisting on them may eventually cause a shift, or at least provide clear support for your position.
Listen to fully understand. One of the reasons movements like the tea party and #BlackLivesMatter and candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are so popular is because they appeal to a growing number of Americans who rightfully feel ignored, shut out, abused and talked down to by traditional institutions and leaders. When an employee or team has a concern — whether it’s related to the social issues of the day or not — give sufficient time to listen deeply from a place of curiosity, with the goal of fully understanding the person’s feelings and motivations as well as thoughts.
Get curious. Curiosity and anxiety live in the same area of the brain. Getting curious is one of the best ways to reduce your anxiety and increase your creativity. Getting curious about another’s story can reduce their anxiety, build a positive relationship and co-create workable solutions.
As the late author and philosopher Eric Hoffer said, “in times of change, the learners will inherit the earth, while the knowers will find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world … that no longer exists.” It’s up to leaders to decide which world we, and our organizations, will inhabit, and learn what’s necessary.
Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting LLC. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Bashing white people does nothing to solve the greater issues around workplace diversity and inclusion.
A white man emailed me recently, a software developer I’ll call Portland, since that’s where he comes from. He gave me permission to post and discuss his email — thank you, sir — but he asked to remain anonymous, which I respect. This is sensitive stuff, and while many of us are open to learning, we don’t need drama.
His words are in italics. My responses are in plain text:
I’m a software developer working for the City of Portland, Oregon; and I recently attended a meeting in my organization entitled “Celebration of Hispanic Heritage.” It was the first time I decided to go to — perhaps — “passively” participate in what the city calls an “Equity in Motion” event in a series of events/meetings meant to empower and help dignify “disenfranchised” members of the community — but really — to educate our own people.
This could be me — a professional wordsmith — reading too much into this, but if those quotes around passive and disenfranchised are your additions, Portland, I’m sensing some skepticism or at least disagreement with the foundation of the gathering. That’s OK. Skepticism can be healthy.
It was not at all what I was expecting. It had nothing to do with Hispanic Heritage nor was it a celebration. At the beginning of the meeting, our lovely host played a video depicting both Whites and Blacks as goofy imbeciles saying all sorts of careless, politically incorrect things in various conversations and settings with a “White Hispanic” woman who’s barely offended and just looks at her offender with a smile. This video was not only offensive to Blacks and Whites; but it was even more offensive to Hispanics because before the video was started, the audience was told the video is just meant in humor [to break the ice]. I thought it was in poor taste because it makes light of the very identity and dignity of Hispanics and sets a tone that equality and equity need not be taken seriously.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Portland. It’s important not to buy into and feed stereotypes — especially negative ones — even among members of the same group. Always, always, always portray strong, realistic, positive, diverse images so we can change the narrative, and constructively challenge the bias and ideas that pigeonhole minorities. Only then can we broaden the collective mindset with diverse thoughts, ideas and accurate, three-dimensional human portrayals. We don’t need to coon and perform to break the ice. A hello might work just as well.
You have to understand I work in a relatively professional environment where everyone is generally courteous to each other. That is, the City of Portland really doesn’t have a problem with employees with different backgrounds getting along. The real problem is people over socialize, but that’s another story. No less, it’s not like we’re running a failing trucking business with a bunch of disgruntled workers saying hateful things about each other and their boss behind their backs. Although the racial diversity of Portland is relatively low compared to other metropolitan areas, and the diverse makeup of our organization in fact relatively proportional to the population and more diverse than the population; the Office of Equity still makes a good effort to get the word out in an effort to hire more minorities.
Then the complete opposite occurred. The rest of the meeting took a 180 and consisted of the few Hispanic employees we have sharing where they’re from, how they got here, and then depressing instances of hate and/or discrimination they’ve suffered [from White people]. I put “White people” in brackets because the offenders were not always racially identified but implied to be White. This is the part that got me angry, because I felt like it was an attack on White people — to shame us — and, alas, on myself (as a White person).
Portland, I’m not being flip here, but this was a meeting for Hispanic people. Is it appropriate for you, a visitor, to deny them an opportunity to get some issues off their chest? The Hispanic people who were airing their concerns were upset too, and they are entitled to talk about why — just as you are — since they feel they’ve been mistreated. This was an appropriate venue for them to share their stories.
Therefore, listen; and listen to learn without taking things personally. Unless someone was talking to you, this isn’t about you. That’s easier said than done, I know. But part of creating inclusive cultures where diversity is truly a business advantage requires that we become comfortable with discomfort.
Discomfort is natural in any environment where there is difference, so we who appreciate diversity must therefore become agile, even diplomatic in how we deal with those differences. It would be wonderful if every meeting was candlelight and roses, but that doesn’t happen in most meetings, let alone one for an employee resource group. We can’t reasonably expect that minorities won’t have grievances, and then if they do, not to air them in an appropriate venue because there’s a white person present who might be offended.
But if there was no follow up, no discussion of action items, no learning, no takeaways or anything after the grievance airing, I query the group leader’s effectiveness. Or, I query the purpose for the meeting.
I think the audience had been duped with a bait and switch, if you will. People coming to the event were expecting some celebratory content such as, say, the historic triumphs of Mexican-Americans with the help of Cesar Chavez and perhaps a proud cultural exhibit.
I think you were expecting celebratory content. But I wonder if the other participants were. I know what the title was, what theme was advertised, but somehow I doubt most of the attendees were actually expecting a cultural exhibit. Employee resource groups have traditionally been opportunities to promote community and support for specific groups within the workplace. The best ones also have keen business connections, and they contribute with new products, services, process improvements, etc.
However, Portland, I can totally understand your shock when the content veered so sharply off course. It was quite natural to think there was something underhanded going on. To bill something as a historical celebration, for instance, and then not talk about historical celebrations at all is essentially a lie. At best, the meeting’s origins and purpose were not well conceived or thoughtfully constructed.
But it turned out to be a session of indirect bashing. I was very emotional by the end and when the host asked for feedback, a co-worker spoke for me saying the same. The host’s response was very callous: “Maybe you shouldn’t take it so personally,” she said, as she was turning away and continued on with the conclusion of the meeting. It seemed as if for an instant she was making a subtle statement, “That’s what you get for hurting us.” The host is a much older, nearly elderly African woman (actually from some country in Africa).
Her response does seem short. It wouldn’t have hurt her to address your concerns, at least suggest that you guys talk afterwards. But the personal comment, I’m afraid I agree with that. The meeting wasn’t for you. It also wasn’t about you. Therefore, it shouldn’t have been offensive to you. Easier said than done, I know, but this was no deliberate “attack on Portland day.” Consider the source, the venue, the unwritten purpose of the meeting. It could be it should have been renamed, “Get crappy treatment off your chest at 4 p.m.” But if it were, I doubt there would have been meeting space available.
As soon as I got home I started researching this phenomenon of diversity training in the workplace and what I’m discovering is a convenient indirect tactic of beating up on White people which is growing in popularity. As someone who came to that event willing to champion the cause of diversity, I felt betrayed and that an injustice had been done. On the other hand, if the host had prepared us by letting us know beforehand the intent is not to shame; then I would have been much more understanding and accepting of the content. But it seems the audience was tricked.
This wasn’t diversity training. It was an employee resource group meeting. And you can look up and find support for almost anything on the internet. Further, if you’re a true champion for diversity, one bad meeting won’t throw you completely off course. If anything, it will fire your passions even more because you’ll see the work that needs to be done, and you’ll gird your loins to do it because it’s not easy. It’s a battle, uphill, and for every success there are a dozen failures.
Your feeling of injustice is just that — your feeling. It’s not this group’s responsibility to pat you on the back and congratulate you for wanting to be open-minded. Also, you say the audience was tricked? But you only mention one other person who was upset. I don’t know if it’s appropriate for you to speak collectively for this group or audience.
However, I agree with you that a bit of context could have alleviated some ill feelings. A preface like, “I see we have some new visitors today. Please don’t be alarmed if we get a little personal. This is a safe space for us to share our workplace concerns,” would have been appropriate.
How do you feel about this tactic of White-bashing to audiences who are caught “off-guard?”
I think white-bashing stinks, Portland. It’s callous, silly and purposeless. It does nothing to solve the greater issues around workplace diversity and inclusion. On an individual level it barely gives you even momentary satisfaction. Organizationally, it may actually contribute to the very problems that lead to white bashing to begin with.
As for you being caught off guard. This was your first employee resource group meeting. Maybe you should attend a few more. Make some notes. Absorb what’s being said critically, and consider the speakers’ positions, concerns and how you might feel or behave in their shoes. Ruminate, and let your emotions cool. Then come forward and objectively state your opinions and offer suggestions on how the leader could make the meetings more productive, and more importantly, more inclusive.
Portland did talk to the employee resource group leader and share his suggestions to allow all groups involved to be able to comment and to keep the material at least as positive as it is negative. This is a follow up email he sent to me:
My final suggestion (kindly expressed) was to seek out an education in intergroup dynamics (social psychology) and intergroup conflict reduction. I don’t think my message got through, though. She insisted that an event for a certain group is their “space” and that it would be wrong to have White people controlling/changing up the material.
My first thought when I saw the phrase “kindly expressed” was, unasked-for assistance, no matter how well intended, is in fact interfering patronage. Portland, you may think the leader needs conflict reduction skills training, but that’s a sweeping judgment based on your attendance at one meeting. Further, you didn’t actually detail any conflict within the group. The conflict was with you and your reaction to the group’s activities.
The group does seem to have some issues: It was wrongfully billed/labeled, there were offensive images and activities, and on the whole it was not inclusive of other cultures or of diversity of thought.
Employee resource groups should be about teachable moments. Here, there were missed learning opportunities on both sides. But the dialogue has started, which is great. Now it’s time to do the work to find some consensus.
I get her point, but I don’t think she quite gets mine — that White people are being inadvertently demonized. I think she wants the White audience to go away feeling badly perhaps as a strategy. But most of us have been victimized by persons of another race or gender or sexual orientation. Seems like Whites are being singled out anymore based on the historical misgivings of the rich and powerful (who happened to be White). I can deal with the history lesson, but I’m not convinced of the suggestion of the case in today’s environment that Whites consciously oppress non-Whites (which is what these events are really suggesting). Really? Is it 1971 still?
Portland, I think your intentions are good. But you seem to have some pretty healthy skepticism about the purpose for the employee resource group or maybe about diversity and inclusion work in general? You say you’re not convinced that Whites consciously oppress non-Whites “which is what these events are really suggesting.” So, does that mean the opinions or experiences you heard from the Hispanic employee resource group members are untrue or exaggerated?
For many minorities it is very much still 1971. Our feelings about the reality of our lives and experiences are routinely denied. Many experts — of which I am not one — say that’s why racism, sexism, gender bias and all the rest of the -isms have not been successfully routed from life and from the workplace, because so many — particularly those who have power to change things — deny they actually exist.
Remember, just because these things are not a part of your daily reality — or your family, friends and even your community’s reality — doesn’t mean they aren’t incredibly real for others.
Discrimination is not happening like it used to. I would, for example, love to work with a team of Black co-workers but there aren’t hardly any Black computer programmers because they’re not going to college for that. What’s really going on here? Are we addressing the real, root problems? Or just scratching at the surface?
No, discrimination is not happening like it used to. Some things are not as prevalent, but it’s also happening in new ways now. It is still very much alive. We’re fighting many of the same battles we’ve been fighting for the past 40-plus years.
So, please, Portland, be careful with blanket statements. You don’t actually know what Black people are going to school for, do you? I have covered quite extensively the issues that women and minorities face not just pursuing and then advancing in tech careers, but even thriving in the academic environments they need to learn necessary job skills.
I’m grateful Portland was brave enough to write and that he gave me permission to share his words. He was open about his experience and his feelings around diversity, and that is important and rare — not just for a white man but for most of us. I hope I was reasonable and objective in how I addressed different points in his letter.
Some learning needs to take place. Not just for him, but for the employee resource group leader too. But he’s right to question: What’s really going on here? Are we just scratching at the surface when it comes to workplace diversity?
Kellye Whitney is Workforce’s associate editorial director. Comment below, or email editors@workforce.com.
The tagline: “Bullying. Harassment. Is this the best a man can get? It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more, that we can get closer to our best. To say the right thing, to act the right way.”
