New York City is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the country, yet many companies here are still doing a poor job when it comes to diversity.

In this week’s issue, Crain’s New York Business has a special section on diversity in the workplace, and the statistics it cites are depressing:

• “In a city that is 25% black, only 2.5% of employees making over $100,000 at the 16 [advertising] agencies examined are black”
• “In the securities industry, minorities make up about 22% of the workforce but are clustered in the lower ranks”
• “A third of law firms in New York don’t have any black or Hispanic partners”

There’s a clear theme emerging: Organizations have become better at recruiting people of color, but many are doing a terrible job of retaining and promoting them.

As I told the reporter at Crain’s, many professionals of color are fed up with doors closing in their faces, and are choosing to leave corporate America altogether. From the article:

At many local companies, minority retention rates are low, and management ranks remain pale. Local experts point to two major problems: uninspired diversity training, and policies that neglect promotion and retention….

An even bigger obstacle to a diverse workforce may be a failure to nurture and promote minority hires.

“A lot of black and Latino professionals end up leaving to start their own businesses in part because they don’t see they have a shot at rising,” says Carmen Van Kerckhove, co-founder and president of New Demographic, a diversity consultancy in Manhattan.

Click here to download a PDF of the article.

Addicted to Race Premium is the premium version of New Demographic’s podcast about America’s obsession with race. Every other week, subscribers receive an hour-long, exclusive audio interview with one of the nation’s top experts on race, racism and diversity.

Since this is the public RSS feed, you will receive just a 15-minute preview of the interview. If you’d like to hear the hour-long interview in its entirety, subscribe to Addicted to Race Premium today!

Here’s what you’ll find in this episode:

Dr. Graves explains why race is a social construct and not a biological reality, and debunks some common myths about biology and race. For example, are Kenyans biologically predisposed to winning marathons? And do Asian men really have the smallest penises?

Got feedback for us? Call 917-720-6348 or email info@addictedtorace.com.

Learn more about Addicted to Race Premium.

Dr. Joseph L. Graves is the Dean of University Studies and a professor of biology at North Caroline A&T State University. He is the author of the books The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium and The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America. His research concerns the evolutionary genetics of postponed aging and biological concepts of race in humans, with over fifty papers and book chapters published, and appearances in six documentary films on these general topics.

Learn more about Addicted to Race Premium.

Duration - 18:15
File Size - 12.6 MB

Right-click here to download an MP3 of Addicted to Race Premium 1
or
Click here to never miss an episode by subscribing to us in iTunes
or
click the button below to play it immediately

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

I’m excited to announce the launch of Addicted to Race Premium, the premium version of our podcast about America’s obsession with race!

Every other week, premium subscribers will receive an hour-long, exclusive audio interview with one of the nation’s top experts on race, racism and diversity.

I decided to start this premium service because so many of you have asked me for a way to enhance your knowledge on these topics, without having to take a long, expensive anti-oppression or diversity training course.

Addicted to Race Premium provides you with a convenient and affordable way to access in-depth — and most importantly — ongoing learning about race, racism and diversity. After all, anti-racism is a journey, not a destination.

Our exclusive expert interviews will help you:

• Learn how to think critically and analyze issues around race and racism.
• Acquire terminology and language that can help you better articulate your experiences and opinions.

Are there any experts you’d love for us to interview, or topics you think we should cover? If so, email me at carmen@newdemographic.com and I’ll do my best to make it happen!

You can get all the details about Addicted to Race Premium here, and I hope you’ll enjoy the preview I’m about to post of our premiere episode. It should give you a flavor for what the interviews will be like.

University of Arkansas-Little Rock law professor Zachary Kramer has posted a law review article on the Social Science Research Network entitled Heterosexuality and Title VII. The abstract:

There is a double standard at work in employment discrimination cases. While courts frequently reject otherwise actionable sex discrimination claims brought by lesbians and gay employees on the grounds that sexual orientation is not protected under Title VII, no court has ever ruled this way in a case brought by a heterosexual employee. What explains this double standard? The conventional wisdom is that heterosexual employees do not face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. In this Article, I offer a different explanation, one that is rooted in the cultural invisibility of heterosexuality in our society. Because we tend not to think of heterosexuals as having a sexual orientation, courts are unable to see when an employee’s sex discrimination claim implicates her heterosexuality. As a result, heterosexual employees are simply not at risk of losing their sex discrimination claims because of their sexual orientation. Thus heterosexuality and homosexuality are not similarly situated under Title VII. Whereas lesbian and gay employees are burdened by their sexual orientation in employment discrimination law, heterosexual employees are, in effect, privileged by theirs.

This concept is not new and different. We’re all familiar with the various types of privilege (and all the versions of Peggy McIntosh’s Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack), right? Let’s read it again.

Because we tend not to think of heterosexuals as having a sexual orientation, courts are unable to see when an employee’s sex discrimination claim implicates her heterosexuality. As a result, heterosexual employees are simply not at risk of losing their sex discrimination claims because of their sexual orientation.

The world of law review is a little different from the world of sociology. So maybe it is revolutionary for someone to point this out. Farther along in the paper:

The lesson of [the] case is that an employee’s sexual orientation can swallow up an otherwise actionable claim of sex discrimination. Even though [the] Title VII claims were based on her sex and her gender-nonconformity, the court concluded that [she] was trying to bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII by framing discussion targeted at her sexual orientation as a claim of discrimination based on her gender-nonconformity.

The exact mechanism by which so many discrimination claims get tossed is an interesting reflection on our cultural mindset towards sexual orientation. It might all be a moot point if sexual-orientation were already considered a protected class under Title VII (the employment discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) from the standpoint of a legal outcome, but it wouldn’t change the interpretation of the facts as they were presented.

(via Workplace Prof Blog)

See also: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack heterosexual privilege version, Christian privilege version, male privilege version. Enh, just google it.

“As sexual harassment becomes less acceptable in society, organizations may be more attuned to helping victims, who may therefore find it easier to cope,” said lead author M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, of the University of Manitoba. “In contrast, non-violent forms of workplace aggression such as incivility and bullying are not illegal, leaving victims to fend for themselves.”

Hershcovis and co-author Julian Barling, PhD, of Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted over 21 years that compared the consequences of employees’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace aggression. Specifically, the authors looked at the effect on job, co-worker and supervisor satisfaction, workers’ stress, anger and anxiety levels as well as workers’ mental and physical health. Job turnover and emotional ties to the job were also compared.

The authors distinguished among different forms of workplace aggression. Incivility included rudeness and discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Bullying included persistently criticizing employees’ work; yelling; repeatedly reminding employees of mistakes; spreading gossip or lies; ignoring or excluding workers; and insulting employees’ habits, attitudes or private life. Interpersonal conflict included behaviors that involved hostility, verbal aggression and angry exchanges.

“Bullying is often more subtle, and may include behaviors that do not appear obvious to others,” said Hershcovis. “For instance, how does an employee report to their boss that they have been excluded from lunch? Or that they are being ignored by a coworker? The insidious nature of these behaviors makes them difficult to deal with and sanction.”

In short, people being jerks makes other people feel like crap. And people being jerks makes people feel crappier than sexual harassment because the victims have less recourse against jerks than they do against sexual harassers.

Since there’s absolutely no mention of race in this write up, I’m wondering if they purposely ignored any race aspects of these bullying and harassment cases, or if the racial identity of the study subjects was purposely omitted.

If the bully doesn’t make a specifically racial comment, but you feel you’re unfairly treated and you happen to be the only person of color or only person of a certain race, is that enough to allege racial discrimination?

Would a victim who is a person of color perceive the bullying differently than a white victim? Would a white victim who is in the minority in their workplace perceive the bullying differently?

Does a lawsuit have a better chance if the premise is discrimination based on race rather than bullying?

(via Paula Brantner’s Twitter)

American Psychological Association. “Bullying More Harmful Than Sexual Harassment On The Job, Say Researchers.” ScienceDaily 9 March 2008. 18 March 2008 <http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/03/080308090927.htm>.

An African American partner from a prestigious international law firm was sitting in a conference room prior to a negotiation that would determine whether her client’s corporation would emerge victorious in a multi-billion-dollar acquisition. The lawyer for the target company arrived and asked her to make copies, assuming she was a secretary or paralegal. She made the copies, reviewing the documents her opposing counsel was bringing to the negotiation. She then introduced herself and took the lead in the meeting. She later charged him the appropriate portion of her $800-per-hour billing rate for the photocopying time.

This story is but one example of mistaken identity experienced by 12.7% of respondents who participated in the 2007 Corporate Leavers Survey (pdf), which found that over 2 million managers and professionals leave their jobs every year solely due to unfairness in the workplace at an annual cost of $64 billion to companies. Other examples of unfairness and bias experienced by corporate leavers include:

• Being asked to attend more recruiting or community related events than one’s colleagues
• Being passed over for promotion due to personal characteristics
• Being publicly humiliated
• Being bullied
• Receiving unwelcome questions about skin, hair or ethnic attire
• Being compared to a terrorist in a joking or serious manner

Workplace diversity and fairness expert Freada Kapor Klein is the founder of the Level Playing Field Institute. She tells the story above and examines these trends in her book Giving Notice: Why the Best and the Brightest Leave the Workplace and How You Can Help Them Stay.

Your research claims that the true cost of hidden bias in the workplace is $64 billion annually. Many employers focus on costs of possible lawsuits as the only cost of workplace bias, but your work aims to debunk that myth. What are your comments on this?

(# of professionals & managers in US labor force) X
(% of professionals & managers who left solely due to unfairness) X
(1.5 total annual compensation of professionals & managers) =
(Cost of voluntary turnover due solely to unfairness)

For every dimension of this calculation, we took the most conservative estimate. This is not the outside extreme example, but rather the minimum. An additional statistic which is not included in our cost estimate is that 13% of those who left solely due to unfairness actively discouraged others from buying their former employers’ products or services. It directly cuts into the bottom line in a number of dimensions.

Why do you recommend having only one training program in a company instead of having sexual harassment training and diversity training separated out? Any suggestions on how this can be done?

Separate sexual harassment training is a real problem. It signals that that issue is more important than other issues. Yes, sexual harassment is an important issue, but I suggest CEOs initiate one overall policy for “diversity” or “anti-harassment” which covers all fairness practices in the workplace, including dismantling stereotypes and assumptions of all sexes and all peoples.

What are simple steps employers can take to eliminate workplace bias in an inclusive manner so that all employees can truly experience equal and fair opportunities and treatment?

In Giving Notice, I describe five steps that add up to a comprehensive approach.

1. Policies – As previously mentioned, unifying policies are better than separate policies for different issues. Policies should describe all the behaviors that drive people out the door—the types that we covered in the Corporate Leavers study—including subtle bias, mistaken identity, stereotyping, bullying.
2. Complaint channels – In addition to formal complaint channels, it is also essential to create a safe and anonymous or confidential vehicle to receive complaints from employees. “Employee Resource Groups” are often formed as an alternative to formal HR channels. They can provide a place for employees to receive advice. Employees need a place to go with the subtle, day-to-day problems that we heard in our study before they’re ready to walk out the door.
3. Training has to be mandatory and customized for different constituents. Educate employees on how to speak up and how to best be heard. Educate managers that every action or inaction sends a message. Complaint handlers also need to be trained on how to respond to various situations brought to their attention.
4. Sensing and monitoring mechanisms – Each company requires customized surveys for their specific business. Generic downloaded policies and surveys will not reflect a company’s specific sector and culture. If information collected is truly anonymous, employee trust will remain intact. One must have a high participation rate for success. Also, Employee Resource Groups should be tapped for information on how the company is doing and the company’s reputation on the street. They should keep track of online blogs and public company assessment sites to stay informed of issues that are published about the organization.
5. Commitment from top – If you don’t have that, you cannot excel at steps 1 through 4. Every time senior management looks the other way when a star revenue producer continues to be a bigot, it undermines every effort already undertaken by the organization. Companies should follow the NFL “Rooney Rule” – whenever interviews are being conducted for a coaching position, there has to be at least one African American candidate. If the NFL can do it, everyone else can do it, too. If companies end up having a slate of candidates that is not diverse, there is no possibility that the organizations’ leadership will reflect society-at-large. If they require a few people of color (of all backgrounds) to be interviewed for all positions, then companies take a crucial step towards leveling the playing field for diverse candidates.

How can everyday readers of your book raise awareness of the true cost of workplace bias without turning employers off?

I think whenever one can link impact on business and “the right thing to do,” we’re ahead of the game. Using legitimate humor and stories can also break the ice, especially given the volatility of topics such as racism, sexism, and homophobia in the workplace.

We have to remember that (unfortunately) it often falls on people of color/women/homosexuals to try to make the workplace more welcoming and inclusive because most heterosexual white males have the option of dealing or not dealing with the subject. We have to make it imperative and relatively easy for the majority of people to address these issues. Of course, the financial impetus also matters.

Nobody wants to be perceived by her/his peers as racist, sexist, or homophobic; or as someone who creates an exclusionary or unwelcoming work environment for others. We all need to learn about the appropriate and inappropriate ways to ask questions, and to make dialogue about diversity in the workplace safe and comfortable.

The Wall Street Journal reports that — surprise! — a ridiculous pay gap still exists between white men and everyone else.

I keep hearing that diversity in the workplace will only improve if it’s perceived as a business incentive. Change only happens in Corporate America if it’s a business incentive.

What will it take to change this picture at a time of fierce competition for a shrinking number of management jobs? It requires business chiefs who understand that diversity is good for the bottom line because it enables them to recruit the best talent, enlist broad thinking and reach diverse customers world-wide. And it requires CEOs to link their managers’ compensation to achieving more diversity while offering development programs for all employees.

What about it just being the right thing to do? Saving on head count is smart for your business, so if you can get away with paying your women and minorities less, you’re saving your business some money, right?

So “business incentive” will probably end up meaning something more like “legal incentive.” As long as the EEOC has no money, it has no teeth, but there is at least one example of a state having the initiative to enact its own pay equity legislation (Minnesota). (More on all that in this Race in the Workplace interview with Evelyn Murphy, author of Getting Even: Why Women Don’t Get Paid Like Men – And What to Do About It.)

That the pay gap exists so soon after college clearly indicates that women and minorities are being discriminated against from the get-go. There hasn’t been any time for them to demonstrate that “they deserve less” for whatever myriad bullshit reasons.

True, progress in the executive ranks can only be made one appointment at a time. But the numbers are small enough that we can’t hold our breath on every rise and fall. Every new black CEO, every new female SVP, every new Chief Diversity Officer is going to significantly impact the percentages of non-white-male people holding those roles.

This is not news. It’s appalling, but it’s not news.

Manpower VP Melanie Holmes on being busy:

Here’s how I feel about busy vs. boredom:

• We’ve all heard the adage that if you give something to a busy person it will get done. I believe it!
• I get frustrated when people say they’re busy as if that is a bad thing.
• And you could consider busy a form of job security.

We should be grateful that we’re busy. That probably means we’re relevant to our employers and we’re making a contribution to the success of the company. On busy days I go home feeling much, much better about myself than when I don’t check off quite as many items from my ‘to do’ list.

My boss once told me, “the more you have to do, the more you get done.” This was great feedback to hear, considering I’m usually a terrible procrastinator. Extremely close deadlines are my greatest (external) motivator. I’m also the sort of person that will break a task down into ridiculously small parts and/or add things I already did to my to-do list just so I can cross them off.

I think I’m not alone here. Right?

But I’m never hurting for things to do. Good thing.

Although being overworked may lead to employee burnout, boredom due to poor job design or other factors actually may have more serious consequences, according to research by Sirota Survey Intelligence… Employees who express boredom because of too little work reported “far lower levels of job satisfaction, sense of accomplishment and pride” in their companies when compared with other groups of workers. The boredom has nothing to do with employees not having enough work. Rather, it stems mostly from two causes: employees occupying jobs for which they are not suited or trained, or jobs that are poorly designed…

So if you’re bored at work, ask for more to do. Or fill your time with an extracurricular that’s going to help you advance in your job. You need to be able to (honestly) tell your boss what (work-related things) you’ve been doing all week. It’s the best way to address a needy boss’s need for face time. Otherwise you’ll never score those newfangled Results-Oriented Working Hours.

Back to Melanie Holmes’ statement on job security… Imagine this scenario: You’re busy. Everyone else is busy. Someone quits and you all get busier. You’re high performers so you manage to handle it (and kudos to you for that). But unless the workload is really unmanageable, they’re going to realize maybe they don’t need to hire a replacement anytime soon. Which means maybe they could do without you.

So don’t just be busy. Just being busy is not a guarantee. You must also be relevant to the important parts of the business. And make sure you know what those important parts are.