Suddenly Anything is Possible

How Do You Handle the Diversity Emergency?

It seems like a regular part of the news. Some organization in the media spotlight confronting the embarrassment, financial and marketplace vulnerability of a “diversity emergency”.

A major corporation is sued by its African American and female employees, creating a divided culture, and eventually, a $40 million settlement.

Don Imus puts his foot in his mouth by unleashing a stream of stereotypes and racial insults on a widely read radio show, leaving his employer in turmoil, his listeners enraged, and the entertainment world embarrassed.

A national retail clothing giant is investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegedly discriminating against a 17-year-old Muslim by refusing to hire her because she wore a hijab, or head scarf, in observance of her sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Cambridge Police Department deals with the fallout of the arrest of a prominent African-American Harvard professor.

A large insurance company is accused of denying its services to certain communities, resulting in NAACP picketing, angry employees and public embarrassment.

The situations listed above are few that our clients have faced, but the list is almost endless: Sportscasters fired. Restaurants accused of racism. Tape recording of executives purportedly using racial epithets, etc., etc. These kinds of situations are among the most feared in American business today because the costs associated with them are astronomical.

Lawsuits like the $85 million paid by Publix Supermarkets, or the over $300 million paid by Mitsubishi. Stock losses like those suffered by Texaco and how many people will never eat at a Denny’s again?

The reality is that how organizations deal with these emergency situations is far more critical than the emergency itself. Sure, the embarrassment and public vulnerability is inescapable, but the reaction of many organizations makes these situations even worse than they have to be.

It is not surprising that we react the way we do. It is natural to feel victimized and defensive because in an overwhelmingly large percentage of cases these incidents do not reflect the malevolent intent of the company in question. They reflect the negative behavior of certain employees; or the overall ignorance about these issues on the part of the organization; or, even more often, an organization that has not taken its vulnerability seriously enough and not been proactive on this very critical issue.

So, the pattern is all too familiar. The news hits the stands, or the lawsuit is filed, and the company reacts. Lawyers give formal statements. Leaders cite how appalled they are. In some circumstances, attempts are made to cover up, butter up, or put in spin control….but little is done to use the situation as a springboard for creating a stronger organization.

In our experience, there are a number of ways to handle a “diversity emergency” that can help your organization in the long run.

1. Deal with the short term realities, but take the long view.

It is important to react quickly and do “damage control” in a situation like those mentioned about, but it is more important to begin developing a long-term recovery strategy. Some people may never forget the headlines they read, but in the same sense that some consumer product companies (e.g. Perrier, or Tylenol) have managed to recover nicely from contaminated products, it is possible to develop a long-term strategy for recovery from a diversity emergency. The long-term view also can remove some of the anxiety and panic and give people within the organization a sense that there is something they can do about the situation.

2. Find out what really happened. Is it a special case or common case circumstance?

In our haste to cover our organizational tails, we sometimes can rush to assume that the situation, even if it is proven true, is a unique, special case, reflective of a specific employee or employees. In our experience this is rarely the case. Usually, for a situation to reach these kinds of proportions it is reflective of a culture within the organization that has tolerated this behavior for a long time, or minimized it and not acted on it. The notion that employees are waiting to take advantage of the cash cow of a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit is simply not upheld by organizational studies. In fact, studies show that there are many times more cases that go unreported because the process of filing a suit is a rigorous and dangerous one for employees. They can easily find themselves up against a company with far more resources to defend itself than they have to pursue the case, and also find themselves ostracized by fellow workers, even friends, who are afraid of being tainted in the eyes of their employer by associating with the complaining employee. It takes a comprehensive study of the organization to find out how much of the behavior in question is really going on.

3. Use the incident as a springboard for organizational transformation.

Take the incident as a sign that you need to address diversity as an issue within your organization. Take a comprehensive system-based approach, not just a quick fix. One of our clients, a public power utility, reviewed and reworked their hiring, interviewing and promotion processes after settling a lawsuit. They became a leader in making their organization a demonstration of an equitable workplace.

4. Communicate with and listen to your employees.

Public incidents involving a company can have a dramatic impact on its employees. They can react defensively, or with embarrassment, or it can cause sympathetic employees to rise up with their own issues. Make it clear that you understand and care about the impact it has had on them and let them give you suggestions as to how you can make the company a better place for them to work.

5. Communicate with and listen to the community.

Community members are likely to experience reactions ranging from disappointment to rage. Get out and talk to them, but don’t try to convince them how great you really are. Listen to their concerns. Listen to their upset. Ask for their ideas. Whenever possible get them involved in your recovery process.

6. Make yourself available.

Don’t go into hiding. Talk to reporters, to customers, and to employees. Let people know that you consider it your responsibility to deal with this issue…even when it gets uncomfortable!

7. Show that you take the incident seriously.

Don’t downplay the situation. If anything, by embracing it fully, people will have less of a need to hammer you with how significant it really is. Take it seriously and let people know that you do.

8. Train your employees not to make the same mistake again.

Don’t assume that the incident will only happen to the particular employees involved. Help others understand that they can easily make the same mistake if they’re not careful. The Atlanta Braves asked us to provide training for all of their major league and minor league players, as well as their managers, coaches, and front office personnel. They didn’t think that they were all like the infamous John Rocker …far from it. But they decided to use the Rocker incident as a learning opportunity for the entire organization.

9. Create organizational structures that ensure it won’t happen again.

Put structures in places that employees can come to when they have concerns: corporate justice offices, strengthened EEO offices, or human resources counselors can all provide a place where concerned employees can come. In addition, managers and supervisors can be trained to know what to look for and listen to and intervene in ways that prevent situations from getting out of hand. An employee who feels like their complaints are taken seriously within the organization is less likely to run to a lawyer or the newspapers.

10. Don’t assume that it’s just “their” problem. Take on your own learning about diversity.

Perhaps the most important thing you can do as a leader is to take your diversity emergency situation as an opportunity to do your own learning. Show people within and outside of your organization that you want to know more. Model diversity, inclusion and cultural competency learning behavior for everybody around you.

Remember, diversity emergencies can be embarrassing, costly, and upsetting, but they do not have to be permanent. Turn your emergency into an opportunity for learning and you will be surprised how you can turn your organization around and even demonstrate proactive behaviors for other organizations.

Victim or leader, which will you be?

Cook Ross specializes in helping organizations prepare for Diversity Emergencies. We have led many executive seminars on Dealing with Diversity Emergencies and developing Diversity Communications Plans. We also provide management and executive trainingon cultural competency, unconscious bias, talent management, organizational change, and ReInventing Diversity for the 21st Century©. For more information, call 301.565.4035 or write to us at lookingforanswers@cookross.com.

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

A Cheater is Just a Cheater--Howard Ross

I am a sports fan…always have been. I am particularly a baseball fan, and so I watched with special interest as Barry Bonds approached Hank Aaron's homerun record this summer, and noted the constant media and fan derision he received. (For example, I read one column by USAToday’s Christine Brennan, after the homerun was hit that she began with, “Our long national nightmare is over…a bit of hyperbole, I think, when our soldiers are dying in the battlefield.)

Now I have to say that my inclination is to think that Bonds used steroids. I have no proof of that, of course, as does anybody else yet, but I have been convinced, perhaps by the press, that he probably did juice up over the past few years.

However, I have noticed a pattern in the relentless way that Bonds has been berated about this that strikes me as inconsistent, particularly in light of how others seem to be treated for infractions that would appear on the surface to be analogous.

It particularly struck me this morning as I was watching the report of the New England Patriots victory yesterday and the excitement with which their 5-0 start has been greeted. Noticeably absent was any mention of the fact that just a few short weeks ago Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick was found to be spying on opposing teams, a direct violation of the rules. And just before that it was Rick Ankiel, the feel good baseball story of the year when he came back to the St. Louis Cardinals, just before he was found to have used Human Growth Hormone; and before that the celebration of Sammy Sosa’s 600th homerun…you remember Sosa, of steroid allegations himself, as well as corked bat fame.

Now as much as I like sports, I also know that a game is a game. So who really cares about all of this in the grand scheme of more serious issues? But sports has had an unwavering ability to cast a light on some of our core issues over the years.

Why Bonds for this level of recrimination and not the others? I know that people have many explanations…it was baseball’s, (and maybe sport’s) biggest record; he never has admitted juicing (but, of course neither has Sosa); Belichick said he was sorry and took his punishment….etc.

I’m sure all of these are factors, but is there another? When Donovan McNabb suggested recently that Black quarterbacks are under greater scrutiny he was quickly greeted with denial. But is it possible that, without even realizing it, we do hold African American athletes (particularly those, like Bonds, who are deemed to have “attitude”) to a different standard…that their failure is more disappointing; their violations more appalling?

Everything we have been learning about unconscious bias tells us that sort of thing can happen to good people all of the time. That we can be swayed in our determinations by hidden judgments and perceptions that we not only don’t know are there, but that may be counter to our conscious beliefs about ourselves.

Yet, as I hear people respond so defensively to the inquiry about these kinds of questions, as they have with both Bonds and McNabb, I can’t help but muse, “Me thinks thou doest protest too much.”

After all, a cheater is just a cheater.

But are you sure?

Which Way Will it Be?--Howard Ross

A new study has focused even greater attention on why a breakthrough is needed on how we deal with issues of diversity. Harvard’s Robert Putnam, whose 2000 book “Bowling Alone” focused on the issue of declining civic engagement, and who is seen as one of the seminal thinkers in the country on issues of social capital, a concept that identifies the advantage created by a person's location in a structure of relationships, has released a new study which shows that the greater the diversity, the greater the decline in civic engagement.

Robert Putnam on Declining Civic Engagement and Diversity

The study is drawn from detailed interviews with over 30,000 people from all across the United States. The study is particularly seen as noteworthy because Putnam has long been seen as a strong supporter of diversity.

From my way of thinking, there are two interesting dynamics at play. The findings, and people’s reaction to them.

The findings themselves are not surprising at all for most people who have lived or worked in changing environments. It is more challenging to create a sense of community in diverse environments then it is in homogeneous ones. There is no secret to this. People tend to feel comfortable with and gravitate towards other people who are more similar to them. It feels safer. It is easier to trust.

The converse of this is that fear tends to cause most people to withdraw when their environment begins to diversify, and in this withdrawal (Putnam cleverly refers to it as “the turtle pulling its head inside its shell”) is a natural decline in broader community participation and a greater focus on more parochial concerns. Creating community requires reaching out to others who are different. Understanding that difference. Listening and learning.

Putnam’s findings are balanced by others which show that there is enormous value that diversity brings when we find ways to understand it. Scott Page, a University of Michigan professor, for example, has recently released a brilliant new book called The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, in which he proves, using empirical formulations, that diversity actually trumps quality in creating productive, effective teams.

Diversity Trumps Quality

The more interesting dynamic, to me, is the way people are responding to the findings.
As one would expect, conservative groups are responding to the study as evidence for their anti-immigration policies (as if stemming the tide of diversity is any more possible then stopping the sun from rising in the morning!) and, also not surprisingly, many liberals are struggling to find a way to dismiss the findings. Unfortunately, our positionality, on both sides, can often replace thoughtfulness.

We are dealing with a fundamental reality in our society. It is called diversity. Regardless of what some would like to do to stem the tide of it, it is here to stay. The demographics of our country are changing radically and will continue to do so. Putnam is right. If we do nothing to address the dynamics that it creates it will undermine our collective community structure. But Page is also right, addressed with awareness, consciousness, and thoughtfulness, diversity can, and will, make us better than we have ever been.

The question is which it will be. Will we build walls around our communities and borders and try to keep “them” out in the hope that we can hold on to the homogeneity of the past? Or will we embrace the future, learn what diversity means, and learn to relate and thrive in a new way.

The fork in the road is in front of us.

The choice is ours.

Minorities Surpass Majority in 10 Percent of U.S. Counties

We consistently talk about the growth of minorities communities throughout the country. This article (below) highlights that approximately 10 percent of U.S. counties are now majority people of color and some of the responses certain people have about it.

A story like this, as do many others, brings up people's feelings regarding immigration. Some counties are putting laws into place that restrict public services to illegal immigrants. Many people might agree with this action. However, when we look at children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents, we may essentially be denying U.S. citizens needed services. This is not a new conversation, but one that we need to address in a manner that not only allows us to consider the law, but also our unconscious biases and the practicality of our responses to the issue.

Howard is currently working on a book (that will complement our new Exploring Unconscious Bias course) which will allow us look at issues like immigration and other hot-button topics where diversity on all levels is at play.

CNN Story: Minority Majority in 10 percent of U.S. Counties

Unconscious Bias Amongst Physicians -- Howard Ross

A new study just released this week has shown that unconscious racial bias plays a role in physician choices around medical procedures. The study was conducted by a group of researchers including our colleague Dr. Alex Green of the Manhattan Cross Cultural Group (a collaborative partner of Cook Ross in our Cultural Competency work) and Mahzarin Banaji at Harvard University. (To read about the study, check out a Boston Globe report on it: Tests of ER trainees find signs of race bias in care.)

Study seeks root of known disparity By Stephen Smith, Boston Globe, July 20, 2007

Researchers tested physicians using Harvard’s Implicit Association Test implicit.harvard.edu. to determine if there were unconscious patterns of bias relative to perceptions of Blacks versus Whites. They then asked the physicians to determine whether or not to give a clot-busting procedure called thrombolysis to different patients, Black and White, and found that there is a correlation between physicians who tested a strong unconscious bias towards Whites and those who tended to more readily prescribe the treatment to Whites than Blacks.

The criticality of this study is not so much in the health disparities between races that it points out, because numerous studies, particularly the Institute of Medicine’s study on disparities have pointed this out. The distinctiveness of this study is that it is the first time that physician behaviors have been linked to unconscious bias. This understanding is essential to moving forward in the diversity conversation because our assumption tends to be that decision-making relative to race in conscious. If, as the study indicates, physicians unconsciously make decision based on biases they don’t even know they have, getting physicians involved in diversity, inclusion and cultural competency work becomes more important than ever.

Diversity in Medical Schools

There was a good article in the Washington Post on May 31st about increasing medical school diversity.  We often discuss the over 26% of foreign born physicians in the US health system.  This article expands on the stats, but also shares perspective of how the classification of race amongst physicians is more and more inaccurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053102433.html?referrer=email

Adding Sexual Orientation and Gender to the Hate Crimes Bill

This article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18473074/from/ET/ ) was published today about adding sexual orientation and gender to the already established hate crimes bill.  Currently, 55% of hate crimes are racial according the the article, sexual orientation, gender, and religion account for about 15-17% each. 

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee said, “Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all.  Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim.”

I did not have a whole lot to say about this other than that I disagree with the sentiment of those opposed.  It is very easy to say something like this from the lens of being a part of a dominant group and not considering the motivation of most "hate crimes" is dominant group bias, discrimination, racism, etc.  If someone hates someone to the extent that they are motivated to harm them, having a law, bill, etc. on the books that specifically states that they will have a hard(er) way as a result of that action may deter them.  This is especially the case since we have historically seen local situations where the motivation was on some level justified by the rationale.  For example, "The bible says that homosexuality is wrong," or "he fit the description of the person who hurt my family member" excuses. 

On the other hand, a crime is a crime, right?  When is a crime more than just a crime?  In my opinion something becomes more than just a crime when the relevance of the crime goes beyond impacting an individual.  For some the belief of Martin Luther King , Jr. "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" is their sentiment.  For others, if someone from their community affects another or is affected, they take on the responsibility or pain respectively.  We saw this in the incident at VA Tech that Howard wrote on last week.

My last question of the day is: What does amending the hate crimes bill to include other groups that have been historically and are potentially victims of hate crimes create that does anything less than protect American citizens?  If you think it does harm, I would like to know, so give us a shout.

       

Culturally Competent Politicians

I read an article a couple weeks ago about Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, going on a trip to the Middle East.  She kept a scarf around her neck at all times and when she was in an area where women covered their heads, she appropriately did so.  The article stated that politicians from the Arab world don't expect women politicians from other countries (and maybe from Saudi Arabia, too, but I cannot remember) to cover their heads when engaged in business. 

What I found most interesting is that The Speaker actually seemed comfortable wearing the head covering and the pictures that I saw showed her doing so with a joyful looking smile on her face.  I am not sure if that was just for the camera or not.  Nonetheless, she was cognizant of her dress and her head covering throughout the trip.  I am sure many other non-Muslim women visiting part of the Middle East have done what Mrs. Pelosi did.  I wonder what the effect of ALL politicians respecting and not judging other country's customs consistently would be on our diplomatic relations with the world.

It is not unusual for us as Americans to go places and feel like we are superior.  I am not saying we should not be proud of our country, but at the same time, are we making the effort to learn some of a language, learn ways of greeting each other, how we can communicate in ways that create connection rather than disdain?  Maybe politicians traveling abroad and throughout their work with people from other countries on their soil and our need to learn more cross-cultural communication and perhaps some general awareness about tendencies and ways of most effectively engaging people who are different than themselves.

I imagine some are very adept at this.  Nonetheless, I am not very confident that there are many.  If anyone is reading this and knows of a politician(s) that have made understanding cultural diversity dynamics a part of their lexicon, let us know.  Given where our country is and has been in the lens of global perception, it may be a good idea to consider it as a necessity if they haven't already.