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

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.