It’s no secret that many people are
uncomfortable with discussing issues around race, diversity, and inclusiveness
in the workplace. However, as we all know, the first step toward solving any
problem is to acknowledge it.
In general, it is better to be proactive than
reactive in building an inclusive workplace. Organizations that initially
overlook questions of diversity, face public criticism as a result, and then
make changes in response, may be accused of kowtowing to critics instead of
showing a bona fide desire to become more inclusive. Likewise, the general
public is unlikely to find a large organization’s claims of “meritocracy”
convincing if the lack of diversity among its high-ranking officials is
obvious. And in business, as in politics, public opinion matters a great deal.
Consider the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences—better known as the agency behind the Oscars. In the weeks leading up
to this year’s ceremony, the Academy courted heavy criticism over the apparent
lack of diversity among its voting members—and the consequences in terms of the
films and performers deemed meritorious of Oscar consideration. Some
high-profile critics even announced plans to boycott the Awards.
Although the Academy’s president Cheryl Boone
Isaacs said her organization would take “dramatic
steps” to change the composition of its membership, scrutiny of the Academy’s
hiring and nomination practices will continue. The onus of demonstrating
progress now falls squarely on the shoulders of Isaacs and her colleagues.
According to the Los Angeles Times, as of
February 2016, 91 percent of the Academy’s 6,261 voting members are white, and
76 percent are male.
Dr. Kira Hudson Banks is a psychologist who
specializes in racial identity, discrimination, diversity, and their
relationship to mental health. Writing in Harvard
Business Review, Banks recommends that organizations make a
deliberate, long-term investment in inclusiveness. This means engaging with
issues of race, inclusivity, and diversity on a regular basis, rather than
merely in a one-off seminar.
For this purpose, managers can organize small
study groups and/or specialized training sessions devoted to discussions among
people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, life experiences, and gender
identities.
Items that participants might engage with
include:
•
Privilege: What is it, and what role
does it play both in society, and within our organization in particular?
•
Experiences of discrimination: Have you
experienced discrimination or barriers to success based on race, religion,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical ability? Have you noticed any
such barriers here, within this organization? If so, what can we (as managers)
do to facilitate your success?
•
Employment-related issues involving diversity and inclusiveness: Possible topics include the hiring and employment disparity between
people with “ethnic-sounding” names and those with Anglo-Saxon-sounding names;
the merits of affirmative action; the persistent compensation gap between men
and women; and the presence (or deficiency) of infrastructure to assist people
with disabilities.
•
Key questions: What would inclusiveness look like? How can we (as an
organization) achieve it? Individuals within the
organization may have different ideas about what inclusiveness and diversity
mean. Encourage them to share these notions openly and frankly within their
discussion groups, and be prepared to deal with direct criticism. A measure of
conflict is okay in this situation, provided the atmosphere remains respectful
and all participants have a fair chance to express their point of view.
This process has three main goals: 1) to enable
individuals to identify and confront their own biases and misconceptions; 2) to
establish a common understanding and direction for the organization with
respect to inclusiveness, and highlight any shortcomings in that area; and
ultimately, 3) to foster a work climate in which all current and prospective
personnel feel they have a fair opportunity to succeed.