July/August 2010
Worm's Eye View
By Deanna Hartley on 07-30-2010
It talked about how managers can sometimes become defensive if they are approached with the notion that they may be inadvertently discriminating against employees. The suggestion was for leaders, particularly in larger organizations, to employ anonymous employee surveys to get ground-level perspective on the corporate culture as well as insight into what diversity issues might need to be addressed.
It made me wonder, first of all, how many companies would consider doing this — especially considering this will most likely open up a can of worms that they don’t have the time, energy or resources to deal with. And for those organizations that already have such a process in place, how often are issues or concerns actually diligently followed up on or dealt with?
After all, how do you follow up with individuals if the surveys are anonymous? Then again, if employees are forced to identify themselves, they will be much less likely to divulge their true feelings about the goings-on in the workplace.
Do you think this is an effective process for identifying unresolved diversity issues? And, if so, what do you suggest as some next steps?
July/August 2010
Pieces of the Truth
By Kellye Whitney on 07-21-2010
I’m miffed at the media today. Actually, I’ve been miffed at the media for quite a while. It’s not a comfortable position for me to be in because I’m a journalist, but the older I get, the more I see how much the media has done to perpetuate racism, sexism and all the other “-isms” we tackle at Diversity Executive.
I understand why it happens. It’s about competition, ratings, advertising sales, viewer interest — all viable concepts that aren’t going away anytime soon. But there is a marked lack of responsibility, of conscience even, that is increasingly unpalatable and could be downright dangerous.
Shirley Sherrod’s situation is a prime example of what I’m talking about. In a clip posted on BigGovernment.com, Sherrod, a former director of rural development in Georgia for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, talked about the first time a white farmer came to her for help in 1986 when she worked for a nonprofit rural farm aid group.
According to AP, “She said the farmer came in acting ‘superior’ to her and she debated how much help to give him.
“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land,” Sherrod said.
“Initially, she said, ‘I didn't give him the full force of what I could do’ and only gave him enough help to keep his case progressing. Eventually, she said, his situation ‘opened my eyes’ that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was ‘about the poor versus those who have.’”
In a roughly three-minute clip posted Monday, her remarks, which were delivered in March at a local NAACP banquet in Georgia, were somehow used as evidence that the NAACP was hypocritical in its recent stance against racist elements of the tea party movement.
Sherrod said her comments were part of a larger story about learning from her mistakes and racial reconciliation, not racism. According to AP, “‘The white farming family that was the subject of the story stood by Sherrod and said she should stay [on the job].’
“‘We probably wouldn't have (our farm) today if it hadn't been for her leading us in the right direction,’ said Eloise Spooner, the wife of farmer Roger Spooner of Iron City, Ga. ‘I wish she could get her job back because she was good to us, I tell you.’”
Taking this woman’s comments out of context, essentially publishing the most sensational piece of a speech, caused many things to happen: A woman lost her job; President Obama has been dragged into a mess for the millionth time since he was elected, because he’s apparently connected to everything race-related in the frickin’ world; and, a piece of sensationalist, dishonest media completely obliterated what was essentially a positive diversity lesson learned.
July/August 2010
When Fear Trumps Productivity
By Deanna Hartley on 07-16-2010
The traditionally calm leader, who didn’t have trouble being candid yet tactful when he needed to, chose to block his emotions instead of addressing the issue, to the detriment of his show.
It raises an interesting question for diversity executives: How do you approach leaders who are not direct with or capable of disciplining minorities because they fear being perceived as being discriminatory?
July/August 2010
French Women Wear Beards for Parity
By Kellye Whitney on 07-08-2010
Diversity is serious business, but sometimes related topics still make me laugh. Case in point, I guffawed at “French Women Storm the Corporate Boardroom,” in a recent issue of Bloomberg Businessweek.
“A group of women wearing fake beards stormed the podium at Veolia Environnement’s crowded shareholders’ meeting in Paris challenging Chairman Henri Proglio over the gender makeup of his overwhelmingly male board,” said the article.
The idea of chic French women in beards is kind of funny, but apparently employers have to take these types of dramatic stunts seriously now that the French Senate is considering legislation to adopt quotas to boost the number of female directors.
“I used to be against quotas,” said French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde in the article. “You should stand on your own merits and you should be recognized as such. But things are moving too slowly. There will be a lot expected of women simply because there will be resentment on the part of those who will have to make space.”
French companies are reacting: making promises to increase gender parity, to shrink the size of their boards, even to bring the wives of prominent French men into the fold — anything to avoid the threat of penalties.
“It would be a huge mistake if boards make quantitative changes to their composition without improving quality,” Miriam Garnier, of the European Professional Women’s Network, said in the article. “… Adding women with political considerations in mind would be a terrible distortion of the law.”
Hmmmph. Sounds like a setup to me, and that’s undoubtedly what Lagarde was referring to when she said there will be a lot expected of women simply because of resentment. Perhaps too much will be expected, and from women who are ill-equipped to handle the gig.
Consider the following scenario: Woman enters board; she was appointed not because she is right for the spot but because her husband is “somebody.” She doesn’t do well and makes questionable decisions that jeopardize the company’s operations. Consensus? Women suck on boards. They’re not ready. They’re not good. That’s why they weren’t there. Heavy male sigh — we didn’t want it this way, but there it is. It’s not our fault; it’s out of our hands.
Nowhere will it be mentioned that the appointment was a sham and that several eminently qualified female business leaders, perhaps right there in the company, were overlooked or willfully not considered.
Clever. Diabolical, but clever.
July/August 2010
Lucrative, Deceptive Offers for White Males
By Deanna Hartley on 07-02-2010
According to aptly titled article “Rent a White Guy” in The Atlantic, this is apparently a viable — not to mention, legal — option for those who fit the bill.
I tend to exaggerate sometimes, but I seriously almost fell off my chair when I first learned of this.
So what’s the purpose behind this? To dress these foreigners — that’s what they’d be in China — in eye-catching formalwear and parade them about in order to give the company a better image. And the foreigners can earn a tidy sum by merely shaking a few hands and maybe publicly speaking at an event or two. Oh, and did I mention they could probably just kick up their feet and watch movies for the rest of the day?
Does anyone else find the idea ethically repulsive? In my estimation, it’s comparable to the fake reference services that some companies are allowed to legitimately offer. I’m afraid to ask what’s next!
July/August 2010
General’s Behavior Symptom of Deeper Problem
By Kellye Whitney on 06-25-2010
General Stanley McChrystal is no doubt ruing the day he spoke to Rolling Stone magazine. But I can’t help but think that all the hullabaloo around his resignation — and President Obama’s right or wrong handling of the situation — is just a cleverly disguised symptom of a simple problem: disrespect. And I don’t think all of it is intentional.
Our president has watched his approval ratings steadily decrease since he took office. No surprise there, really; campaigns and slogans and such rarely bear much resemblance to the reality of the work at hand — especially with natural disasters, a crappy economy and myriad other juicy paintballs thrown into the mix.
It’s the criticism of President Obama as weak, as someone who has somehow allowed his lack of favor to happen to him, that bugs me. Maybe he is. I’m no pundit, no genius at evaluating a man’s psyche from a great distance. Maybe he is misinformed or not informed enough, or not arrogant enough, but he’s also not getting the respect he’s due as the leader of this frickin’ country.
I read a fabulous article by Forbes columnist Dan Gerstein that offered a neat summation of multiple factors leading up to “The Runaway General” that support my point. This is one of the best:
“… in one of the biggest displays of Cabinet-level incompetence I can remember, [Interior Secretary Ken] Salazar pushed out [MMS director Elizabeth] Birnbaum the morning of a major Obama press conference without briefing the president. As a result, when Obama was asked about the move by a reporter, he was left looking clueless and feckless; his only response was to say he didn't know enough to comment. It was a silence that spoke volumes about his exercise of power.
“This isn't about showing anger or emotion, as some Obama defenders mistakenly suggest. Salazar shouldn't be canned because the public needs a scalp. The same is true for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who inexplicably declared the system worked in the Christmas Day terror bombing attempt after it obviously didn't. They should be fired because they showed horrendous judgment in a high-stakes environment, the kind that corrodes public confidence in their competence and thus the president's.”
I agree wholeheartedly with Gerstein that anyone and everyone seems to feel as though they can challenge the president, and that’s not necessarily a good thing, global unrest being as common as unemployment these days. Obama is responsible for some of this because he continues to behave elegantly rather than arrogantly.
He could slap these people — like Salazar — upside the head and get them straightened out. But the president can’t slap every wrist or fire every person who makes a wrong move. It would be too divisive in such a diverse cabinet. The main premise of diversity — and few would doubt that Obama’s presidency has the makings of a monumental case study in diversity at work — is giving all people involved the right to bring their thoughts, selves and everything else to the task at hand.
Having so many different personalities, strong personalities, attempting to work together is bound to create some issues, communication top of the list. McChrystal certainly had a problem with it. Obama chastising his people, at least openly, which the media and other stakeholders seem to want, would be like admitting that his diverse cabinet was a mistake, and it wasn’t. It’s just that diverse teams are tougher to handle.
What few, if any, are willing to say is that Obama is likely behaving in the only way he can while still being able to do his job without adding more stress to the pot.
July/August 2010
Diverse Individuals. One Goal.
By Deanna Hartley on 06-18-2010
The themes of forgiveness and reconciliation were intricately interwoven through the narrative — not to mention Mandela’s style of leadership that places the good of the nation over any selfish political ambition.
The film revolved around Mandela’s attempts as a leader to unify a nation brimming with racial strife by getting them on the same team, so to speak. The idea was to bring together diverse individuals by channeling their focus on a common goal; the goal in this case was winning the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
Given today’s reality that business interactions are truly global in nature and dictate the amalgamation of individuals with diverse backgrounds and disparate interests, today’s leaders must be prepared to take the focus off the self and unite the team members by shepherding them toward a shared goal or purpose, which will serve as a beacon of hope even in the midst of adversity.
July/August 2010
Millennials Should Try Harder to Fit In
By Deanna Hartley on 06-08-2010
Considering the mammoth role that millennials are playing and will play in corporate America, there’s a thing or two they can learn about how to fit in and be noticed. Wall Street Journal columnist Alexandra Levit spoke at a recent event about tips for millennials to have a smoother transition into the workforce and to work their way up the corporate ladder.
The first is for millennials to pay attention to their reputation — including what they wear and how they act during the recruitment phase — because first impressions can be lasting impressions.
Another good point Levit brought up relates to the fact that millennials often come out of a room somewhat discouraged, saying, “They don’t want to take my idea seriously.” While the issue may not lie in the ineffectiveness of the idea itself, it could just be that millennials wind up inadvertently offending others with their approach of “Why are things done this way? It makes no sense,” which inevitably puts boomers on the defensive, and they tend to think, “Who are you to come here and change things up?”
Perhaps the biggest myth surrounding millennials in the workplace is that they are lazy. That is a baseless assumption, Levit counters — it’s just that they sometimes want to do things their own way.
July/August 2010
Kill Poisonous Attitudes
By Deanna Hartley on 06-03-2010
Comments such as, “Millennials suck the life out of you,” “They’re so needy; can you believe they come with their parents to orientation?” seemed to pop up rather freely, indicating to me a general hostility that certain individuals have toward us. I include myself in that group since I’m 26, a detail none of my group members seemed to notice.
What do you think is the role of the diversity leader in creating an environment that fosters more inclusive behaviors and more effective collaborations among the various generations in today’s workforce? Because if something isn’t done about such attitudes, the poisonous feelings can only spread and infect others.
I’m definitely not suggesting millennials are close to perfect or don’t need to get rid of their misconceptions. In fact, in my next blog, I plan to outline some interesting facts I learned at another session, geared toward changing millennials’ attitudes to better acclimate them in corporate America. Stay tuned...
July/August 2010
Sometimes the Indigenous People Win
By Kellye Whitney on 05-28-2010
I won’t go see a movie in the theater if everyone else hypes it to the heavens, with the exception of “Sex and the City 2.” But in my defense, I’ve been a fan for years and am not one of these Johnny-come-latelies who jumped on the most popular bandwagon.
So when “Avatar” came out on DVD last week, I rented it. I frickin’ loved it. I regret that I didn’t see it in the theater in 3-D. I laughed, I cried, and, of course, I couldn’t help but make several diversity connections as my butt went numb over the two-hour-plus screening.
My hat’s off to James Cameron — spoiler alert ahead — not only did he manage to make quite a few commentaries about minority groups, specifically disabled and black people, not to mention the big bad corporate, capitalism-focused entity that will do any and everything to subvert the will of the weak, he did it in a classy way.
There was nuance — the film’s messages didn’t feel forced, overdone or underdone. The discussions were frank and textured, and he didn’t shy away from exposing the underbelly of bigotry or poking a hard finger at its lack of place in an increasingly networked world.
The diversity executive could find more than one selling or comparison point in the film without looking very hard. I’d recommend that everyone see the film. But I do recommend a pillow for your hindquarters. The sucker is a little long.
July/August 2010
Hefty Sum for Gender Discrimination
By Deanna Hartley on 05-24-2010
This week, Novartis was ordered to pay a hefty sum of $250 million in punitive damages to a number of women who claimed the company discriminated against women on more than one occasion, as outlined in a recent New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/business/20drug.html.
The drugmaker intends to appeal the decision, but regardless of what the eventual outcome will be, the damage has already been done - and it goes far beyond the monetary sphere.
One must certainly applaud the organization for catering to its employees who are working mothers by offering them flex-time, telecommuting, paid maternity leave, etc. - programs for which the organization has won numerous awards. However, the discrimination occurred with regard to pay, promotion and pregnancy, according to the courts.
Does this sound like a case in which the diversity function took steps to ensure that necessary structures and programs were in place to support diverse populations in the workforce, but certain cases slipped through the cracks? Or was diversity just not a core value, a strategic priority for the company?
In light of the hullabaloo surrounding this case, what do you think the role of a diversity leader ought to be in such a situation? And what should the company's next steps or strategy be? Share your thoughts with us.
July/August 2010
It’s Nobody’s Business if Elena Kagan Is or Is Not Gay
By Kellye Whitney on 05-12-2010
But then I learned there is a controversy brewing about whether or not Kagan is gay. She’s unmarried and of a certain age, and there have been rumblings about her possibly being gay since college. Big sigh, people — huge, disgusted sigh, actually.
Now, everyone knows I do not claim to hold any higher-level politico-type thinking, and I certainly haven’t read all of the stuff floating around the Net about this topic. But to me, the issue here is simple. Why should Elena Kagan have to answer that question in the first place? Whose business is it if she’s gay or not? Even if she gets on the Supreme Court and presides over a case with gay subject matter, her personal business should remain irrelevant.
“Well, people have a right to know.” No, they don’t. No more than a white male judge has to inform people that he once stole a pack of gum as a child and therefore is ineligible to preside over cases involving larceny. No more than a black female has to inform people that she has a fake hairpiece that she wears for weddings and therefore can’t preside over a case involving a syndicate of terrorists kidnapping women and then scalping them for profit.
And yes, I chose those ridiculous, fictitious examples deliberately because sometimes the puritanical attitudes we hold in this country, hell, anywhere, are ridiculous. The things we get hung up on, and demand that others reveal because it’s somehow our right to know, are ludicrous.
Whether or not this woman is gay is her business. I don’t care about her being in the public eye or in a public office. People have legal rights to their privacy. I will not accept, as the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan suggests in his May 11 post The Borking Of Kagan, that “when we enter public life, we surrender certain things.” I refuse, even though I know that is usually the case. It’s practically impossible to keep a secret these days, but it can be done. You can at least make a damn good effort. And as long as it does no harm, it’s your right to keep your business your business.
If anything deserves notice, it’s the fact that a woman or man of a certain age, who is not or has never been married, is forced to deal with these kinds of personal questions. As though there is something intrinsically wrong with someone who has chosen not to follow societal conventions or prescribe to an accepted stereotype — that being married is somehow necessary to be viewed as whole.
I mean, if Kagan did answer the question, opening this particular controversial door would lead to follow-up questions from hell. Sullivan, who actually disagrees with my stance, attests to that fact: “… being out in the mass media before I was in my mid-twenties, all but forced to acknowledge intimate details of my own health and sex life, pummeled for my religious faith or lack of it, analyzed in every personal way imaginable, exposed by right and left depending on the political uses of the time. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It still stings. I have scar tissue where my heart used to be.”
If Kagan is gay, she’s not wearing a rainbow or otherwise trying to make any kind of statement. As far as I know, she has comported herself professionally and suitably for the seriousness of the position for which she is now being considered. Allow people to be individuals. Allow people some dignity, some privacy, and if and when the situation poses a problem, let’s trust that someone nominated to a Supreme Court judgeship will A.) be able to maintain objectivity and judge a case on legal merit — it is, after all, the job — and B.) will know when to step down or pass a case along to someone else.
July/August 2010
Limited View of Diversity
By Deanna Hartley on 05-07-2010
As a corporate representative went about trying to recruit employees into the program, a Caucasian male (traditionally not thought of as being diverse) expressed his interest and was told that the program was only open to minorities or diverse individuals. He responded with something like, “Minorities? How about glasses-wearers or beet farmers?” Humorous as it was, I thought he raised an interesting point about how limited we sometimes are when we think about what constitutes a diverse individual.
It reminded me of the time a gentleman stopped by our Diversity Executive magazine booth at a trade show and after chuckling for a bit, said to me in a mocking tone, “You guys are a diversity magazine, but you chose to put a white man on the cover?”
I suggested he read the editor’s letter that delved into myriad forms of diversity of thought, but he laughed, declined and walked away.
Do you hear similar sentiments among senior executives, other leaders in the organization or even employees? What can we, as industry professionals, do to alter this perception and be welcoming to all forms of diversity?
July/August 2010
Profiling: Alive, Well and Legal?
By Kellye Whitney on 04-29-2010
Further, it will be a crime for immigrants to walk around without their immigration papers.
Why does it feel like we’re moving backward? Images from various pages in history books I’ve read come to mind. I don’t claim to know all the ins and outs of immigration concerns. But I do believe that one person’s reasonable suspicion based on physical appearance — because what else could such an assumption be based on — is anyone else’s superficial and potentially dangerous judgment.
The legislation would essentially force Hispanic-looking people to carry around proof that they are who they say they are. A Yahoo article published this week actually suggested the legislation gives authorities a license to profile. I agree. At the very least, it seems to throw a rather substantive spanner into the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. According to the article, “This gives the police the freedom to question people who are otherwise not breaking the law or engaging in suspicious activity.”
According to the article, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said that “she worked hard to amend the bill with language to prevent enforcement from ‘solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section.’” I maintain a wait-and-see attitude. I expect many others will be watching closely as well.
July/August 2010
What Does Being Inclusive Really Mean?
By Deanna Hartley on 04-23-2010
Making the news this week was the decision to introduce the comic’s first openly gay character.
The co-CEO of Archie Comics was quoted in a Washington Post article as saying: “The introduction of [the gay character] is just about keeping the world of Archie Comics current and inclusive. Archie's hometown of Riverdale has always been a safe world for everyone. It just makes sense to have an openly gay character in Archie comic books.”
OK — to me, that sounds like they just wanted to shake things up a bit, especially considering that the artist and writer for the comic will supposedly be receiving inspiration for the new character from his daughter’s high school experiences, as noted in the article.
Does merely bringing in, say, a person of color or someone with disabilities or an LGBT individual or essentially anyone who strays from the “norm” at an organization imply that the workforce is now automatically diverse and inclusive? What are some processes or initiatives that need to be put in place in order for an organization to truly be inclusive?
July/August 2010
Gender Asbestos
By Kellye Whitney on 04-14-2010
To some degree, it’s not our fault. Media outlets compete just like any other players in an industry. We only have a few seconds to grab a reader’s attention — and that associated click-through — and sad, truthful — or not — as the fact may be, trash and sass sell.
Case in point, in the past year there has been a mélange of headlines that have come out discussing the pay disparity that women still suffer from in comparison to their male peers in the workplace. Many of them have crossed my desk, and I’ve commented in some form or fashion on the information presented therein. It’s a worthy topic, but as Avivah Wittenberg-Cox said in her recent blog, “Why Focusing on the Gender Pay Gap Misses the Point,” “The real issue isn't salaries.”
Cox said, “Women represent one of the world's biggest and most under-reported opportunities,” yet “companies — and their business school feeders — have been slow in adapting and profiting from this … and part of the reason is that media too often focus on small, sensational and misleading parts of the story, including aspects like the wage gap.”
It’s true. At this point, we all know that women often don’t get the same money for the same jobs men do. But Cox said this is merely “a symptom of a deeper issue: a massive corporate mis-adaptation to today's talent realities and the subsequent inability to retain and develop women as well as men.” Or, “gender asbestos. It's hidden in the walls, cultures and mindsets of many organizations. But ridding the structure of the toxins will require more than pointing accusingly at the mess. It requires a detailed plan for how to move forward — and a compelling, attractive portrait of the result.”
Since we all know what the problems are, Cox suggests that we stop whining about them, which is a waste of time and valuable resources, and instead, “let's give companies a better picture of the opportunities. As two BCG consultants argued in the September 2009 HBR article "The Female Economy" … women represent a growth market twice as big as India and China combined. We need to stop with the endless attention on the barriers, obstacles and issues that remain. We know them already. It's time to focus on solutions.”
Preach!
July/August 2010
Abilities, Not Stereotypes
By Deanna Hartley on 04-09-2010
Now, some may jump to conclusions such as, “That’s great charity work,” but the truth of the matter is that these individuals are hired based on their skill sets and ability to impact the bottom line, and those who don’t produce the necessary business results will likely find their names erased from the company directory.
The employees’ primary task is to test software, which requires a lot of clicking through content. The article explained that whereas most individuals would be inclined to lose focus, these employees with high-functioning autism “have different brain wiring that gives them an edge.”
Now, of course I’m not advocating that companies open their doors only to a specific group — such as a particular racial or ethnic group or a particular age group — but in my opinion, the crux of the story is the willingness of employers or managers to determine business needs, assess employees’ abilities and potential and bridge the gap between the two, regardless of their backgrounds and disregarding any stereotypes or preconceived notions that may persist in our society about individuals of any group.
What do you think? Post your reactions or comments on the Diversity Executive Network.
July/August 2010
Badu Makes Powerful, Nude Statement Against Groupthink
By Kellye Whitney on 03-30-2010
In an interview with the Dallas Morning News she explained the theme behind the word.
“It’s a term that was coined in 1952. It’s the recognition of a state of being for humans. It’s human nature for a person to be afraid to express his or her self in fear of being ostracized by the group or general consensus. A lot of times people are judged unfairly because of that,” she said.
Badu went on to name other groupthink examples such as the Salem witch trials and the assassination of Christ as well as artist character assassinations on blog Web sites, but it’s not hard to make a business connection. How many organizations lost the next big idea to competitors because they were afraid to take a chance, then watched someone else take a risk and reap the rewards?
Fear of discomfort and an instinctive need to preserve the status quo are increasingly embattled topics thanks to the election of President Barack Obama, the collapse of many of our financial institutions during the recession and myriad other social and political happenings in the past few years. But to a great degree, groupthink prevails. It’s comfortable, and like so many diversity-related topics, nothing about the issue is cut and dried, all bad or all good.
There is commentary at the end of Badu’s video hinting at the dangers in always playing it safe, moving in packs, and letting fear of the individual run rampant, beyond the possibility of expressing yourself and being shot dead for it, I mean.
Badu speaks about the need for evolution.
July/August 2010
Where Do You Draw the Line?
By Deanna Hartley on 03-24-2010
A few hours later, I read this piece in The Detroit News about how similar circumstances could have prompted a lawsuit — that’s right, a lawsuit! — if you’re a Detroit city employee.
On what grounds, you may ask? Well, as silly as it sounds, a city worker filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act against her co-worker because he or she was wearing a strong perfume, which she said exacerbated her breathing sensitivity to chemical products.
I think my jaw literally dropped when I read this. Call me crazy, but maybe the woman instead could have gone and talked to the “perpetrator” directly or asked a manager to move her to a location where she could breathe a bit easier. Who knows? Maybe she did.
All I’m trying to get across is: Does something of this nature really warrant a $100,000 settlement? Not to mention the fact that memos were put up everywhere to strongly discourage city workers from wearing “scented products, including colognes, aftershave lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face lotions [and] the use of scented candles, perfume samples from magazines, spray or solid air fresheners,” as stated in the article.
I’d like to hear your opinions: How have you tactfully tackled workplace situations or contentions that appear rather frivolous on the surface, but may actually be impeding an employee’s ability to perform his or her job? And how do you know where to draw the line?
In the meantime, I guess I’ll go easy on my berry-scented hand sanitizer and cucumber-scented lotion!
July/August 2010
Drama at Walmart, Again
By Kellye Whitney on 03-18-2010
On March 14 in a store in Washington Township, N.J., a voice came over the intercom and said, “Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now.”
According to a story from the Associated Press (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Black-people-must-leave-NJ-apf-1749619349.html?x=0), a store manager immediately came over the intercom to apologize, but obviously the damage had been done. Store officials have gone on record saying the announcement was "unacceptable" and that they're trying to determine who made it and how it happened.
The “how” seems fairly easy and is not the issue. But it does bring something to mind that has been brewing in my brain for a minute.
I’ve been open about my feeling that racism is still alive and well and being practiced all over. I’ve said that part of the cure is to be more open about our feelings, to not hide them, but to air them in hopes that we can have positive dialogue and perhaps come to some sort of shared understanding or, even better, shared discovery.
However, there’s a big difference between candidly stating that you have issues with a person of color in the workplace and slamming an entire race of strangers in a public store. One situation can be fruitful if handled correctly. The other is purposeless and not only insulting: It’s patently ridiculous and outdated given the demographics of the nation and how diversity has become commonplace in most places around the world.
But that just goes to show, despite who our president is, we do not live in a post-racial society, and the diversity executive is more necessary today than ever.
July/August 2010
‘I Won’t Find a Boyfriend if I’m in IT!’
By Deanna Hartley on 03-11-2010
This phrase may have caught you a bit off guard, but it accurately reflects the sentiments of numerous young girls in the United States and likely around the world.
So what's the root cause that leads to such a mentality? Well, it appears to break down to the fact that many girls or young women are afraid of being viewed as "geeks," and would rather risk giving up on a subject or career path they love and have an aptitude for than risk being stereotyped by society should they choose to follow their passion, according to a recent MSNBC article.
Numbers from the National Center for Women & Information Technology show strikingly low percentages of girls are taking advanced placement tests in computer science in high school as well as earning computer science degrees, according to the article.
Even a recent New York Times article cited analysis showing that the percentage of women, African-Americans and Hispanics who worked at Silicon Valley's top 10 companies had dropped between 1999 and 2005.
The MSNBC article also talked about the importance of mentorship in helping such individuals stay on track and successfully navigate the peaks and troughs of their careers.
As a diversity leader, what other methods or techniques would you consider implementing to help individuals, such as women and minorities, overcome unsubstantiated or irrational fears that impede their climb up the corporate ladder?
July/August 2010
Vanity Fair Controversy
By Deanna Hartley on 02-23-2010
OK, if you're like me and your guilty pleasure is to keep abreast of all things Hollywood, then you've probably noticed the ire of myriad individuals toward the "New Hollywood" issue of Vanity Fair.
Apparently, the magazine features nine up-and-coming starlets, such as Anna Kendrick from "Up in the Air" and Kristen Stewart from the "Twilight" series. There's just one catch, though: Critics note that there is simply no diversity in the group of women that was eventually selected and that it isn't an accurate representation of new Hollywood, which has boasted breakout young stars from ethnically diverse backgrounds.
Even a previous issue of theirs featuring "Hollywood's New Wave" fell flat with some for the same reason.
I don't know about you - and I'm not an avid Vanity Fair reader, so my forthcoming comments aren't exactly objective - but I don't really view the publication as the type to give careful deliberation to diversity when planning their content in the first place.
Maybe they do and they just couldn't find any diverse actresses who were deserving (yeah, right!). On the other hand, they may argue that their business doesn't get affected given that the majority of their readers are white.
Here's my question: What should diversity executives who encounter senior executives making the following statements be prepared to tell them? "Oh, we just can't seem to find diverse individuals who are capable of handling these responsibilities" or "Why should it matter to us? Our customers aren't exactly diverse, so why should we try to reflect the diversity of the general population?"
July/August 2010
Pregnant at the Games
By Kellye Whitney on 02-16-2010
Consider the story of alternate curler Kristie Moore, 30, who is 5½ months pregnant. The Canadian athlete is the second athlete ever known to be with child during Olympic competition. According to a Yahoo article, 90 years ago, Swedish figure skater Magda Julin won a gold medal at the 1920 Antwerp Games in her first trimester.
Moore is not expected to participate during the Games, but she’s ready should she be called into action. She said her pregnancy has not yet affected her ability to perform. She speculated that might change around her eighth month or so.
Diversity in the workplace – whether it’s a traditional office setting or an ice rink – adds something to the team. That something can take many forms: creativity, new perspectives; the list is long. In this case, whether or not Team Canada wins – currently it is the gold medal favorite in the women's curling event – one member of the team has proven she is determined and committed to contributing to the greater good, no matter what.
July/August 2010
Managing Diverse Expectations
By Deanna Hartley on 02-11-2010
I just finished working on an article for Talent Management magazine on the appropriateness of workplace romances and when managers should get involved. There were a few interesting tidbits, found in a recent Workplace Options study, that I'd like to share in this blog.
First, the study found discrepancies in the way that the different generations in today's workplace perceive and engage in office romances.
For instance, while 59 percent of older workers would prefer to keep such relationships under wraps, only 38 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds feel the same way. In fact, the latter group is five times more likely to spread the word by posting it on Facebook.
Another key difference was in the way office romances are perceived.
While older workers say nothing good can come out of workplace relationships, younger workers disagree and say there are plenty of positive effects, such as attaining a higher social or professional status at work.
Differences were noted even with respect to gender. For instance, men are more willing than women to engage in workplace relationships with co-workers, supervisors or subordinates. More than half of the men polled also said public displays of affection should be allowed, whereas two-thirds of women think they should be banned.
Furthermore, even though it probably wasn't cited in the study, I'm sure expectations and perceptions also vary greatly by culture and ethnicity.
Are you surprised by any of these findings? How would you recommend managing the actions and expectations of diverse groups of individuals in the workforce?
July/August 2010
Really, an All-White Basketball Team?
By Kellye Whitney on 02-03-2010
My first reaction: Really, a white-only basketball league? Then I rolled my eyes at myself and acknowledged, yeah, really. But the release did offer one bright spot. Members of the ABA were vocal in their ill feelings about the deal, particularly its CEO, Joe Newman.
“The organizer of this effort is apparently serious, therefore it is worthy of our response and we would hope [for] a similar response from every professional sports league and organization in America today condemning such an outlandish suggestion!” said Newman.
Newman said in the release that the ABA and its member teams want to make it very clear there is no room in the U.S. — in sports or otherwise — for exclusionary thinking.
“This is especially true in a game that is truly played globally by literally every ethnicity on the planet," Newman said. "We choose not to mention the organizer's name or the name of the league in making our statement. The idea of such a league in modern-day America and the world does not deserve such publicity.”
Newman states explicitly that the ABA’s diversity, with more than 70 percent of its owners being African-American, Asian, Hispanic or women, is a source of strength and pride. Further, diversity, or rather, inclusion, will be the foundation on which the organization’s future will be built.
“The backbone of the ABA's current growth and future has been inclusion and will continue to be. Have we incurred failures along the way? Absolutely, but we believe in providing opportunity and a chance for success, something that has long been denied multiple minority groups in our country,” he said.
Diversity, Newman said, has always been the goal, and it has worked.
What might also work to curtail ideas like 21st-century white-only basketball leagues is more people feeling as confident as Newman did to speak out against such things. Reticence, or an unwillingness to approach diversity-related topics honestly and risk potential discomfort is one reason racism and prejudice continue to thrive.
For instance, minorities may know on some level that the treatment they receive on the job is unfair, but they can’t combat what they don’t know for certain. Nor can they defend against what may be obvious when established systems — whether explicitly or implicitly — caution against free expression.
Strong statements, when issued with respect and in context, can clarify issues and open the door for the effective communication needed to resolve cultural differences and workplace issues.
“It is amazing to me that we are living in the 21st century and have the first African-American president in the United States and yet have someone like the owner of this league trying to move this country backward,” said Gerald Watson II, president and CEO of Detroit Hoops ABA Pro Basketball, in the same release.
“The ABA has given me the opportunity to follow a dream that I have had since childhood of owning a professional basketball team … and I applaud Joe Newman for his vision of opening the door of opportunity of ownership to people of all races and genders, which are doors that should have never been closed in the first place.”
It’s like John Mayer once said in a song, “Say what you need to say.”
July/August 2010
Effecting ‘Magical’ Change
By Deanna Hartley on 01-28-2010
Not too long ago, I sat across the table from Magic Johnson. But what was even more exciting and inspiring to me than being in the presence of one of the most widely recognized sports legends was the message he and his new business partner - Leonard McLaughlin, president of Aon Cornerstone Innovative Solutions - were propagating.
I don't want to give everything away here because we have an exciting upcoming Diversity Executive e-newsletter article outlining this news, but what I can divulge is their combined passion and drive for effecting change in ethnically diverse communities across the country.
A large piece of that puzzle is to open the eyes of large corporations and urge them to tap into the rich professional services capabilities that minority business enterprises (MBEs) have to offer, which - as Magic put it - can result not only in the creation of sustainable jobs, but also in overall economic growth.
The other is to ensure the steady influx of qualified MBE players by providing training and mentoring programs and the like.
One remark that really struck me and stuck with me is when Magic said, "[MBEs] have got to overdeliver. I've built my company on overdelivering [to my clients]" - essentially indicating that they've got to make good on their promises and do whatever it takes to deliver the best product or service if they want to continue to do good business.
That's probably true of all companies and businesses, regardless of whether they're minority owned, but it does seem particularly relevant in this case. Do you agree that historically underrepresented businesspeople must work harder to prove they're just as good as the next guy - in much the same way some studies show that women have to work twice as hard as their male counterparts to earn the same degree of respect and recognition?
July/August 2010
Slow and Steady Wins the Race?
By Kellye Whitney on 01-20-2010
According to a Yahoo article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_michigan_housing_discrimination, Sanders’ former home, a rental, was razed when she was a teenager, and the family had to move into Hamtramck's public housing.
In 1980, the city of Hamtramck agreed to build 200 family housing units as well as 150 senior citizen units to make up for violating blacks’ civil rights when their neighborhoods were targeted to make way for urban renewal projects in the 1960s.
According to the Yahoo article, it didn't take Hamtramck long to build the senior housing, but construction on the family homes didn't start until 2004, and the city is still only halfway toward meeting its goal. City officials predict the rest of the homes could be completed by next year, but since most of the 500 plaintiffs in the original lawsuit have died or moved away from the Detroit area, the housing will go to their children or grandchildren.
"My parents would be ecstatic that their offspring would be able to enjoy the things they couldn't," Sanders said in the Yahoo story.
It is certainly a victory of sorts, but I can’t help but see the parallel between the length of time it took for Hamtramck to get moving and the length of time it took for people to get behind diversity in business. And many still aren’t convinced it’s important. It’s taken decades of back-and-forth debate — is it a political issue or a moral one or something else — and whatever is decided in the meantime, blacks and other minorities have to wait for parity, and wait, and wait.
I imagine that’s why militant actions were so popular in the 1960s. People got tired of waiting and decided to force the issue. I wonder if things would have taken this long in Hamtramck if Dr. King were still alive and the power and drive that moved behind and around him was still relevant today.
Somehow I doubt it.
July/August 2010
Open Your Eyes to a Qualified Demographic
By Deanna Hartley on 01-12-2010
I have about a three-and-a-half-hour commute to work and back each day - which gives me plenty of time to be observant of my surroundings (particularly on the days I forget my iPod!).
I take public transportation, which allows me to run into my other regular traveling companions on a daily basis. Among them are a handful of individuals who are blind, yet are perfectly comfortable and require no assistance to accomplish everyday tasks, regardless of how seemingly complex they are.
Of course, my initial reaction was, "Wow, they are mighty brave to venture forth so boldly and independently," and while I continue to maintain a deep admiration and respect for their willingness to face life head on, I do realize that they can be just as - if not more - capable of cultivating professional proficiencies and achieving success in a workplace setting.
In general, there's wide acceptance among the American public of the capabilities of individuals who are blind and/or have any other significant disabilities, according to the results of a survey conducted not too long ago.
Do you catch yourself wondering if their professional abilities are on par with or better than their fellow employees without disabilities? Just think: If employers or hiring managers allowed their doubts and reservations to get the better of them, they could be missing out on tapping into a large, highly qualified applicant pool that could undoubtedly yield positive results for their bottom line.
How do you, as a diversity leader, help to create an inclusive environment for this demographic? What are some resources you would recommend providing to enable them to do their jobs more efficiently?
July/August 2010
Another Category
By Kellye Whitney on 01-06-2010
In order to get a more complete idea of the immigrant population, for the first time ever, the Census Bureau will count indigenous immigrants in the 2010 census.
According to a recent Yahoo article, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100104/ap_on_re_us/us_census_indigenous_immigrants migrants, Native Americans from Mexico and Central America, often need more than one box because their ancestry may cover multiple Census categories.
I'm not sure what to think here. On the one hand, it's great we're seeking to make everyone feel included and to, in the words of the Census spokesperson, capture "an accurate portrait of the American people;" on the other hand, I can't help but think: Great - here's another label someone can use to segment a portion of the population.
Plus, I'm left to wonder why the Hispanic/Latino census category which has similar problems with segmentation and cross-box categorization issues isn't being addressed. Perhaps that's not as simple a fix?
When it's all said and done, I wonder how many boxes there will be on the census form. I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons it's critically important we know how many of who are walking around the country. But I haven't had lunch yet, so I'm drawing a blank on those very necessary reasons.
Me, I'm black, African-American, female, Chicagoan, American, blah, blah, blah - but most people do fine to call me Kellye.
July/August 2010
Tackling a Racist Comment
By Deanna Hartley on 12-30-2009
I was chatting with a friend recently about something that peeved her at work. A male colleague of hers made an offhand comment or joke referencing African-Americans within earshot of my friend, who happens to be one, and she - rightly so - took offense to her co-worker's insensitivity.
Could the gentleman have thought his remark would not penetrate his cubicle walls? Perhaps. Could he have been just plain ignorant and not known the comment was racist? It's probable. Or it may just be that his cultural background or the way he was raised caused him to think this wasn't a big deal.
It could have been any of a variety of explanations, but I have to wonder if it was said in a malicious way specifically intended to hurt someone - which I don't necessarily believe was the case, but then again, I certainly don't condone this type of behavior in general. Regardless of the cause, the incident left a bad taste in my friend's mouth.
Now, the company that my friend works for isn't a large corporation, and it doesn't have designated diversity professionals or hire consultants to do diversity training of any kind. And without knowing what prompted the comment, it's hard to predict if a similar situation will arise at her workplace in the near future.
If it does, how would you advise her to handle it? After all, don't we all need to be able to feel comfortable in order to be productive and efficient?
July/August 2010
Lady Gaga Is My Idol
By Kellye Whitney on 12-22-2009
She talks often about how her work and her stature as one of the most successful musical artists today are the result of a long-held dream, and she talks openly about the single-minded drive that led her to where she is.
Aside from my enjoyment of her voice and lyrical skills — it’s rare these days for popular singers to sing well live and write their own original material — I appreciate the historical parallel for the minority experience that she offers: Despite the majority opinion, despite society’s ideas about what minorities or those who stand outside the dominant power structure are capable of, make it anyway.
And don’t just make it anyway — make it any way you can.
Lady Gaga may be outlandish, but until evidence arises to the contrary, she is also someone who deliberately went against the norm and worked her tail off to succeed because that’s — her music, her style, her stage presence and performance art, even her sexuality — what was true for her. It’s admirable, and I think we can learn something from a belief system that strong. There is reward in doing your best work and occasionally ignoring the powers that be that may want to stand in the way of your personal vision of success.
July/August 2010
Please Make Me Sound Less Black…
By Deanna Hartley on 12-15-2009
Ah, the holiday season is upon us - and while this time of year typically conjures up lightheartedness and good cheer, a good number of individuals around the country continue to face grim realities, such as layoffs and dealing with one unsuccessful job interview after another.
And as if a job search weren't daunting enough, there are numerous individuals of color who have the added hassle of contending with direct or indirect racial discrimination.
I recently read a New York Times article that pointed out how an African-American gentleman with pretty impressive credentials actually went so far as to remove his former affiliation with an African-American business students association from his resume entirely. The move was triggered by his fear that he would not get taken as seriously as his white counterparts.
Another job seeker removed his middle name from his resume to make him sound less black and more Irish.
Then there are the stories about applicants who appeared ideal to potential employers on paper, but things unraveled quickly when they had phone and in-person interviews because they felt they were being sized up on account of their race.
One astonishing statistic - at least to me - was that candidates with African-American sounding names who tried to enter the workforce got 50 percent fewer callbacks than their counterparts who had traditionally white names, according to a survey conducted a few years ago.
In this day and age - given the competitiveness of business in general - can employers or recruiters really afford to weed out highly qualified potential candidates because of their race and out of fear that they might not be a good cultural fit (or, in other words, those who might not be as akin to themselves as they'd like)?
July/August 2010
No Second Chances
By Kellye Whitney on 12-08-2009
Case in point, my friend told me a story about an ex-friend she met on the job. The ex, we’ll call her Mary, is known for, shall we say, uncouth behavior.
My friend arranged for a few vendors to come to the office to give presentations. One representative from a high-end jeweler left perfume samples after the presentation was over and told each lady to take one.
Several of the ladies, including Mary, took far more than one sample apiece. Despite my friend saying that she had to distribute booklets and samples to those on other floors who were unable to attend the meeting, no one put any of the samples back!
After the meeting, my friend informed Mary that she’d planned to give her a separate gift due to her position in the company and the likelihood she would use that vendors’ services more than other departments.
Mary looked sheepish and said, “Oh, I didn’t know I was getting a gift.”
So she knew she was being greedy, as well as inconveniencing my friend.
That was not Mary’s first faux pas. In many corporate environments, food is plentiful, especially on the executive floors where my friend typically makes her home. And after meetings, administrative staff and whoever happens to be around are often invited to take what’s left.
Such was the case with my friend, who was invited to a meeting, and Mary, who passed by once it was over. My friend told her to go in and help herself to a bag of the chips that were left over. Apparently Mary misunderstood. She wheeled in a cart, removed all of the chips and most of the juices and put them in her desk.
A group containing my friend went in after the “extraction” had taken place. My friend was appalled, not just because she’d promised two bags of the chips to her boss, who had children visiting at home and no snacks, but because there were at least seven people standing around when she told Mary to help herself to a bag of chips.
My friend gave Mary the business later back at her desk, telling her explicitly that she had not made any friends with her latest display of bad behavior. In fact, one woman had said clearly she’d seen Mary do something similar on another occasion.
“That must be why she doesn’t like me,” said Mary.
Duh.
My friend also told a now teary-eyed Mary that she could not have that kind of behavior around her.
“Does that mean we can’t be friends anymore?”
My friend turned away and went back to work.
I understand completely why it was necessary for my friend to quickly create some distance between herself and Mary. We are known by the company we keep, and if the company you keep is a greedy mooch, guess what that makes you? Questionable.
Behavior is as important, if not more so, as performance. Do not let something silly knock your status down from deadline rock star to she or he who must be kept away from all freebies.
July/August 2010
Taming the ‘Diversity-Challenged’
By Deanna Hartley on 12-01-2009
Over the past few weeks - and to some of my friends' delight - I've literally become addicted to the NBC show "The Office," watching season after season on Netflix every chance I get. In case you haven't caught an episode of the show, it basically portrays the manager of a paper company and his group of employees in what could be described as traditionally mundane scenarios, but what I would imagine really triggers viewers' interest is the colorful character sketches of the co-workers.
To me, one of the most interesting personas is the manager of the branch, Michael Scott, who is adept at turning even the most simple, straightforward task into a series of awkward, uncomfortable, inappropriate, laughable encounters.
Let me give you an example. There was an episode in which a diversity trainer was brought in to talk to the staff about respecting the diverse cross section of employees in the workplace. Instead of quietly joining the rest of the staffers, Scott jumps up and constantly interrupts the session. He proceeds to run "diversity day" all by himself after the trainer leaves - by pasting the names of different races on co-workers' foreheads, then having them mingle and act out racial stereotypes of each person they talk to. Needless to say, the little experiment blows up in his face and ends with one of his employees slapping him across the face.
Without getting into too much detail, there's another episode in which a gay employee is outed in the office (by Scott, no less), and it ends with him awkwardly kissing the employee to show him in his own outrageous way that he's OK with LGBT individuals.
Are these behaviors totally inappropriate? Absolutely. Should the manager have immediately been fired for his incredibly offensive actions? Many would be inclined to think so. Now, despite the fact that I totally disapprove of his specific behaviors, I do think Scott is a man who genuinely loves and cares for the well-being of each of his employees - even though the majority of the time, he manages to express it in the worst imaginable ways.
As a diversity leader, you may not have come across someone quite so abrasive in a workplace scenario, but you must have encountered some colorful characters of your own during your career.
How do you teach "diversity-challenged" employees or employers? How would you recommend dealing with skilled, productive, engaged employees who demonstrate some of the unfortunate traits of the Michael Scott character - who are clueless about what's politically correct and manage to ruffle a lot of feathers even though their intentions may be pure?
July/August 2010
I Hate the House
By Kellye Whitney on 11-25-2009
This past weekend, she had a series of workmen come in to clean the carpets and the furnace, evaluate the alarm system — and one tile guy to give her an estimate on what it would cost to redo her kitchen floor.
When I spoke with her Saturday night to see how it had gone, she said, “I’m starting to hate that house.”
Naturally, I was taken aback and quickly asked her what she meant.
“The first thing out of their mouths when they walk in the door is some variation of, ‘Are you living here alone?’ Like it’s any of their business, and the next thing they say after I tell them what I want is a long recitation of all the other stuff I didn’t know I needed. It’s infuriating! It’s like, OK, woman alone, pathetic, but she must be a plump pigeon so let’s pluck her feathers until she bleeds!”
I laughed, of course, because I understand exactly what she’s talking about. I imagine most women have experienced some variation of the “poor little woman” from a salesman. The downside to this condescending attitude is often not that one is forced to experience it, but that it usually leads to a swindle.
A conversation with Dianah Worman, the diversity adviser for Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, seemed to echo my supposition. Worman spoke to me about the actions needed to close the gender pay gap in the U.S., and outside of some of the external, market-driven determinants that contribute to the gap, women’s lack of confidence and inability to effectively negotiate figured prominently.
Knowing my friend is a talker, and prone to long recitations about her plans for The Dollhouse, I gently asked her how clearly she had defined exactly what she was looking for.
There was a pause, and she said. “I may have gone off a little bit when I showed them the bathrooms and some of the other projects I had in mind, but I invited them there to look at the kitchen floor. That’s the main priority. I’m saving money for the kitchen; I can’t do everything all at once.”
I took a deep breath and said, “I think that may have been where you lost them. It might have been better to focus on the one area, and let them know you had other work if this project went well. Like it or not, men and women communicate differently, lady.”
She sighed huffily and agreed.
The moral of this story is, if all you want is a kitchen floor, don’t mention the two bathrooms, the entryway tile, the hardwood floor you discovered under the living room carpet and the laundry room linoleum. If you do, don’t be surprised if the tile man thinks you’ve got money to burn, or are an airhead with money to burn.
And under no circumstance should you hate the house.
July/August 2010
Lessons Over Lunch
By Deanna Hartley on 11-17-2009
I recently accompanied my uncle to a Chinese restaurant for lunch and was amazed at the red carpet treatment we received. The owner came out, greeted us warmly and led us to the best table in the restaurant.
This shouldn't have surprised me since I know my uncle is a regular customer and a generous tipper, but there was one detail that seemed out of place: She repeatedly referred to my uncle as "Dr. D'Souza" - even though he worked at BP for most of his career and never shared plans to attend med school at any point in his life.
He must have seen my puzzled look because he told me, once we had sat down, that the woman had assumed he was a doctor simply because he's Indian, and he had tried in vain for years to correct her - so now he just smiles and plays along.
"Now I just hope she doesn't ask me for medical advice," my uncle told me with a chuckle. This has since become a family joke. But even though we were having a lighthearted conversation that day, there were deeper issues at play here.
For one, I can admit to the fact that I've drawn inferences about individuals that have totally missed the mark. And even though in this instance the woman's racially based assumption about my uncle didn't portray him in a negative light, that's often not the case - and this more likely than not affects workplace relationships.
Many stereotypes cause us to view certain groups of people - be it racial or ethnic minorities, different age groups, LGBT individuals, etc. - in a negative light. That said, are we conscious of the ingrained stereotypes in our minds, and do we check them at the door before entering a workplace setting - and are we teaching others to do the same?
After all, if we pigeonhole groups of employees based on our stereotypical views, individuals may knowingly or unknowingly impede a colleague's career progression.
July/August 2010
I’m Sorry
By Kellye Whitney on 11-12-2009
It discussed an unusual program for teenage criminals in Northern Ireland called Youth Conference. “Instead of sending kids who commit assault, theft, or ‘motoring offences’ to a prison, the government sends them to a meeting. There, the young troublemaker is asked to give an account of the offense, and the victim, who is usually present, is invited to ask questions and describe the effects of the crime. Then they decide, together, with the help of a professional coordinator, on a ‘plan’ to make things right. This usually means doing unpaid restorative work and giving a face-to-face apology.”
I was like, oo-kay. Sounds a little too easy, but a report on the efficacy of Youth Conferences noted that of the “more than 5,500 meetings between victims and offenders [that] have taken place since 2003 … some 38% of 10 to 17 year olds participating in the scheme in Northern Ireland in 2006 re-offended within a year, compared to 71% of those given custodial terms. The percentage of those re-offending where restorative justice was used instead of a prosecution was 28%.”
The report also stated that many victims approve of the system, and there is talk of expanding it to England and Wales.
There’s diversity of thought at work, people. And it sounds like there might be something to it.
July/August 2010
Racism, Ignorance or Shrewd Business Sense?
By Deanna Hartley on 11-03-2009
The line seems to be a bit blurry in the case of a hotel owner in a New Mexico town who has been accused of being a racist.
According to an AP article, the gentleman in question entered a predominantly Hispanic town with the goal of rescuing a dying hotel. What he wasn't expecting, however, was for the whole town to get into an uproar because of his management style - which seems to be a "get business results even at the cost of employees" type of philosophy.
In his attempt to advance the business agenda, Hispanic employees were told to change their first names - so "Marcos" would become "Mark," for instance. They were also instructed not to speak Spanish in front of him.
"It has nothing to do with racism. I'm not doing it for any reason other than for the satisfaction of my guests, because people calling from all over America don't know the Spanish accents or the Spanish culture or Spanish anything," the hotel owner was quoted as saying.
What do you think of his tactics? Is it worth pursuing the advancement of business goals at the cost of marginalizing a diverse employee segment? How might he have done things differently? Weigh in on the Diversity Executive Network.
July/August 2010
Men Need Work-Life Balance Too
By Kellye Whitney on 10-28-2009
The article also discussed how a predisposition to associate work-life balance with women can isolate men from weighing in on conversations about work-life strategies and inadvertently reinforce the “motherhood penalty.”
The author rightly said, using research to back up the point, that there already exists a bias against mothers in the workplace: Don’t hire mom; she’s going to constantly take days off on kid-related emergencies. Tying work-life balance or workplace flexibility to women may perpetuate the notion “that mothers are the only ones who can’t make it work without extra accommodations.”
It’s like a blurb I saw on an elevator screen recently that said something like, “Men shouldn’t have to pay a lot of money to look good.” I think the subject matter was toiletries, and my first thought was: And women should pay a lot? We already pay too much!
What’s good for the goose is almost always good for the gander — whether it’s savings on soap or work-life flexibility.
July/August 2010
Lessons From the Biracial Marriage Debacle
By Deanna Hartley on 10-20-2009
It was splashed all over the mainstream news last weekend and left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, to say the least. I'm sure you've heard by now about the interracial couple who was denied a marriage license based solely on one gentleman's presumption that their marriage would have been doomed simply because they belonged to different racial groups.
The matter was of personal interest to me since I'm half of an interracial couple as well, and I found it disheartening to think my marriage would be likely considered illegitimate in this man's estimation.
It's not that I believe that Keith Bardwell, the justice of the peace, is a racist, but he seems to be uninformed.
While our initial response may be to point a finger at what we perceive as the man's ignorance, I think it is important to consider any inherent biases that we, as leaders, may be harboring that cause us to make poor, hasty decisions in the workplace.
For example, do we hold preconceived notions about Asians in the workplace and how they lack leadership qualities because many of them appear to be quiet and reserved? Or do we assume that every 24-year-old we come across is unreliable?
As we go about our daily routines, let's take a minute to reflect on and discover stereotypes or misconceptions we didn't think we had, and let's start to rectify them one at a time.
July/August 2010
Golden Nuggets
By Kellye Whitney on 10-13-2009
In the October issue, two such chunks caught my eye: One, under the heading “Food for Thought” read: “I’ve got the fried chicken and potato salad!” — Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, jokingly explained his strategy for drawing more African-Americans to the Republican Party.
There’s so much that’s wrong with that statement, I quite honestly think I’ve used my store of energy to address it by bringing it to your attention.
Another factoid, under the heading “Flippin’ the Script” read: “45 percent — The increase, over 10 years, of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discrimination claims filed by white people.”
I thought that was extremely interesting. Minorities are not the only ones being marginalized and fighting back against ill treatment. All the more reason we should work together and find other, less superficial means by which to take one another’s measure.
July/August 2010
(Miss)Communication
By Deanna Hartley on 10-06-2009
While some women tend to be more forward and assertive in a workplace setting - qualities many view as leadership traits - others tend to be more demure and may even shy away from accepting credit for a job well done.
Some women who could be classified in the former group often risk coming across as excessively aggressive when they exhibit what the general population would refer to as male-like characteristics.
Others, who fall under the latter category, may inadvertently find themselves stuck in a rut for failure to acknowledge their role in the success of a project.
Even though there isn't a language factor at play, there clearly exists a communications barrier of some kind. And this, unfortunately, isn't an uncommon problem for myriad organizations to face.
These are just a few examples of the potential workplace land mines that the fairer sex may have to conscientiously step around - and these were noted in a recent Chicago Tribune article. The person around whom the write-up was centered said she thought a lot of "workplace issues stemmed from miscommunication."
Do you agree with that? If so, can organizations boost productivity by focusing sufficient attention on improving the levels of communication internally?
July/August 2010
Ingrained Messages
By Kellye Whitney on 09-29-2009
The stranger was upset over a slight she had received from a workman. She’d hired a contractor to do a few odd jobs around the house, and she had caught him trying to steal several small items — rolls of duct tape, a new iron still in the box and some rubber tubing.
When she asked him why he was stealing, he answered, “Look at this mess. I didn’t think you would miss it you’ve got so much stuff.” The woman’s imitation of his tone seemed to suggest quite a bit of disdain, and she said she assumed not only did he think she was messy, but that she didn’t deserve to have what she did.
Now, obviously I don’t know for certain if this matter was racially motivated. At worst, the workman was an obnoxious, quite ballsy thief, but what struck me as particularly interesting was what came up next in the conversation.
Here, I’m paraphrasing, but the lady said, “The younger men who I hire to do different things in my house don’t act this way. They don’t seem to care about how much stuff I have, only about doing their jobs.”
This struck a chord in me not only because of other similar conversations I’ve been privy to or participated in, but because of the research and interviews I’ve conducted with experts on generational, work-related issues.
My mother has also mentioned the differences in the way workers of different ages behave toward her when they come to the house to work, and the younger ones have thus far been more favorable.
Are certain messages ingrained generationally? If so, what will it take to root out these motivations so that our behavior toward one another will improve? Share your thoughts on the Diversity Executive Network.
July/August 2010
Is The U.S. Losing High Performers?
By Deanna Hartley on 09-22-2009
The answer appears to be a resounding yes, as research indicates that as many as 200,000 skilled immigrants will return to India and China in about half a decade.
And employers need to think again before associating those numbers solely with the economic downturn.
According to a recent article in USA Today, while the recession may have played a small role in what appears to be this mass exodus that looms in the foreseeable future, there are other, more long-term motivations that have so many skilled immigrants packing their bags and buying one-way tickets home.
Among these are greater chances of furthering one's career (as skilled immigrants who return to their home countries are viewed as a huge asset); fewer frustrations when it comes to securing the appropriate immigration documents; and a great support network (family and friends).
So what does this mean for the U.S.? Do you think this nation risks losing its competitive edge?
After all, in an article I wrote back in April, I spoke with Wadhwa - the gentleman who conducts this type of research and was quoted in USA Today - and he told me: "The U.S. is no longer the only land of opportunity. You have other countries now where the economies are growing and opportunities are growing."
July/August 2010
Looks Trump Gold for Caster Semenya
By Kellye Whitney on 09-15-2009
I’m not alone in offering that sympathy, though many have had more severe responses to the controversy. Some have said the questions about her gender are an attack on her civil rights, and the South African parliamentary committee for sports and recreation announced it would file a complaint with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that the tests grossly undermined Semenya’s human rights and privacy.
According to an Aug. 29 article in the Los Angeles Times, when Semenya returned home to South Africa, “President Jacob Zuma chastised the International Assn. of Athletics Federations over gender testing of the athlete and declared there was no way she would be stripped of her gold medal in the women's 800-meter world championship.
“Thousands of people came to celebrate the 18-year-old Semenya's return at O.R. Tambo International Airport and to vent their anger over what they see as her ill treatment. Some men held up posters that declared, ‘Marry me.’”
In the same article, “Noluthando Mayende-Sibiya, the minister for women, children and people with disabilities, said her department had written to the IAAF to determine why there are doubts about Semenya's gender.
“‘Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's African? We want to know why this was done,” Mayende-Sibiya said.”’
I’m curious about that too. There was some mention of high testosterone levels that subsequently led to the gender tests, but it doesn’t seem like enough to justify humiliating the woman this way.
Further, there’s an unspoken comment here that seems to whisper only a man could have won the gold medal with that time. The controversy also suggests a marked critique of her femininity, a silent slap at a supposed lack thereof. Maybe the naysayers think her running times would be improved by adding a long straight weave and false eyelashes. I don’t know. And I can’t imagine how this woman must feel. Ugly might be the least of it, and that’s something.
July/August 2010
Conducting Business on a Global Scale
By Deanna Hartley on 09-09-2009
The unspoken rules of conducting business have changed and evolved over the years as multinational corporations have come to the fore and business procedures aren't confined to a single country or continent anymore.
With this diversity of race, ethnicity, culture, thought and experience arises the need for companies that conduct business overseas to manage employees within the cultural setting in order to effectively leverage their talents and abilities and gain significant business impact.
I thought a great example of the struggle that some international companies encounter was chronicled in a recent article in the Chicago Tribune.
The crux of the piece, in my opinion, was when a senior manager at Ernst & Young made the following statement regarding her expatriate assignment to Munich, Germany: "I thought my job was bringing the American way to how they did things," she was quoted as saying in the article. "I realized very quickly this wasn't working. I needed to integrate those cultural differences into our decisions and started dialogues on how to do that. It was a paradigm shift with how I work with my teams."
Another example of this that comes to mind was captured in a movie I recently watched called "Outsourced," in which an American IT manager is transferred indefinitely to India to train a group of Indian employees at a call center.
After initially floundering, the lead character realized he was getting nowhere by trying to Americanize the Indian employees or make them conform to his understanding of how one should be motivated or function in the workplace. Upon initiating dialogue and taking into account cultural differences, he eventually became open-minded enough to learn ways to motivate his team and produce the expected results.
As a diversity leader, have you had similar discussions with employees or managers at your organization? How do you advise them to carefully navigate cultural barriers in order to reap tangible business results?
July/August 2010
An Uphill Climb for Working Mothers
By Deanna Hartley on 08-25-2009
Does being a mom lower one's chances of securing a job? This question might make some of you scoff, given the fact that working mothers don't seem to have a problem running multinational corporations - off the top of my head I can think of Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo; Irene Rosenfeld of Kraft; and Mary Sammons of Rite Aid who are living, breathing examples of this.
On a more personal note, I can attest to the fact that my own mom did an exemplary job running our household as well as an advertising agency she helped create.
The sad reality, though, is that not all moms who have the capability - and I do stress that they be highly qualified - and the desire to climb up the corporate ladder are afforded the same opportunities as the aforementioned women.
This was evident in a recent article in The Boston Globe, which outlined how working moms are often pigeonholed as being less effective and far less dedicated to their jobs than their female counterparts with no kids - two main reasons employers use to discriminate against them.
In this day and age, and given the prevailing economic condition, organizations cannot afford to lose their high performers - I guarantee a sizeable chunk of these are working moms - or fail to look beyond the stereotype that working mothers are less reliable than the rest of the workforce. In doing so, employers will miss out on prime opportunities to leverage this valuable demographic.
What approach does your organization take with qualified working mothers?
July/August 2010
Motivation
By Kellye Whitney on 08-18-2009
Now, for the purposes of Diversity Executive, the answer is: the business case rules. The magazine’s content is built on the premise that it is only when the emotion and historical baggage is removed from the diversity equation that sustainable progress that benefits both minorities and the organizations they work for can be made.
I believe this. But then a co-worker shared an insight she heard in a webinar yesterday. Simply, a participant said it’s better for the diversity practice if people stop trying to monetize this type of work — or stop focusing on the business case — and focus on diversity practice as “the right thing to do.” This person had some sort of research handy to back up the point. I did not attend the webinar and as of this writing, the transcripts were not available, so I can’t comment on the veracity of said data. But I wonder…
When I first heard this, I frowned hard. According to our research and numerous conversations with diversity executives of all stripes, for the past few decades there hasn’t been much progress on the diversity front, and during that time “the right thing to do” mantra was front and center. Many leaders in this space agree that it was only when companies began to execute diversity practice with an eye toward the bottom line and the impact such concerns had on the business that momentum built and progress was made.
Further, the “right thing to do” hasn’t faded completely, and as a mechanism by which diversity executives can filter out the angst that can follow minority-centered subject matter, the hard facts of the global business landscape — changing workforce demographics, minority buying power and the like — work well.
But I don’t mind having someone poke a finger at one of my beliefs and make me think in new ways. What do you think? Is a business focus too clinical or too narrow for diversity work? Or does it help shape conversations and get things done? Share your thoughts on the Diversity Executive Network.
July/August 2010
Musings on Affirmative Action
By Deanna Hartley on 08-11-2009
I recently came across an NPR article that outlined Norway's progress in the diversity arena over the past few years. What was more interesting to me than how far the nation has come in terms of leveling the playing field for women in the boardroom is how they've managed to achieve this feat.
Apparently, the country has mandated that at least 40 percent of the boards of all publicly traded as well as public limited companies - about 460 in total - should be female, and the penalty for falling short of this requirement could spell the demise of a company.
The legislation was put into place by Norway's government following the dismal number of women on executive boards back in 2002. Now, every company is fully compliant with the law.
In my opinion, this raises the question of whether these quotas have actually amounted to the overall progress of women in a corporate setting - a question that prompts differing responses among Norwegians. While some say the female perspective is much needed in the executive ranks, especially given the current economic climate, others say only the most qualified individuals should be allowed to sit on boards - regardless of gender.
Do you think affirmative action steps - whether they be for females, ethnic minorities or any other traditionally underrepresented group - help to level the playing field? What is the value, if any, in these types of quotas?
July/August 2010
An Unspoken Threat
By Kellye Whitney on 08-04-2009
A friend asked me for advice recently and the conversation stuck with me, perhaps because I’ve heard it many times before from other people.
She asked if I thought she was crazy because she couldn’t get over the feeling that her boss was out to get her. Not explicitly. There hadn’t been any obvious gestures to illustrate that he was blocking her progress, but she said she’d been the recipient of some odd stares. Plus, she suspected he treated her differently than other employees — that he was helping to develop them, but not her.
She wondered if she was being paranoid, and if she wasn’t, what she could do.
I wish I could say I gave her some fabulous advice and that’s why I’m blogging about the situation now, but I’m afraid I didn’t have many constructive suggestions at all.
There’s no way to confirm that those stares she noted meant anything. The man could have had indigestion — she laughed — but she knew what I meant. Then I asked her if her behavior was up to snuff. Could she have had indigestion one day and inadvertently mean-mugged the guy and the feeling stuck?
She said she didn’t think so. She always spoke cordially and made an effort to smile and not be too opinionated — and until recently, when the uneasy feelings started, she’d asked about his wife, whom she’d met, and made chitchat about weekend plans and the like.
“But I’ve stopped all that,” she told me. “Why bother? I’m probably going to have to look for another job because I can’t see my future going anywhere there.”
I told her significantly changing her behavior was not the answer. If there was no problem, she’d create one; and if there was a problem, she’d make it worse. Better to continue as she always had, only be more on point.
She agreed. “Oh, no matter what, I’ll do my job to the best of my ability. That’s who I am. No one’s suspected actions will change that.”
We continued to talk, and she asked me how far we — black women — were expected to go to make others feel comfortable. I shrugged. I have no answer. I wish I did.
Then she asked me why we were so threatening anyway. Most black women — minorities in general — she added, just want to work, advance, learn and go home feeling like they’ve contributed in some small way to something positive.
I agreed but, again, I had no answer for her. I wish I did.
July/August 2010
‘Mature’ Workers Shake Up Norms in the Workplace
By Deanna Hartley on 07-28-2009
If you've been following recession-related news over the past few months, you're probably aware of the fact that droves of mature workers - or those over the age of 55 - have put their retirement plans on the back burner and are continuing to slog it out in the workforce.
Delaying retirement has proved to be beneficial to many employers, a recent CareerBuilder survey cites. For instance, mature workers can serve as mentors, thereby facilitating transfer of knowledge.
Moreover, don't count out those mature workers who weren't lucky enough to keep their jobs during the recession: They appear to be resurfacing all over the job market.
While some chose to start their own businesses, others weren't afraid to also start from scratch albeit in a slightly different way - by trying to secure internships and slowly work their way up.
Not only that, but this demographic is now hoping to get a foot in the door by competing head-to-head with college grads and others who are applying for entry-level positions.
Over the past few months, mature workers have shaken up workplace norms and redefined what it means to serve a lifetime in the workforce.
How does your organization view this group? Are they valued and celebrated or overlooked? Circumstances may have dictated that they remain in the workforce for a few additional years, but is your company leveraging their lifetime of experience and knowledge while you have the chance?
July/August 2010
Let’s Hear It for the Girls
By Kellye Whitney on 07-21-2009
According to the article, “Her achievement was marked as she landed on the South Lawn of the White House to pick up the President. …President Obama, who is on his way to New Jersey and then on to New York to address the NAACP, saluted crew chief Sergeant Rachel Sherman, then boarded Marine One, where he briefly chatted with Grieves and shook her hand.”
In the spirit of firsts, Grieves also had an all-female crew. Since President Obama took office, the world has been privy to a bevy of such firsts. But while these milestones are certainly noteworthy and should be celebrated, I think it’s more important to acknowledge that now the field, any field, has opened to a more diverse group of people. Further, it seems the world has joined in the celebration of diversity.
Sure, Grieves always will be the first. But now other women can more easily follow in her footsteps, and that is perhaps even more significant.
In my opinion, being first is not as important as being next. Having an opportunity, walking through a locked door, or being allowed to participate in a field or area where participation may have been limited or, worse, impossible, is something.
If President Obama has given us anything aside from change, hope and, let’s not forget, first lady Michelle, it’s the possibility of freedom for all. It’s ironic that it took a black man to open the doors of possibility for all, when traditionally black people have been denied just the type of opportunities the president gives freely to all who are qualified and ready to accept.
But I’ll take it, as will many others. Grieves certainly did.
July/August 2010
Fostering Diversity at a Price?
By Deanna Hartley on 07-14-2009
The recent Supreme Court decision in favor of the white New Haven firefighters has not only saturated media outlets, it has also raised questions and discussions around the notion that trying to promote diversity efforts could come at a price.
For instance, the court ruled that in this case, the white firefighters failed to receive the promotions that were due to them simply because New Haven was afraid the minorities who didn't pass the qualifying exam would file a racial discrimination lawsuit.
This ruling got me - and many other diversity proponents, I'm sure - thinking about the possible, dare I say, "unfavorable" effects that our efforts may inadvertently cause.
Similarly, I just read an article in the Washington Post about a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who claims the academy has been lowering its standards in an overzealous bid to increase minority enrollment. The academy, he said, compromises on admissions requirements, such as SAT scores and grades that aren't up to par, to facilitate the entry of larger numbers of minority candidates.
Meanwhile, other members of the academy have denied such "favoritism," stating they only accept qualified individuals, and that the most recent class to be inducted into the academy - which also happens to be the most racially diverse one yet - is likely the most talented.
What do you make of these and similar scenarios, where it seems the push for diversity could come at a cost?
July/August 2010
What Happens When Stereotypes Are True?
By Kellye Whitney on 07-07-2009
I’m not the only one. You may have been privy to one of those secret stares on the train or across the room at an event while observing a stranger. Examining or participating in these moments, I also think of the humor and honesty in these behaviors we’ve been taught to look at askance.
People are often just being themselves. Just because everyone does something, it’s not therefore restricted. Nor should it be marked in a mental file under caricature. But then, as is often the case in diversity and inclusion matters, even as certain groups struggle for economic, professional and even personal parity, those same groups should be wary of how their actions are absorbed.
So, who’s right? People who are free to be themselves, stereotypical behavior notwithstanding, or the cautious souls who remain guarded lest they inadvertently support negative profiling in some way? It’s a sad case of the chicken and the egg. But I think the answer, if there is one, is an idyllic combination of internal freedom and external expression and acceptance.
The next question is: How do concepts of freedom, expression and acceptance play out in the workplace?
July/August 2010
Recession Aftermath: Who Has it Affected Most?
By Deanna Hartley on 06-29-2009
The economic downturn sent employers and employees everywhere into a tailspin, but it also caused quite a shakeup in the landscape of today's workforce.
For example, one of the changes prompted by the recession has been the meteoric "rise" of women in the workforce.
According to an article on CBS MoneyWatch.com, the job loss rate among women between the ages of 25 and 64 fell 1.7 percent per year since mid-2007, while that of their male counterparts dropped 4.7 percent. In fact, the gap between the unemployment rate of men versus women as reported in April was unprecedented - for men that number was 10 percent, whereas it was 7.6 percent for women.
One reason is that professions such as construction and manufacturing - which boast more male employees than female - were some of the worst affected by the economic downturn.
Further, with the decline in retirement funds and property values, the recession caused the prevalence of baby boomers in the workforce today to increase dramatically - by about 1.3 million workers in May - when compared to the past year.
Have you noticed any atypical or unexpected changes in the composition of your workforce? If so, how has it impacted factors ranging from engagement and morale to retention rates and turnover in your company or industry?
July/August 2010
The Apology
By Kellye Whitney on 06-23-2009
Congress officially apologized for slavery right before Juneteenth — the holiday celebrating the abolition of slavery — this year.
The resolution, sponsored by Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, “acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery,” and “apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws,” according to a DiversityInc article.
But I’m wondering: So what? Don’t get me wrong. It’s nice to acknowledge a mistake, however old, but what does this mean for black people? How does this apology impact them personally and professionally? What will acknowledging this wrong do to improve the lives of slavery’s descendants?
Truthfully, it’s almost ridiculous to ask any of that. Those are big questions. Huge, in fact. But it’s perhaps not so ridiculous to hope that this acknowledgement will help to loosen perceptions and ideas and open a few formerly closed minds to the possibilities and reasons of why things exist in their current state.
What do you think? What does Congress’ apology mean?
July/August 2010
Are We Thwarting Efforts for Inclusion?
By Deanna Hartley on 06-15-2009
I have to admit I was outraged to learn of some goings-on in an agency that's highly esteemed by the public: the FBI.
A black former FBI agent experienced varying levels of racial discrimination at the workplace, ranging from humiliation tactics - including a colleague inserting an image of a monkey over his son's face in a family picture - to death threats, according to an NPR article. What's even more appalling is his supervisor actually brushed off the incidents as harmless pranks when there were some pretty clear indications the taunts were racially motivated.
This certainly isn't an isolated case. Reputable organizations in corporate America occasionally get slammed with cases of discrimination or retaliation, and I'd say the majority of these are quite clearcut.
But after I read the article, I started to wonder: how often do we inadvertently make offhand jokes or remarks at the boardroom or watercooler that might offend certain groups - be they racially or ethnically diverse groups, LGBT individuals, people who practice different religions or anyone else who might be considered "diverse?" This could constitute some form of intolerance or, dare I say it, harassment - albeit on a smaller scale.
That's when it struck me: blatant or subtle, intentional or unintentional, some jokes are just not funny, and some snide comments are unacceptable because it could lead to unhealthy dynamics at the workplace.
Are we inadvertently thwarting efforts to create an inclusive environment in the workplace?
I'm not propagating an air of over-sensitivity, which can lead to diminished interactions with co-workers. But perhaps we ought to practice introspection and remedy our own hidden biases more often than we do.
July/August 2010
Rallying Cry of the Millennials
By Meagan Polakowski on 06-09-2009
Personally, I think an employee should be allowed a chance to telecommute if he or she wishes, and benefits like a gym membership and commuting cost incentives aren’t bad either. I sometimes listen to my iPod while doing menial tasks, and actually, I would much rather speak with someone at their desk than send them an e-mail for the simplest communication.
Some people go so far as to call us needy kids who want to be rewarded for showing up. Again, not true. I appreciate a word of encouragement when I go above and beyond, of course, but I don’t expect to get a pat on the back for simply meeting the expectations of my job description. As a Gen Yer who defies many of these stereotypes, I take pride in my work, and I come into work most days thinking of ways I can improve, and I try to make the jobs of my co-workers easier by taking on something extra when I can.
For those of you “haters” of us Millennials, consider a recent survey of young workers in the sales force. Sibson Consulting found the following positive characteristics of our group:
- Autonomous and independent
- Collaborative and confident
- Diversity-focused
- Goal- and achievement-oriented
- Influential and pragmatic
- Socially and technologically savvy
- Well-educated
The study also found there is a disconnect between Millennials and their employers, and that employers believe Millennials are not engaged or working at their fullest capacity and that they have short attention spans.
While no generation is perfect, it seems the list above is good enough reason for employers to start talking about Millennials in a more respectful manner, one in which we are not painted as cry babies who don’t know how the workplace really works. Maybe it’s time we start working together and exploiting each others’ strengths, rather than griping about weakness — real or perceived.
July/August 2010
A Worldview of Diversity
By Kellye Whitney on 06-04-2009
I’m no political guru, so I can’t lay a plethora of facts related to the new president’s activities before you as evidence, but I can say that he seems awfully busy. There are new plans afoot to improve credit card regulation scheduled to be revealed later this month, we all know he’s been diligently working to restore the economy, the Internet, not to mention the elevator, has consistently offered tidbits on his travels in the U.S. and abroad, and then there’s Michelle’s draw. Absolutely everyone follows the first lady’s movements if only to see what she’s wearing as she cuts ribbons, brings new audiences into the White House to learn and takes care of her children.
I wonder if the world’s increasingly favorable view of the U.S. means diversity-related topics will also be more, if not acceptable exactly, then interesting? President Obama is definitely a diverse executive, and his movements to diversify his cabinet, etc., certainly have implications for those who practice in the diversity and inclusion space.
The economy has also helped business leaders see the value diversity can bring to their bottom lines, but based on conversations I’ve had with practitioners at conferences and during interviews, certain perceptions are not fully or positively formed to solidify the business case for and value of diversity.
But it’s definitely a good sign that the world views the U.S. — where diversity has so many definitions and implications that increasingly impact other parts of the world, and vice versa, more favorably. It’s a good sign for diversity in general, and the work of its leaders specifically.
July/August 2010
‘Diverse’ Pick for U.S. Supreme Court
By Deanna Hartley on 05-26-2009
Major news outlets have been abuzz lately regarding speculation that President Obama was set to appoint a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court - a safe bet considering all four finalists for the position were women with varying professional experiences.
Following Justice David Souter's announcement of his plans to retire this year, several published reports showed individuals urging the president to nominate a diverse candidate - a woman or minority - to the bench to better reflect the country's increasingly diverse population and to offer a diverse perspective. The court currently consists of a black man, a woman, and the remaining seven are white men.
Well, now it looks like the president has heeded public opinion by selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a qualified Hispanic woman, to the court. If confirmed, Sotomayor will become only the third woman - not to mention the very first Hispanic - to hold a seat on the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor, a 54-year-old judge of Puerto Rican descent, has pointed to the fact that her well-rounded professional experience combined with her diverse background serves her well on the bench, according to an article by The New York Times. In fact, she has been quoted as saying: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
What do you think of the president's pick? If confirmed, will Sotomayor bring a much-needed diverse perspective to the court?
July/August 2010