Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Acknowledging the Problem, Embracing the Opportunity
Don't miss out on something that could be amazing, just because it could be difficult.
— Source Unknown
Companies increasingly understand the business benefits of workforce diversity: higher profits, engaged employees, increased creativity, and innovation in products and services. But the way most organizations approach the challenge of developing workplaces filled with different kinds of people has not worked well for decades.
Incremental improvements in diversity are insufficient in a global marketplace where shifting demographics require a deeper appreciation of those who are different from us. As competition increases, the companies that succeed will be the ones that approach the opportunity for change with bold actions that alter mindsets to produce results. The problem is so significant and the opportunity so vast that we need special assistance to address resistance to change as it arises. Call it organizational therapy.
Organizational therapy addresses the study of dysfunction in workplace environments. This can take place at various company levels and span different functional areas. In business settings, people tend to downplay individual and team issues for fear of being seen as weak, unmanageable, or problematic. They worry that it's dangerous or unsafe to discuss the issues they need to address. Organizational psychologists often refer to these undiscussed issues as "the elephant in the room." Everyone knows the elephant is there — its presence is huge — but no one is brave enough or feels competent enough to discuss it. This naturally leads to suboptimal individual and group performance until a process is created to manage these challenging and often sensitive dialogues.
Organizational therapy is a lot like individual therapy in three respects: you have to acknowledge the existence of an issue or problem; you have to want to change it; and you have to be willing to do the (potentially uncomfortable) work. Acknowledging we have a problem in our companies — and that the problem is real — requires us to admit that the lack of diversity in businesses today has not been fixed by laws, policies, regulations, or education and training programs. So much effort has been expended to try and make changes over the years, and that's why it's painful to need to own up to the fact that all this effort has not removed the problem.
Just over 1,800 companies compete annually for a spot on the DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity survey, now (at the time of this writing) in its 17th year. This is the premier competition for companies working hard to improve equity, diversity, and inclusion in their organizations — and seeking public recognition for doing so. But 1,800 entrants is a low number when you consider that this number comes out of the eligible 2.8 million businesses in the United States alone that generate a sales revenue between 1 million and 1 billion or more dollars a year.
This strongly suggests that few organizations, across multiple industries, truly understand how to successfully create and manage a diverse, inclusive workforce to obtain the benefits that having different perspectives brings. This is due in part to attitudes of indifference when it comes to the topic of diversity. Also, we often don't understand how prevalent our unconscious biases are; nor do we recognize the way these biases can impact our interactions with others. Most organizations lack even a shared framework for how to work with differences among people.
Often, leaders of organizations logically know what the evidence states, but either don't know how to, or are not willing to, take action beyond so-called diversity initiatives for real improvement. These executives need the assistance, knowledge, and wisdom of a forward-thinking diversity and inclusion leader. Yet, too often diversity is relegated to being just another function of the Human Resources (HR) department. Company heads operate on false beliefs that initiatives alone will solve the problem. But in so doing, they wind up ignoring the systemic change and leadership required for long-term success. Initiatives can definitely address symptoms and may even provide short-term relief to issues such as lack of diversity. But in the end, initiatives will always be insufficient because they don't address the root causes — such as hidden bias and belief systems that are driven by illogical or irrational thought.
The Problem of Underrepresentation
Though issues of diversity and inclusion are prominent in the news, there remains a disparity in numbers that highlights the ongoing crisis in our workforces. The Human Capital Report, produced by Mercer and the World Economic Forum, shows that of the eligible global female population, approximately 65% participate in the workforce, as compared to the larger 80% of males who participate in the workforce. Women currently represent less than 5% of Fortune 500 Chief Executive Officers, less than 25% of senior management, and only 19% of corporate board seats globally. And the data for Blacks, Latinos, and other underrepresented minority groups is as low as these numbers or even lower. We're unable to benefit from the differences, innovations, and advancements that women and minorities could bring to our companies; as a result, we are thwarting our own efforts to meaningfully grow our businesses.
"We're unable to benefit from the differences, innovations, and advancements that women and minorities could bring to our companies; as a result, we are thwarting our own efforts to meaningfully grow our businesses."
Survey data from business school graduates in Asia, Canada, Europe, and the United States also shows that career aspirations, though equal among men, women, and minorities in their early years of employment, change drastically as people progress in their careers. Today, fifty years since the passage of the very Civil Rights legislation that was designed to provide equity to women and minorities, positions of leadership continue to be held primarily by white men. And the representation of women and minority candidates in leadership positions falls off precipitously at the midpoint of their career ladders, when childcare and eldercare responsibilities rise and career inertia sets in; this often leads them to exit the workforce entirely.
Creating receptive environments where women and minorities want to stay in their roles is an enormous challenge inside and outside the high-tech arena. This problem applies to every organization employing people who work in technical roles. The Center for Talent Innovation's report "Accelerating Female Talent in Science, Engineering & Technology (STEM)" reveals the challenge of retention. The report found that women in STEM positions are 45% more likely to quit within a year than men in similar jobs.
In spite of increased access to higher education and equal pay, the positive influence of civil rights and diversity efforts, and the many studies that show a high return on investment (ROI) and increased profitability among companies with women and minorities in senior leadership roles, white males consistently attain and remain in positions of power.
But why? What hidden forces are driving these results?
The Problem with Unconscious Bias
Biologically, we're hardwired to prefer the company of those people who look and sound like us, and who share our interests, experiences, and values. Human evolution required the safety of tribes. Unconscious processes are instinctual to help humans survive. For example, in a public place, we often make snap judgments about who is safe to be with and who isn't. This instinct is designed to keep us from harm.
Yet, while these biases can be helpful, they can also cause us to make faulty assumptions. Social psychologists call this phenomenon social categorization, whereby we use intuition to automatically sort people into groups. And while we often use these categorizations effectively for objects, the categories we use to sort people are not actually logical or rational.
Research shows that 90% of brain function is automatic and outside conscious awareness. The human reflexive system controls our automatic processes — things that are immediate, require little effort, and occur spontaneously. These include our long-term memory, emotions, habits, bodily functions (like when we feel hungry or sleepy), and the need to innately categorize people and things as either safe or unsafe. The 10% of brain function that is not automatic, but which requires deliberate, conscious control, is called the reflective system. This part of the brain involves focus and time, and it requires our motivation to sustain deliberate effort. Our conscious mind governs short-term memory and enables us to analyze, think, and plan. Understanding these differences is vital, since the categories we use to sort people bypass our conscious mind, and live within our reflexive system or unconscious mind — the one responsible for keeping us safe — and lead to hidden biases.
Traditional thinking suggests that human bias and discrimination is intentional. This has been shown to be true in a small percentage of cases. But since 90% of brain functioning is automatic and outside conscious awareness, we know people will make biased decisions without even realizing it.
To make matters even more complicated, consider how our unconscious, discriminatory preferences stem from a combination of socialization, individual and group experience, and instinct that's unique to each of us. Thanks to science, today we understand that bias is normative, unconscious, and mostly unintentional.
Hidden Preferences
Over the past decade, I've attended many diversity conferences and listened to, participated in, and explored the topic of unconscious Acknowledging the Problem, Embracing the Opportunity 21 bias, also referred to as implicit or hidden bias. At Harvard University in 2013, I heard Professor Mahzarin Banaji, an acclaimed social psychologist and one of the original developers of the Implicit Association Test, or IAT (the primary instrument used to measure unconscious bias), educate a diverse group of executives about the role that implicit biases play in our lives, and how these hidden preferences affect our behavior toward others. The IAT uncovers the biases we hold, but which do not reflect what we say we believe in. For example, most people view themselves as nice people, and not as prejudiced. Yet, the Race IAT shows us that 75% of people have an implicit preference for white people over Black people.
A profound though distressing learning from this data is that being nice and being prejudiced are not discordant, nor contradictory. You can be a nice person and be prejudiced. In fact, three out of four people are. This is why "being a nice person" or "being a good person" are simply not enough to overcome racism, sexism, and other hidden biases.
"You can be a nice person and be prejudiced."
We all have our own predilections. We all have unconscious or implicit bias. Frequently, however, our implicit biases do not reflect what we say we believe. As an example, I've long been enamored of older people. To me, they're living historians with entertaining and insightful stories to tell, and I typically really enjoy their company. But at one point when tested using the IAT, I was surprised to find that I harbor a negative association with the elderly.
In fact, of the millions of people who have their hidden biases uncovered, the data shows that 80% prefer young people to old 22 (presumably because "old" may carry a negative connotation). Similarly, most people do not consider themselves to be racially prejudiced and would strongly deny any suggestion of such. Yet, the data reveals that 75% of whites and Asians demonstrate a hidden preference for whites over Blacks. Equally perplexing is the knowledge that race does not affect results when testing for hidden bias. About 50% of Blacks who take the assessment have a greater preference for whites over Blacks.
Culture and society hold strong influences on biases and beliefs. When certain groups are more associated with good things and other groups with bad things, people unwittingly believe these associations. So, for example, seeing whites portrayed as lawyers and Blacks portrayed as criminals on television and in the media subtly influences how individuals perceive these groups. The more positive associations one group has over another, the more profound the effect on society. These associations may not reflect what people say they believe or even think they believe. It's not that people are lying; it's simply that we all unconsciously make connections; and these hidden effects are impossible to escape in society — that is, until you train yourself to see them.
The Problem with Positive Bias
As odd as this may sound, positive biases can have just as profound a negative effect as negative biases. This idea can be quite hard to accept. It's as confounding as the knowledge that we all have, and often act on, negative biases about people who are not like us. And when we help others with whom we have relationships, we provide advantages to our "in-group," others who are like us.
If, for example, I provide a work reference for the child of my friend, who is white like me, I would unintentionally limit diversity by promoting the status quo, even though I'm simply intending to be helpful.
So how does a disadvantaged person, without these connections, access equal opportunities?
My thinking about discrimination as something that solely inflicts harm on others has changed, now that I understand that discrimination often, more subtly, results from the actions of helping people who are like me, which then serves to maintain an "out-group" and effectively limits diversity. The hiring processes in most companies contain three positive biases:
1. The first is educational attainment — where an applicant went to school and how well he or she did there. This bias is perhaps the most egregious and limiting. Intel, an American multinational corporation ranked among the most valuable, most admired, most ethical, and top global brands, is led by CEO Brian Krzanich, a graduate of San Jose State University (SJSU). Although SJSU is a good school, it isn't considered a top-tier school. I once heard Mr. Krzanich share that for years he tried to hide that fact out of concern that his schooling would somehow be held against him. He doesn't hide it any longer because as a talented, successful person and a diversity champion, he understands that it's important for people to know that great talent doesn't come just from top-tier schools. Similarly, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, currently the most valuable company in the world, is a graduate of Auburn University (AU) in Alabama, once again considered to be a good but not top-tier school. Remember that great talent exists in many places, and not just in universities that have prestigious reputations.
2. The second is experience level, defined by how long a person has been in the workforce versus how long he or she has been in the job market.
3. The third and last are relationships encompassing how much of a network the applicant has established or how many people he or she can tap into for support, references, and other kinds of help.
These biases are driving hiring practices and netting the overly homogeneous workplaces that exist today. If diverse workforces are ever to develop, we need to examine and fundamentally rethink our positive biases. This, of course, doesn't mean that it's wrong for us to be helpful when we're asked, only that it's critical not to favor only those with whom we have a connection, or who attended our alma mater, or who worked with us at a previous company, or with whom we feel comfortable. Positive biases are as destructive as negative biases, if not more so.
I've led workshops in which we openly explore the topic of unconscious bias. Inevitably, following these workshops, people ask, "If we all have these biases, at an unconscious level, what can be done about that? Aren't we at the mercy of our hidden beliefs?" It's a natural question but is problematic at its core. This victim mentality, in which people shrug, act indifferently, and passively acquiesce, only solidifies prejudicial behaviors.
"Positive biases are as destructive as negative biases, if not more so."
But, if we heighten awareness of our individual biases, we can better enable a diversity of bias to develop. (This may be the best we can hope for.) For example, the Gender IAT shows that 76% of people more readily associate "male" with "career," and "female" with "family." This means that 24% of people do not make this implicit association. Surfacing biases to ensure that leaders and teams at all organizational levels include people from the 76% category and the 24% category enables the development of teams where diversity of bias is present. This serves the purpose of countering the very preferences that lead us to gather in homogeneous teams, and supports a much greater possibility of innovation in the business environment. The following illustrates this concept:
Testing for Diversity of Bias
Fact: Data from Gender Implicit Association Tests shows that 76% of people more readily associate "males" with "career" and "females" with "family."
Company Goal: To advance more women into senior leadership roles over the next twenty-four months.
Action: A thirteen-member executive leadership team individually takes the Gender IAT.
Positive Result: Ten members of the executive leadership team are found to have an unconscious bias that associates "males" with "career" and "females" with "family," but three members are not found to have that bias. This is good; a diversity of bias exists. Move forward with the plans.
Negative Result: All thirteen members are found to have an unconscious bias that associates "males" with "career" and "females" with "family." This is not good. How will a team with 100% shared gender bias help advance women into senior leadership roles?
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Women, Minorities, Other Extraordinary People"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Barbara Adams.
Excerpted by permission of Greenleaf Book Group Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
