An article in yesterday's Washington Post reveals:
A comprehensive review of 31 years of data from 830 mid-size to large U.S. workplaces found that the kind of diversity training exercises offered at most firms were followed by a 7.5 percent drop in the number of women in management. The number of black, female managers fell by 10 percent, and the number of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent. Similar effects were seen for Latinos and Asians.This should come as no surprise. Every mandatory diversity program I've been to has basically been a workshop in how to conceal discrimination. The harassment awareness programs have been workshops in how to harass someone legally, and how to cover it up when it happens. These programs are designed to mitigate liability for the employer; they are not the least bit concerned with ending discriminatory or harassing practices themselves. Small wonder that the result of such programs is to make discrimination and harassment more efficient.
Kelly
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I'm not an American, and I've never attended such a workshop at any job I've worked so maybe I'm mis-imagining the description of how such dealies work, but it's hard to figure out how such a drop in rates could occur due to these workshops. Complete ineffectiveness one can figure out easily enough - but ~10% reductions? The Post story didn't elaborate on the methodology (and facts reported in newspapers are generally wrong anyways) but it seems to imply it's not misreporting the results based on misunderstanding, but that there's a genuine time-lagging correlation (i.e. implied causation). Since you've attended such things, can you say you can see how they'd be counter-productive rather than just null-productive? And how so?
Cheers
I reckon it's another rules vs. priciples tension. When you run a workshop covering the rules of discrimination, you offer people explicit definitions of what behaviour is and isn't permitted / legal / within the rules - which has the dangerous effect of defining behaviour which whilst permitted / legal / within the rules may be very much contrary to the principles of anti-discrimination.
ReplyDeleteThus the workshop becomes enabling of exactly the behaviour it was conceived to avoid.
A balance of principle orientated teaching (ethics, etc.) and goal-oriented rule setting (positive discrimination etc.) is likely the best way forward in my view....I'd accept the resultant tensions as being self evidently unavoidable per The Post.
For example, see this description of an anti-age discrimination decision, followed by advice to HR administrators on how to discriminate without violating the decision.
ReplyDeleteand facts reported in newspapers are generally wrong anyways
ReplyDeleteSurely this is far too sweeping a generalization to be taken seriously...
"For example, see this description of an anti-age discrimination decision, followed by advice to HR administrators on how to discriminate without violating the decision."
ReplyDeleteSpoken like someone who's never had to worry about anti-discrimination laws. The instructions are regarding how not to accidentally get in trouble for illegal discrimination. A person/organization with no intent to discriminate, illegally or unethically, can still accidentally run afoul of such laws.
HR people have to take all of the unique aspects of a person and boil them down to "Yes" or "No." That's why the article refers to legal forms of discrimination (as in to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things). Discriminating is their job, but the policy advocates developing legal policies and following them, so as to not end up breaking the law by accident, and hopefully treating everyone fairly in the process as well.
It's true that such information can be used by the unethical to skirt the law, but I see no reason to believe that is the intent of the article. When hiring policies are undefined, it leaves greater room for personal prejudices to play a part, IMO.
Matthew worries about anti-discrimination laws. Most of us worry about discrimination.
ReplyDeleteNot just me; read the link. They underpaid people for being old.
Not a surprise that the bad guys compare notes.
Update Kelly, I'm bored!
ReplyDelete