I bet you thought this post would offer a New Year’s bromide, but no such luck. If you keep reading you’re just going to have to put up with the same old stuff — in this case, the claptrap that passes as profundity from a successful “diversity” consultant.
According to Susan Holland, president of Holland, Rusk & Associates in Chicago, “diversity is an ‘evolving’ term.”
In a perfect world, diversity is something positive that drives companies to hire someone other than only the white male majority.
Looking at diversity in this manner, Holland says, “it takes the idea beyond color, gender, disability or lifestyle to being a way of thinking and operating a successful business.” She points out that diversity was called affirmative action in the 1970s. “The real breakthrough comes when a company sees a bottom-line need to service a marketplace that is diverse.”
So, “diversity” (which used to be called “affirmative action” in the old days) means hiring someone other than a white male, which somehow “takes the idea beyond color, gender, disability or lifestyle….”
Thank goodness we don’t yet live in “a perfect world.”
ADDENDUM
I should add that I’ve always found the alleged sanctity of the “botton-line need” to give consumers/clients whatever they want to be profoundly offensive. It would justify, for example, firms refusing to hire female or Jewish employees to work with customers in Saudi Arabia.
If Ms. Holland were familiar with the history of the Civil Rights Act, she would know that “customer preference” was specifically barred as a defense for the failure to hire black salespeople.
And the euphemism treadmill rolls on, as “affirmative action” is replaced by “diversity.” Even now someone must be offended by the use of white chalk on the blackboard — sorry, the diversity board.
I also wonder how the studies were performed that showed that a diverse workforce performs at a higher level that a non-diverse workfrce. Does anyone believe that the post office or the DMV is actually more efficient due to the diversity of its workforce?
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>”I also wonder how the studies were performed that showed that a diverse workforce performs at a higher level that a non-diverse workfrce.”
Is the goal of a society efficiency?
–Cobra
The positive cost benefit of a diverse workforce is not my claim but the claim of Ms. Hollard in the referenced article. I have heard the same from almost every government based EEO office.
Again, I would love to see the actual studies that they cite. My guess is that they do not really exist.
And what in the world does she mean by the “white male majority”? There is no such thing.
Michelle writes:
>>>”And what in the world does she mean by the “white male majority”? There is no such thing.”
Can you give statistical data to support your statement?
–Cobra
Well, in the city in which I live, the population is about 49 percent male and about 65 percent white, meaning the percentage of white males is not likely to exceed 32, which is a long, long way from a majority.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
To be fair, Susan says diversity drives companies to hire people other than ONLY white males. That doesn’t exclude white males. In its best form, diversity would allow every individual to rise to the level of his or her ability and ambition without being stamped out by a cookie-cutter.
Cobra wonders if the goal of society is efficiency. I don’t know if it’s meaningful to speak of society having a goal, since society is one of those words that can mean a hundred different things. But in hiring, for example, police and firefighters and mail carriers and street sweepers, if efficiency isn’t the number-one goal it should certainly be way up the list. I don’t think you have to have just one goal at a time. And I don’t know of any city or any company that’s well-run, that is rich enough to ignore effiency as a goal.
Cobra,
We might start by noting that women outnumber men, IIRC, in 49 of the 50 states. (Quick check of the 2000 census data: 96.3 males per 100 females for the whole country). It is rather difficult to see how “white males” can be a majority when males of all races are a minority. Will that do?
there actually are a lot of studies addressing productivity and diversity, which shouldn’t be surprising given that it’s simple to measure (or impose in the lab) team diversity and it’s also easy to measure team productivity. for instance, with a few seconds of searching I found this article. I’ve only skimmed the article, but at a glance it looks solid and it was published in a top social science journal so it ought to be taken as credible until examined and shown otherwise. (note that the abstract doesn’t say how common “congruence” is, but the tables show that while congruence is low on average, the prevalence is not correlated with diversity).
Poizer, Jeffrey T. Laurie P. Milton, and William B. Swann Jr. 2002. “Capitalizing on Diversity: Interpersonal Congruence in Small Work Groups.” Administrative Science Quarterly 47: 296-325.
Abstract: We examine interpersonal congruence, the degree to which group members see others in the group as others see themselves, as a moderator of the relationship between diversity and group effectiveness. A longitudinal study of 83 work groups revealed that diversity tended to improve creative task performance in groups with high interpersonal congruence, whereas diversity undermined the performance of groups with low interpersonal congruence. This interaction effect also emerged on measures of social integration, group identification, and relationship conflict. By eliciting self-verifying appraisals, members of some groups achieved enough interpersonal congruence during their first ten minutes of interaction to benefit their group outcomes four months later. In contrast to theories of social categorization, the interpersonal congruence approach suggests that group members can achieve harmonious and effective work processes by expressing rather than suppressing the characteristics that make them unique
I gotta get me some of that “congruence”.
John, I was just thinking that, LOL!
Michelle writes:
>>>”We might start by noting that women outnumber men, IIRC, in 49 of the 50 states. (Quick check of the 2000 census data: 96.3 males per 100 females for the whole country). It is rather difficult to see how “white males” can be a majority when males of all races are a minority. Will that do?”
Those statistics apply to the general population, and not the demographics of the corporate structure and government.
Anonymous writes a whole lot that apparently contradicts itself.
If diversity undermines situations where
there is “low interpersonal congruence” on one hand, but “harmonious and effective work processes” can be achieved through expressing unique characteristics (something a non-diverse environment wouldn’t neccessarily provide) then there is a dilemna.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Well, she does say “The real breakthrough comes when a company sees a bottom-line need to service a marketplace that is diverse.” That would seem to mean that she’s talking about the general population as well as the company-internal one.
And I see no “dilemma” about the study results “anonymous” cited. You’re seeing a contradiction because for some reason you think “Black man,” “white woman,” &c. are “the characteristics that make [people] unique.” What a strange idea. Being white and female is a “characteristic” I share with well over 100 million other Americans. Being Black and male is a “characteristic” you share with maybe 15 million others. It’s certainly not what would leap to my mind if I were asked what made you “unique.”
The way I see it is this: If people are already prepared to get along with one another well — if they don’t on an individual, personal level, set one another’s nerves on edge, then “diversity” of the sort you’re thinking of (and of other kinds, like regional origin, variety of earlier work experience, whatever) might well be an asset. OTOH, if the interpersonal relationships in the team are uncomfortable at the outset, it might easily make things worse — particularly if it has been very obviously “engineered” by selective hiring.
” It would justify, for example, firms refusing to hire female or Jewish employees to work with customers in Saudi Arabia.”
I think firms do that.
Well, at least the gloves are off. Ms. Holland makes no bones about the true purpose of the quota mongers: punish white men.
Arguing that this strategy leads to greater profit has been an obsession of management for 15 years. I can fathom only one argument from this obsession: blacks know better what blacks want. In other words, the assumption is that blacks form a monolithic market force, defined by their race.
Why are white men so feared in the job market by the quota mongers? Could it be that white men are uniquely better at getting the job done? In fact, I think that this is probably true. Why the need to constantly deride and cripple a group, unless that group presents a threat?
And, isn’t this program of intentionally deriding and crippling white men… racism? Answer: yes.
In practice, I forgot to note, the quota mongers exclude gay men from the “white men” category.
Gay white men somehow escape the duty to do penance for the sins of the past.
I guess that Ms. Howard has been reading the medical journals about the increase in medical errors and wrong prescriptions caused by “diversity” in the medical workplace. Many types of medical procedures cannot be order verbaly anymore because the “diverse” workplace cannot verbally communicate with each other.
I wonder if you look at the Money magazine and others best places to work if you find a very diverse workplace. Is SAS software more or less diverse than the Post Office?
“In other words, the assumption is that blacks form a monolithic market force, defined by their race.”
Lots of marketers segment markets. NASCAR dads, etc… Maybe they should stop categorizing people.
“Gay white men somehow escape the duty to do penance for the sins of the past.”
Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you stephen.
I’m forced to compliment you on your sense of humor, actus. I didn’t know you had it in you.
And, Happy New Year!
Well, since fewer men are going to college, I guess more women will be hired at some point, cos they’ll be the ones w/the degree.