Leadership and Change

Egodigwe makes the case that new critical diversity-training focuses on taking advantage of what makes us different to expand the potential of the company and create “richer decision-making processes.” So, this is new? Haven’t we been finding this idea in multiple readings over the past few weeks? In Kouzes and Posner we read about establishing relationships, listening to others, seizing initiative and encouraging initiative in others. Crosby and Bryson speak to shared power networks and a regime of mutual gain. Allen and Cherrey state, “In a networked system, intelligence exists everywhere in the system, not just at the top of the organization (47) ….a complex networked world needs perspectives from many individuals in order to be understood” (52). So, do companies view diversity as a separate entity apart from the workplace we’ve been reading about?

And what did diversity training used to look like? (Oh yes, Egodigwe mentioned confrontational sessions that alienated white males of the 80s and 90s, as well as, failed touchy-feely programs that came after.) Doesn’t this all sound ridiculous? Isn’t it obvious that we need to value the richness everyone (minority or otherwise) brings to the table to create a broader perspective that will only strengthen the collective?

Last year, the National Urban League reported that out of 5,500 workers, about half felt that their employers provided an inclusive environment (Egodigwe). My place of employment would fall into this category. We have ‘minorities’ in positions of power, oddly, they happen to be the best people for the job.

Granted, employers and employees carry assumptions, some they may not even be aware of having. But, the more that the workforce focuses on training (practicing) to see different groups of people, the more they are strengthening the mental perception that there are (clear boundaries between) different groups. (I’m not saying that workplaces shouldn’t be handicapped friendly or stop looking for diversity when hiring. ) But, by frequently talking about minorities, we will continue to see people as a members of minority groups, possibly, making it more difficult to see value in the person as an individual.

An individual does not represent a minority, anymore than I represent all middle-aged, white women. I recognize that I am welcome to be proud of my gender, ethnicity or sexually orientation, but in the workplace I hope to be valued as an individual with a unique personality, experiences and attributes. Why not offer a diversity training to incorporate ideals that value all people as corporate gold?

In visiting six ‘diversity in the workplace’ websites, I found five sites that reflected the premise of the WSJ articles: diversity adds resource value to companies. Particularly similar was, Diversity in the Workplace: Benefits, Challenges and the Required Managerial Tools from The University of Florida, supported the competitive advantage of diversity in the work place: www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu. DiversityInc.com seems a valuable resource site which, among other things, has an ‘Ask the White Guy’ link. Although the name may be somewhat off-putting to some, this link has value potential, answering various diversity questions from a ‘white guy’ business perspective.

The one site that did not convey the positive contributions of a diverse workforce was: www.compliancetraininggroup.com. Compliance: the act of conforming, yielding, cooperation or obedience. (Dictionary.com)

The overview of Compliance Training Group states:

“Diversity in the workplace is a powder keg, because in recent years so much attention is placed on understanding cultural diversity. Compliance training group will focus on how to avoid a law suit, and address the differences in the workplace. Employers should be well aware of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

In the three links I visited at this site, there was no mention of diversity being an asset to the company, financially or otherwise. Another oddity was an item of focus listed in company training: “Use of company facilities.” What’s that about?

This Compliance site seems to hold a defensive/reactive stance toward diversity while the other sites feel proactive and positive.

In Sarah’s reading reflection, she states, “Diversity is merely a category, a title that businesses use to maximize their image.”

Do you feel diversity is being treated seriously in the workplace or as a company image maximizer? Is diversity being handled productively? Are my experiences in the workplace unique (no diversity training, no diversity issues to speak of) or have you had similar experiences?
Have you experienced or witnessed discrimination in the workplace? What happened? Why is it that Egodgwe and Hymowitz claim, ‘valuing diversity in an employee as a competitive asset to the company,’ is a new idea? Would the idea of, recognizing and celebrating the diversity in all of us (vs. minority focus) encourage tolerance and ‘equality?’ Why wouldn’t this work?
What is your take on Compliance Training Group?

Liz Kuivinen