Suddenly Anything is Possible

Debunking the Four Myths of Diversity

There are several key myths that stand in the way of effectively managing diversity. Before examining the validity of these myths, however, it is critical to understand the nature of myths themselves. Webster's Dictionary defines a myth as, "a belief given uncritical acceptance by the members of a group, especially in support of existing or traditional practices and institutions." The salient point is that a myth is not recognized as a myth, but more likely treated as though it were the truth. Therefore it can dramatically impact people's views of the world and determine their behavior. An example of the kind of thinking that myths can create were the pre-Columbus seamen who were afraid to set sail towards the horizon for fear they might fall off the edge of the Earth. Believers in the myths about diversity may also be missing the boat.

Myth #1 Diversity is just another, perhaps the latest, variation of Affirmative Action or Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).

Managing Diversity is distinct from Affirmative Action and EEO in that it is not primarily focused on getting people into the workplace. While these efforts are still needed in some cases, many businesses have populations that are diverse. Differences between race, gender, ethnic cultures, age, class and sexual orientation affect the way people think, feel, act and relate to each other. Managing those differences, and the way they impact productivity, quality, customer service and other business issues, is what managing diversity must focus on.

Myth #2 Diversity is a Human Resources or Personnel issue.

While most businesses relegate diversity issues to their HR, personnel or EEO functions, it is, in reality, an on-line operations issue. Daily decision-making and the very operation of the business are affected. When operations leaders are involved in developing strategies to manage diversity, there is more involvement, buy-in and credibility for the program. When diversity management is considered an HR or EEO issue, it is dealt with only when it has to be, or when we can afford the expenditure of resources. Diversity must be a core value that is communicated in every element of your organization's culture.

Myth #3 Diversity is just about race and gender.

Diversity is not a "minority" issue, because there is no clear majority anymore. This myth is built on the notion that the workplace is a white male preserve with white male norms, and that those "minorities" who succeed must do so by understanding and conforming to these norms. These attitudes are not necessarily conscious, and they are not held only by white males. For example, child care appears to be solely a women's issue to most men and women because women have always been considered responsible for child care.

Myth #4 Diversity is about getting “them” into the mainstream.

The reality of a diverse workforce requires that we design corporate cultures that make it possible for all of our employees to have the greatest access to productive working conditions. In some companies, this perspective makes it natural not only to consider child care as a pertinent issue, but also equipment modifications for the physically challenged, English and basic skills classes for entry level employees, flex-time and shared job arrangements for those who may not choose or be able to work a classic 40-hour week, communication and team development issues, etc. The issue is no longer who's going to be let in, but rather who's going to best mobilize their entire workforce to get the job done!

Finally, in order to address these issues, we must face the most pervasive myth of all: At all costs, avoid talking about it! Our concern about diversity, inclusion, and cultural fluency, as well as the social history connected to these core organizational competencies, can make it difficult to deal with the deep feelings associated with exploring them. Sometimes our initial reactions to opening the topic make it seem like we are worse off than if we had never discussed it at all. Yet, feelings of anger, resentment, guilt and frustration must be dealt with if we are going to be able to deal proactively with perhaps the fundamental business issue of the next decade. Companies that do not effectively manage the diversity of their workforce with an eye toward long-term growth and demographic realities will not survive in the marketplace. Managing Diversity is just plain good management.

For more information on strategies for ReInventing Diversity, download our white papers at:

http://www.cookross.com/library.htm

You can also schedule a free diversity consultation for your organization by contacting:

J. Robby Gregg, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships & Alliances lookingforanswers@cookross.com

What is the Intersection Between the Recession, Race and Performance?

by Leslie Traub, President & CEO, Cook Ross Inc.

There have been recent predictions that we’ve hit the bottom of the global economic downturn. It is hoped that companies on the Dow will begin posting more regular gains and that the U.S. is leading the recovery. These predictions however don’t describe the impact of the recession on the workforce or on the delicate racial balance within management ranks.

Many corporations and professional services firms have worked vigorously over the past 20 years to bring more Blacks/African Americans into their doors, to sensitize their environments to diversity and cultural differences, to “level the playing field” for promotion and advancement, and to leverage those differences for the benefit of their customers. Given this portfolio of activity, one is left then with the question: Why have blacks seemed to have fared worse in layoffs in the past 6 months?

A handful of observers from a variety of professions have noted that the primary determinant for workforce reduction is performance, and that African Americans appear to have been over-represented in the pool of poor performers.

The main determinant of performance is the performance review, which under the best circumstances is moderately objective, and in the worst circumstance pointedly subjective. Of all organizational systems and structures in the workplace, the performance review has the greatest opportunity of perpetuating bias, with the greatest impact on individual careers, and perceptions of group success.

Performance reviews too often look something like this:

Sasha was a rising second year, African American associate, and the only African American in her practice. She came to the firm with two years of internship in public accounting. She is a member of NABA and was in the top 10% of her class. She has passed 2 segments of the CPA exam. Sasha worked on 2 engagements in her first year. Her senior, Jonathan, felt challenged by Sasha on her first engagement because she didn’t spend social time with the team after hours. Jonathan thought she was “stand-offish.” He wasn’t comfortable with her seeming isolation, and lack of social interaction with the team. Technically she did fine, although she didn’t ask a lot of clarifying questions for her assignments. At the end of the engagement, Jonathan told his manager: “She did ok, got the procedures right and worked hard, but wasn’t easy to get along with, certainly not compared to the others.

Jonathan’s manager, Christopher, took that under advisement, and when his colleague Nancy asked for a recommendation for an associate, Jonathan noted that Sasha was currently underutilized after the first engagement, that she was available, but “a little difficult to work with.” Nancy assigned Sasha to the job, and told her senior that she’d heard that Sasha was good technically and needed some support “fitting in to the team.” This is the lens through which Nancy’s senior made job assignments for Sasha’s second engagement, and became the brand by which she is known.

Sasha’s performance manager, Carolyn, collected feedback from the managers on all the engagements on which Sasha had worked, and includes a few passing comments from the practice partners as she prepared the review. The firm has a variety of standards on teamwork and professionalism, both of which are considered along with technical execution. Sasha came out of her first review with a low 3, rather than a 3 or even a 4. Hers was the lowest review score in the practice.

When it came to identifying candidates for reduction in force, Sasha rose to the top. This clearly could have been prevented by greater awareness, sensitivity and cultural competency on behalf of her senior. This is an individual case, but unfortunately not a unique one. When looked at in the aggregate, there are a seemingly disproportionate number of African Americans at all levels tagged as poor performers, and being let go because of the economic downturn.

Bias is pervasive, regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or national origin. It is a survival mechanism on the most basic level. It is part of the human experience. For many of us it is largely unconscious. We don’t even recognize our own biases. Ironically this can be especially true among people who have participated in targeted diversity and inclusion training because we come to believe that “only bad people have bias.” According to this classic way of thinking, good people get it, aren’t biased, and are supportive, and bad people are biased, say stupid things, and are working “against the cause.” Bias is particularly difficult to recognize among individuals who feel that they are “good,” supportive of equity and inclusion, and believe in the value that diversity brings to a profession. Many people in our profession feel that they’ve already “gotten it.”

The first opportunity to avoid promoting our own discomforts with each other as performance-based truths is in recognizing that we all have biases that are expressed in our day-to-day world. This recognition allows us to explore the genesis of these discomforts. If we determine that indeed we have a racial bias, they most often exist because of our historical experiences. Many of us were raised in homogeneous environments and are influenced by the media; this patterning is hard to undo.

If we can recognize our biases, then we have more opportunity to pause, ask clarifying questions, and discern which workplace behaviors describe performance and potential. Recognizing our biases also allows us to realize that the more someone is like the evaluator, the greater the chance for symmetry and comfort, and the less reliable our “gut” reactions are. Identifying observable behaviors with a breadth of allowance for cultural difference will have the effect of examining performance from a more equitable set of standards. Finally, establishing structures that require multiple formal, diverse opinions for performance reviews recognizes the potential for bias in the process, and builds in a more balanced perspective.

Our economy cannot afford any unnecessary loss of Blacks/African Americans. Their representation in many professions is too thin. The need to have a highly regarded diverse professional core is too great to lose talented minorities just because their expression, their socialization, their style, and their communication may be different in some way that is uncomfortable for others.

Cook Ross Diversity & Inclusion News, Coups & Ooohs

ReInventing Diversity for the 21st Century
************************************

Adam Bender, 8, is one of several kids who plays catcher in Southeastern’s rookie league at Veterans Park. What makes Adam stand out is that he plays one of the toughest positions on the field with only one leg. Because of cancer, he had his left leg amputated when he was one. Adam doesn’t use a prosthesis, and only uses crutches when he reaches base for the Astros.

Turning Diversity into Dollars
The NAA Foundation asked Leading Edge Associates to examine best-practice firms to learn how they create positive business results by incorporating principles of diversity and inclusion. Six key principals emerged. Click for more...

Why Diversity, Why Now?
According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, forward-thinking leaders, recognize the need to invest in diversity and inclusion as part of their overall talent management practices and to continually challenge their organizations to make the connection between those principles and their corporate performance. Click for more...

U.S. to Extend Its Job Benefits to Gay Partners
President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage. Click for more...

In the Newsroom: Hispanic, Latino or What?
A 2006 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 48% of Latino adults generally describe themselves by their country of origin first; 26% generally use the terms Latino or Hispanic first; and 24% generally call themselves American on first reference. As for a preference between “Hispanic” and “Latino”, a 2008 Center survey found that 36% of respondents prefer the term “Hispanic,” 21% prefer the term “Latino” and the rest have no preference. Click for more...

Voices Reflect Rising Sense of Racial Optimism
More Americans indicated that they were feeling optimistic about race relations, yet no one claimed that racial prejudice has disappeared. Click for more... 

Gay in the Academy
As conditions have improved in the nation, so too has the academic world become a bit better for scholars who identify as G, L, and sometimes Q (though there is still a long way to go for B and especially T). Click for more...

Women Bullying Women at Work
A good 40 percent of workplace bullies are women. At least the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time. Click for more...

--------------------------------
Workplace Diversity -- Practice and Research
George Mason University School of Management 3rd Annual Diversity Conference
Join diversity professionals of all backgrounds—corporate leaders, managers, academics, researchers—to explore the latest best practices and research in diversity management and business education specific to cultural competency in the workplace. Keynote speakers include: Howard Ross, Founder and Chief Learning Officer, Cook Ross Inc. "What is Cultural Competency? Setting the Boundaries" and Chris Earley, Dean, University of Connecticut School of Business, "Cultural Intelligence and Discovering Underlying Capabilities for Sojourners". Click for more...
--------------------------------

First Disney Princess Has Fans and Detractors
For the first time in Walt Disney animation history, the fairest of them all is black. The debate surrounding “The Princess and the Frog” illustrates how difficult it is to deal with race in animation, experts say. Cartoons by their nature trade in caricatures. Click for more...

Limited Progress for Minority Football Coaches
USA TODAY examined diversity at the highest ranks of major-college football coaching, about 3.5% of head coaches and 5% of offensive and defensive coordinators were minorities. Click for more...

Moving Beyond “Cosmetic Diversity”
The Wall Street Journal turned the tables on the presidents of 10 top colleges and universities with an unusual assignment: answer an essay question from their own school's application. Colin Diver, president of Reed College , wrote, "Did I really understand what it means to live in a diverse neighborhood? Or did I just want cosmetic diversity as a backdrop for imposing my white, professional-class ways?" Click for more...

Times Are Changing: Gender and Generation at Work and at Home
A new report from Families and Work Institute details the blending of gender roles among Millennials. Click for more...

The Trouble with Diversity
Celebrating the diversity of American life has become the American left's way of accepting their poverty, of accepting inequality. Our current notion of cultural diversity -- trumpeted as the repudiation of racism and biological essentialism -- in fact grew out of and perpetuates the very concepts it congratulates itself on having escaped. Click for more...

**Headscratcher of the Week**
U.S. Senator called “That Jew”
An Arkansas state lawmaker hoping for the a nod to run for Senate reportedly referred to Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer as "that Jew" during an appearance before a Republican group.

**Wise Words of Inclusion**
“We take our colors, chameleon-like, from each other.” -Sebastien-Roch-Nicolas de Chamfort, writer (1741-1794)

Join Us for "ReInventing Law Firm Diversity Efforts" FREE Web Seminar -- June 30, 2009

 

For more information, contact:

J. Robby Gregg, Jr.
Vice President, Strategic Partnerships & Alliances
Cook Ross Inc.
301-565-4035 x1023 or robbyg@cookross.com

Swine Flu: Diversity’s Perfect Storm

The war of words – and the taking of sides in a predictable “us versus them” battle -- has begun as the world mobilizes to fight the spread of swine flu. Our success in educating world citizens and engaging governments to put collective interest first depends on creating trust and cooperation. Blame and fear-mongering are counter-productive in the effort to stem panic and encourage proven behaviors that protect personal and public health and minimize sickness and death.

 

Swine flu is a textbook example of “the perfect storm” … when individual events combine to aggravate a situation and increase its danger and impact by multiples. In the case of swine flu (H1N1 virus), we are witnessing globalization, unconscious bias, and the need for systemic action to create more inclusive and equitable societal and organizational cultures.

 

As you can see from the graph below, swine flu becomes the intersection of a wide array of economic, psychological, emotional, linguistic, and health prevention and access forces. When seen as a totality, it is easy to understand how our fears (both rational and irrational) can easily overwhelm us, especially if they are stoked by pundits eager to use the swine flu as an opportunity to rage and rant against illegal immigration and demand closure of our borders.

 

Decoding the Swine Flu (see graph above)

 

Globalization & Immigration Patterns

The rapid movement of people and goods around the globe means both opportunities for profit and commerce, but also vulnerabilities, exposure, and risks to health and social stability. There is no consensus among health experts the ultimate impact of swine flu. It is undeniably a global issue.

 

Xenophobia and Fear of “the Other”

We live in a political, economic, and sociocultural environment that pathologizes people with different languages, customs, appearances, diets, and religious beliefs. Put simply, we get our guard up and fear others who we perceive to be threat to our “way of life.” When worldviews collide, it is a long a painful journey for the dominant culture to find comfortable avenues for assimilating and appreciating what other cultures offer. The spread of a virus helps unglue the important points of connection we seek to build in our global community.

 

Language Barriers

The United States remains an isolated outpost of exceptionalism when it comes to making a national commitment to multilingualism. The motto of the European Union is “Unity in Diversity” which recognizes that multilingualism sits at the heart of their solidarity. The United States continues to struggle with the fear that our national identity will somehow be undone by widespread multilingualism. I am a firm believer that our national identity will be enhanced and strengthened by greater language fluency.

24/7 News Cycle & Media Alarmism

A vigilant media is a terrific asset in informing the public and mobilizing a productive response. However, in this age of infotainment we are already seeing the downside of media alarmism and the media’s treatment of the spread of swine flu as a hook to sustain viewer interest to increase sponsorship and advertising revenues. With so many hours of broadcasting to fill, the opportunity to report inaccurate information or to focus public attention on trivial issues in an effort to sustain a large viewing audience increases exponentially.

 

Annual Flu Death Rate

Pandemics are not new. Outbreaks are predicted and expected every few decades. Every year, flu outbreaks result in nearly 40,000 deaths. The U.S. experienced a mild flu season this past winter. Sometimes, a mild flu season can lead to complacency.

Health Disparities in the U.S. & Other Countries

Billions of people around the world lack access to basic health services, much less health insurance and the ability to pay for healthcare. In the case of swine flu, much of the world remains unable to protect themselves, their families and the communities from infection. In addition, culturally appropriate health services are essential ingredients in overcoming health disparities due to cultural, racial or ethnic differences. Healthcare practitioners are becoming increasingly aware that cultural, historical, and demographic factors impact health status and individual and governmental responses to illness and treatment.

 

Health Literacy in the United States

Currently flu vaccines exist. We know that it is educated guesswork by public health scientists each year to determine the ingredients of flu vaccines. Yet, annually less than 1/3^rd of Americans get vaccinated against the flu. We only have ourselves to blame if we have access to vaccinations, yet fail to inoculate the herd.

 

Economic Disparities

At Cook Ross, we believe that every single human being is entitled to basic human rights including access to quality healthcare, public education, adequate nutrition, and safe shelter. No human being is illegal. These rights are the key to not only our survival but our global growth and prosperity.

 

Information Patterns

While it is easy to see how the media and the Internet have enabled health agencies to spot and begin tracking emerging viruses much sooner, it is important to recognize the billions of individuals across the globe who live in poverty and have limited access to both information and the means to act upon it.

 

Preventative Health and Hygiene

Different standards for hygiene exist across cultures, whether it comes to access to clean water for hand washing, proximity of animals to people, or different standards of personal care and food preparation. Hygiene has traditionally become a club used to bludgeon people from other cultures. Finding other people from exotic locales to be dirty and unclean is a tired old routine that provides a convenient justification for our fears of others.

 

Conclusion

The spread of swine flu provides many opportunities for us to examine both public policy and personal beliefs. Failing to appreciate the complexity of all the factors that contribute to our fear and discomfort with the swine flu outbreak leads us to oversimplistic solutions and missed opportunities to reflect on our individual and collective fears. Swine flu triggers deep psychological responses, hidden biases, and primal fears.  In this context, we are reminded why we should all react with seriousness, careful thinking, and patience in determining responses.

Cook Ross Diversity & Inclusion News, Coups & Ooohs

ReInventing Diversity for the 21st Century
*************************************

United Airlines to Start Charging Obese for Two Seats, or Bump Them from Packed Flights
Passengers who are too large to fit comfortably in a single coach seat will be required to buy two tickets on the next flight or upgrade to business class, where seats are larger, if United's flight attendants can't find two open seats for them. Click for more...

Diversity Linked to Increased Sales Revenue and Profits, More Customers Workplace diversity is among the most important predictors of a business' sales revenue, customer numbers and profitability, according to research to be published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review. Click for more...

Obama’s Press Office Needs Diversity According to Roland Martin, while we hold the media accountable for the need to diversify their ranks, it's quite telling to see the lack of diversity in the White House's press office. Click for more...

ADA Convenes Major Summit on Finding Dental Care Access Solutions The American Dental Association’s first Access to Dental Care Summit recently gathered 144 stakeholders from a dozen diverse groups to share ideas, brainstorm and work collaboratively to improve access to dental care. Howard Ross, Founder of Cook Ross, Inc. facilitated this Future Search conference. The ADA convened the summit to create a common vision, to increase access to dental care and improve the oral health of underserved populations. Click for more...

Billboard: Gay Rights are Civil Rights One of two new billboards along a Charleston, S.C. freeway has two water fountains with one labeled “straight” and one labeled “gay” -- a reference to the days of segregation of whites and blacks in every facet of daily life -- with the tagline “Gay Rights Are Civil Rights.” Click for more...

Student Sports Fans and Bigoted Attitudes College students who are serious about their identification with their institution’s football and men’s basketball teams are more likely than other students to have homophobic and sexist attitudes. Click for more...

Ex-Klan Supporter Wants to Get to Heaven Elwin Wilson is a sad, sickly man haunted by time. He feels confused. He cannot fully answer the lingering questions, the doubts. Where did all the hate come from? And where did it go? Click for more...

Orientation for Whites? Mount Holyoke tries possibly unique approach to the controversy over programs for incoming minority students by adding section for those who are in the majority. Click for more...

**Headscratcher of the Week**

Texas Lawmaker Suggests Asians Adopt Easier Names
A North Texas legislator during testimony on voter identification legislation said Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are easier for Americans to deal with. Click for more...

Stop Fanning the Flames of Intolerance

The recent tragic killing of 13 people at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., carries my mind back to college. I was deeply impacted by reading “The Stranger,” by Albert Camus. The book tells the story of Meursault, an alienated and delusional French man who kills an Arab man on the beach in French Algiers. Among the many lessons I took away from reading the book is the hope that the day never comes that I am not shocked by brutal, senseless, and remorseless murder.

Times of economic hardship can bring out the best in people and the worst. During this recent economic recession, we have seen many acts of generosity, compassion and kindness, such as Carlos Vasquez, the dry cleaner in New York City who offered free dry cleaning for customers going on job interviews. Competition for jobs, however, and increased economic insecurity greatly increases the opportunity for blame and intolerance to take root and blossom. When bad things happen we want to blame someone, and often people who appear to be strangers are a convenient target. I think a better use of our personal and collective resources is to examine why we feel so scared and vulnerable, rather than to identify an enemy.

The sad irony of an immigrant killing other immigrants who are taking a class on citizenship has not been lost in media reports on the Binghamton incident. Binghamton police have speculated that the killer, who was ethnically Chinese but was from Vietnam, was angry over losing a job and frustrated about his poor English skills. As shocked as I am by the killing, I am not surprised that this kind of incident has occurred. It is not a big leap to go from mocking, blaming and resenting immigrants to hating immigrants to wanting to destroy them. It is not a new phenomenon when the victim of that hate internalizes it and visits it upon those like him. It is an unfortunate part of our culture, and all too often even good people participate. I cringe when I think of all the times in my life that I have laughed at people making fun of how someone from another culture spoke, looked or acted, or said nothing while others did; that I watched television shows or movies with shameful, demeaning stereotypes in them, and just kept on watching.

There is space in our public discourse for legitimate concerns about the ability of the nation to acculturate and employ large numbers of immigrants, particularly the undocumented. However, if we allow a phantom menace to be created out of the issue of immigration, then we risk even greater civic and economic discord and upheaval.

Today’s media culture invests millions of dollars in making entertainment out of fanning the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment. We use terminology that demonizes people, like “illegal immigrants,” as if a human being can be illegal. In an attempt to achieve success and popularity, media demagogues fan the flames of hatred. Lou Dobbs on CNN laments that America is becoming a “third-world country.” According to Bill O’Reilly on FOX News, advocates of lifting some limits on migration “…hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure. So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too.”

If you listen enough to these media know-nothings, the impression you’d gather is that all immigrants are parasites. And yet, ironically, many of these hate mongers are themselves the children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren of immigrants. The hatred that was once turned upon their ancestors, they now turn upon others. The cycle of hatred, in all of its irrationality, goes on and on. As television host Geraldo Rivera has said, “The style changes, the accents change, the geographical antecedents change, but it's the same. You can track headline for headline the response to the Irish wave of immigration in the mid-19th century to the reaction of the Minutemen and similar radical anti-immigration groups today."

The perception that we need to compete for limited or scarce resources leads to the divisive “us versus them” mentality. Yes, the deaths in Binghamton were the result of the direct acts of one man, but the cultural mindset that surrounds them threatens us all.

Xenophobia blinds us to the new possibilities that emerge when we weave different languages, cultural traditions, and new ways of being and doing and knowing into our social fabric. The very greatness of our society is built on the notion that there is room for all of us at the table. That is the foundation of the great experiment that is America. That foundation is built on compassion; on an understanding that, like most of our ancestors, immigrants, both documented and undocumented, come to this country not to take away anything from us, but to build a life for themselves and their families, often weathering terrible ordeals and trials to try to make a home in “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” There is room for intelligent discourse over how to best manage that desire. There is room for compassionate solutions, even when we decide we must decline an immigrant’s desire to come to our country.

There is no room for hatred and demagoguery.

The Prop 8 Conflict in California has Elevated the Debate about LGBT Rights

The Prop 8 conflict in California has elevated the debate about LGBT rights, and the specter of our conscious and unconscious homophobia. U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder recently caused some controversy by stating that the U.S. is, in many ways, "a nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race, but our discussion of sexual identity is no easier, and while some of our problem is cowardice, just as much is ignorance and intolerance.

It is hard to confront conscious and unconscious bias. When we fail together as a society to explore our collective homophobia, we pay a steep price. Communities of color and low-income families suffer disproportionately from the health crisis caused by the HIV/AIDS epidemic...an epidemic that was ignored by many for too long because it was labeled “the gay plague.”

Distressing numbers of children are being raised in single parent households. We are increasingly polarized into an “us versus them” dynamic across religious divides. Instead of trying to restrict loving couples from marrying, it seems to me that making all kinds of strong new families is part of the solution, not part of the problem. That is why I was so blown away by the courage and message of a recent speech by Julian Bond at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) annual gala in Los Angeles. Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, took an historic stance in denouncing bigotry against LGBT people. Here is one of my favorite passages, among many:

The successful strategies of the modern movement for civil rights were litigation, organization, mobilization and coalition, all aimed at creating a national constituency for civil rights. Sometimes the simplest of ordinary change the way we think and act. That’s why when I am asked, “Are gay rights civil rights?” my answer is always, “Of course they are.” Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives –- the right to equal treatment before the law. These are rights shared by everyone; there is no one in the United States who does not –- or should not -– share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not "special" rights in any way. It isn’t "special" to be free from discrimination –- it is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship. The right not to be discriminated against is a commonplace claim we all expect to enjoy under our laws and our founding document –- the Constitution. That many had to struggle to gain those rights makes them precious –- it does not make them "special" and it does not reserve them only for me or restrict them from others.

One of the fall-outs from Prop 8 is that the African American community has been specifically cited for supporting the measure. I think it is important for us not to single out any group of people and label them as being more homophobic than other groups. Many African Americans, like Bond, support gay rights. Many do not. This is true of almost any identity group. I understand, but do not defend, the logic of those who argue that they need to focus on securing the rights of their own group, especially when their needs and rights have gone undefended and unsecured for centuries. At the same time, my professional life has been premised upon an unshakable belief that our commonalities outnumber our differences and we are all in the same boat together. As Bond went on to say:

When others gain these rights, my rights are not diminished in any way. My rights are not diluted when my neighbor enjoys protection from discrimination –- he or she becomes my ally in defending the rights we all share.

I know that many people feel that LGBT rights should be restricted for religious reasons, but my entire life, I was raised in a Jewish religious tradition that rejected the eating of ham and pork products. In this belief, I am joined by my Hindu daughter-in-law, several Buddhist and Muslim friends, and many vegetarians. We do not eat ham. Should we demand that it be illegal for others to eat bacon? I simply don’t believe that laws or the Constitution should be used to mandate a religious code of living for others.

As Julian Bond states, “Sexual disposition parallels race -- I was born black and had no choice. I could not and would not change it if I could. Like race, our sexuality isn’t a preference -- is it immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences.” At the link below you can see his stirring speech and read more inspiring quote excerpts. It gives me goose bumps each time I watch it.

Posted at 10:39 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

As someone who has been doing diversity work and delivering diversity training for almost 25 years, I feel compelled to respond to the recent article that appeared in The Washington Post on January 20 titled “Most Diversity Training Ineffective: Study Finds.” The study, the second in two years by Alexandra Kalev at the University of Arizona and Frank Dobbin at Harvard, claims to show that diversity training has failed to deliver on its promise. Specifically, the report states that diversity training is "ineffective and even counterproductive in increasing the number of women and minorities in management," and that the negative effects are particularly present when trainings are mandatory and "corrective" in nature: ergo designed to undo perceived injustices.

This study has given us an opportunity, once again, to look at whether or not diversity is effective, and at ourselves as diversity practitioners. While I haven’t had an opportunity to read the full study, which at this time has apparently not yet been published, I do have concerns about the implications of such a report. Not the least of which is the tendency to describe diversity training as a monolith and evaluate it accordingly, as if one could make an assessment like "Restaurants are. . ." without taking into account how different one restaurant might be from another. There are a wide variety of diversity trainings that are introduced and used in a wide variety of ways. In addition, the assertion in the study that mandatory trainings "are the problem" belies the fact that some of the most successful companies in the country have produced results using mandatory training as a tool for diversity. Clearly, for those who disagree, the study provides justification for what they already want to believe.

In fact, the rabid "I told you so!" reaction to the study on the part of respondents which can be seen on The Washington Post's blog site indicates that it has tapped into a profound reservoir of resentment, much of which has been generated by people who claim to have been forced to attend trainings in the past.

At the same time, however, I am concerned about the reactions by some in the diversity industry to the recent report. I have read reactions over the past few days that have denigrated every aspect of the study, and I have been struck by the knee-jerk, defensive responses, not only to the report, but even to its principal author who has been the victim of personal and petty attacks. Diversity supporters seem to have their own need to justify their already established point of view.

I almost feel like I am watching a political campaign.

As is so often in life, the truth may be in between. People have every right to hold those of us in the diversity industry accountable as to whether or not we have produced the results we have promised because, despite our best intentions, we often have not. The fact that so many people have strong resentment to diversity training can be easily dismissed as a result of their inherent bias and resistance to change. Nevertheless, if we are to be thoughtful in our attempts to demonstrate any of the introspection that we often teach in our trainings, we should not be afraid to ask the question, "If we are doing the right thing in the right way, why are we generating so much hostility?"

I believe that we have to acknowledge that despite our most noble of intentions, diversity training has at times been superficial, self-indulgent, even sanctimonious and self-righteous, and not always focused on the business needs of the organization provided for. As diversity practitioners we should not be above working on our own agendas and our own issues both inside and outside the classroom. Most of us know that when people are forced to do anything it brings up a natural resistance. The old saying goes, "If you expect somebody to really say 'yes' to something, they first have to have the freedom to say 'no'."

But that is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If we are truly going to practice what we preach, we have to be willing to listen to and learn from research like the Kalev/Dobbin study; to winnow out the valid from the invalid aspects of what they have to say. And we have to avoid the tendency to react from our own attachment to an already determined point of view, especially one that is self-justifying and supports our own economic survival.

Despite assertions to the contrary, a lot of diversity work has, for the past couple of generations, been too driven by an adherence to several "pillars" namely: 1) a U.S. centric focus on race and gender issues; 2) the tendency, despite our occasional statements to the contrary, to focus on individual rather than cultural approaches in organizations, and, most of all; 3) a deeply ingrained "them vs. us" approach that makes it seem as though we are saying that those of us who support diversity are "good" and those who are perceived to oppose it, like the authors of this study are "bad", or even "evil". We, in our common vernacular, speak to helping people "get it." As if we have something that they need and should have. As if they need to be "fixed."

It is time to Re-invent Diversity for the 21st Century; to understand that while we still have to be vigilant in addressing critical issues of discrimination and tragic situations that emerge (such as what took place in Jena, LA) it is time to realize that our expanding globalism calls for a change in our approach from the framing of all diversity work in the "them vs. us" conversation to a broader, more inclusive outlook. It is time for us to realize that most diversity challenges are not caused by evil people consciously trying to keep others down, but by normal people, including ourselves, reacting to a broad level of unconscious beliefs that create different world views and at times correspondingly different actions.

It is time to realize that we have to develop a greater sense of cultural flexibility to be able to study, work, and live in this increasingly multi-cultural world. It is time that the work we do focuses on the needs of the organizations that we are serving, not on our own personal agendas. And it is time to listen more and debate less if we are going to create a society that can truly inquire and dialogue about these important issues.

For the past year on this blog, there have been a variety of articles that have discussed everything from athletes and steroid use (or denial of usage) (A Cheater is Just a Cheater 10/8/07) to political figures caught in scandal and our examination of them (Room for Compassion) to hate crimes and our often passive or indifferent attitudes towards them (Let's Stop Pretending). A common thread to all of these articles is the underlying question of:

How can we understand bias when we are unable to see it in ourselves?

It is in fact one of the critical questions that we are leading with as we stand, share, and deliver our work in 2008 and beyond; we are in the process re-tooling, re-framing, and Reinventing Diversity.

We are excited about sharing conversations about our personal/individual biases and those found within the organizations that each of us are a part of. We are in anticipation of exploring with our clients and others how organizational and individual unconscious biases intersect and interact with each other and the transformational possibilities and organizational growth potential that can be captured from thorough exploration of our underlying assumptions about the world, ourselves, our clients, and one another--our colleagues.

In 2008 we are Reinventing Diversity with you. We encourage and invite you to join us for one of our web seminars starting again in January. In all of our web seminars you will see examples of unconcious bias and we hope to share and expand our learning with you. Visit our website at CookRoss.com to register.

Thank you for a great 2007 from me, Amri, on behalf of the Cook Ross Team! We are looking forward to a transformational 2008. Make it a Great New Year!

Response to Washington Post “Diversity Training Ineffective” Article --Howard Ross

As someone who has been doing diversity work and delivering diversity training for almost 25 years, I feel compelled to respond to the recent article that appeared in The Washington Post on January 20 titled “Most Diversity Training Ineffective: Study Finds.” The study, the second in two years by Alexandra Kalev at the University of Arizona and Frank Dobbin at Harvard, claims to show that diversity training has failed to deliver on its promise. Specifically, the report states that diversity training is "ineffective and even counterproductive in increasing the number of women and minorities in management," and that the negative effects are particularly present when trainings are mandatory and "corrective" in nature: ergo designed to undo perceived injustices.

This study has given us an opportunity, once again, to look at whether or not diversity is effective, and at ourselves as diversity practitioners. While I haven’t had an opportunity to read the full study, which at this time has apparently not yet been published, I do have concerns about the implications of such a report. Not the least of which is the tendency to describe diversity training as a monolith and evaluate it accordingly, as if one could make an assessment like "Restaurants are. . ." without taking into account how different one restaurant might be from another. There are a wide variety of diversity trainings that are introduced and used in a wide variety of ways. In addition, the assertion in the study that mandatory trainings "are the problem" belies the fact that some of the most successful companies in the country have produced results using mandatory training as a tool for diversity. Clearly, for those who disagree, the study provides justification for what they already want to believe.

In fact, the rabid "I told you so!" reaction to the study on the part of respondents which can be seen on The Washington Post's blog site indicates that it has tapped into a profound reservoir of resentment, much of which has been generated by people who claim to have been forced to attend trainings in the past.

At the same time, however, I am concerned about the reactions by some in the diversity industry to the recent report. I have read reactions over the past few days that have denigrated every aspect of the study, and I have been struck by the knee-jerk, defensive responses, not only to the report, but even to its principal author who has been the victim of personal and petty attacks. Diversity supporters seem to have their own need to justify their already established point of view.

I almost feel like I am watching a political campaign.

As is so often in life, the truth may be in between. People have every right to hold those of us in the diversity industry accountable as to whether or not we have produced the results we have promised because, despite our best intentions, we often have not. The fact that so many people have strong resentment to diversity training can be easily dismissed as a result of their inherent bias and resistance to change. Nevertheless, if we are to be thoughtful in our attempts to demonstrate any of the introspection that we often teach in our trainings, we should not be afraid to ask the question, "If we are doing the right thing in the right way, why are we generating so much hostility?"

I believe that we have to acknowledge that despite our most noble of intentions, diversity training has at times been superficial, self-indulgent, even sanctimonious and self-righteous, and not always focused on the business needs of the organization provided for. As diversity practitioners we should not be above working on our own agendas and our own issues both inside and outside the classroom. Most of us know that when people are forced to do anything it brings up a natural resistance. The old saying goes, "If you expect somebody to really say 'yes' to something, they first have to have the freedom to say 'no'."

But that is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If we are truly going to practice what we preach, we have to be willing to listen to and learn from research like the Kalev/Dobbin study; to winnow out the valid from the invalid aspects of what they have to say. And we have to avoid the tendency to react from our own attachment to an already determined point of view, especially one that is self-justifying and supports our own economic survival.

Despite assertions to the contrary, a lot of diversity work has, for the past couple of generations, been too driven by an adherence to several "pillars" namely: 1) a U.S. centric focus on race and gender issues; 2) the tendency, despite our occasional statements to the contrary, to focus on individual rather than cultural approaches in organizations, and, most of all; 3) a deeply ingrained "them vs. us" approach that makes it seem as though we are saying that those of us who support diversity are "good" and those who are perceived to oppose it, like the authors of this study are "bad", or even "evil". We, in our common vernacular, speak to helping people "get it." As if we have something that they need and should have. As if they need to be "fixed."

It is time to Re-invent Diversity for the 21st Century; to understand that while we still have to be vigilant in addressing critical issues of discrimination and tragic situations that emerge (such as what took place in Jena, LA) it is time to realize that our expanding globalism calls for a change in our approach from the framing of all diversity work in the "them vs. us" conversation to a broader, more inclusive outlook. It is time for us to realize that most diversity challenges are not caused by evil people consciously trying to keep others down, but by normal people, including ourselves, reacting to a broad level of unconscious beliefs that create different world views and at times correspondingly different actions.

It is time to realize that we have to develop a greater sense of cultural flexibility to be able to study, work, and live in this increasingly multi-cultural world. It is time that the work we do focuses on the needs of the organizations that we are serving, not on our own personal agendas. And it is time to listen more and debate less if we are going to create a society that can truly inquire and dialogue about these important issues.

Examining Our Biases--Reinventing Diversity

For the past year on this blog, there have been a variety of articles that have discussed everything from athletes and steroid use (or denial of usage) (A Cheater is Just a Cheater 10/8/07) to political figures caught in scandal and our examination of them (Room for Compassion) to hate crimes and our often passive or indifferent attitudes towards them (Let's Stop Pretending). A common thread to all of these articles is the underlying question of:

How can we understand bias when we are unable to see it in ourselves?

It is in fact one of the critical questions that we are leading with as we stand, share, and deliver our work in 2008 and beyond; we are in the process re-tooling, re-framing, and Reinventing Diversity.

We are excited about sharing conversations about our personal/individual biases and those found within the organizations that each of us are a part of. We are in anticipation of exploring with our clients and others how organizational and individual unconscious biases intersect and interact with each other and the transformational possibilities and organizational growth potential that can be captured from thorough exploration of our underlying assumptions about the world, ourselves, our clients, and one another--our colleagues.

In 2008 we are Reinventing Diversity with you. We encourage and invite you to join us for one of our web seminars starting again in January. In all of our web seminars you will see examples of unconcious bias and we hope to share and expand our learning with you. Visit our website at CookRoss.com to register.

Thank you for a great 2007 from me, Amri, on behalf of the Cook Ross Team! We are looking forward to a transformational 2008. Make it a Great New Year!