![]()
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION
![]()
1
CHAPTER
DIVERSITY
IN SEARCH OF THE NEXT LEVEL
ACROSS AMERICA these days, leaders of all types of organizations are voicing disillusionment about the current state of diversity. It is an enormous topic, with enormous consequences.
While typically we tend to think of diversity as being a concern of the business world, this state of anxiety is not limited to corporate CEOs. Leaders of other organizations—religious, educational, governmental, and social action groups—express the same misgivings.
“I’m concerned that we have plateaued” is a common sentiment. “Where do we go from here?” they ask. “We’ve got to raise diversity a notch if it’s to meet today’s challenges.” Even though they articulate their concerns in different ways, intuitively these leaders are all searching for the same thing—a way to move to the next level.
Talking with them brings to mind the refrain from an old Peggy Lee hit. “Is that all there is,” she sings in a world-weary voice as great expectations go unfulfilled. Indeed, weary is how many of us feel. What happened, they wonder, to the original promise? They yearn for a lasting solution to the equal-representation conundrum so that they can focus on other areas.
Evidence of both weariness and yearning abound. Corporate leaders gear up for the latest diversity effort, imploring their organizations to “do something different, so we don’t have to do it again.” Leaders in all sectors debate the “right wordings,” as if semantics were the bridge to the next level. Diversity? Inclusion? Multiculturalism? Cultural competency? Attendance at “best practices” conferences is brisk as organizations search for the panacea that will catapult them to the next diversity level. Community leaders fret about potential Balkanization.
Underlying all of this sentiment is an unspoken fear: “What if there is no next level? What if this is as good as it gets?” I don’t think it is. But an old folk saying comes to mind: Nothing changes if nothing changes. If we’re unwilling to change what has gone wrong, this may indeed be as good as it gets.
THE POLITICIZING OF DIVERSITY
Currently, most organizational leaders, along with the broader society in the United States, subscribe to a politicized definition of diversity—namely, that it is a code word for affirmative action. In that coded sense, diversity means fostering the recruitment, promotion, and retention of members of “protected classes.” The hope is that using the term diversity will avoid the stigma that has traditionally been attached to affirmative action.
“I believe in diversity.”
“I respect diversity.”
“We promote diversity.”
“Diversity is good for business.”
Statements such as these, so familiar in the business world, are tip-offs to this approach. They suggest that diversity is something that must be created or sanctioned. Yet diversity, per se, disentangled from its politicized definition, need not be approved of or promoted. It already exists. It simply is.
Whenever I describe myself as active in the diversity arena, I inevitably have to explain that diversity is not synonymous with affirmative action and equal opportunity. And yet, wherever I turn, I see evidence of the tightness of the affirmative action/diversity knot. When I make presentations based on my understanding of diversity, someone always comes up afterward and says, “That was not what I expected.” Many people come prepared to hear me discuss “diversity” as a euphemism for affirmative action.
A content analysis of “best diversity practices” supports my personal experience. Factors related to “the numbers” or “the representation of minorities and women” are often cited as the rationale for diversity efforts. In Diversity Inc.’s 2004 listing of the qualities of the Top 50 Companies for Diversity, for example, four of the six most frequently mentioned factors concerned the representation of minorities and women (see Figure 1-1). In Fortune magazine’s 50 Best Companies for Minorities, the five most frequently cited rationales also deal with representation (see Figure 1-2).
Implications
I believe that the predominant use of the term diversity as a euphemism for affirmative action has significant negative consequences. Affirmative action is the subject of considerable controversy and debate. To equate the terms is to tarnish diversity’s credibility with those who discredit affirmative action.
It is also to assume that the word diversity has no substance of its own. This assumption is doubly harmful. It hamstrings our ability even to identify diversity in its broadest sense—as something that exists beyond the workplace—and to develop appropriate processes for its management; it also inhibits our ability to recognize that such identification and processes are needed. This is not a question of altruism, but rather business necessity. Corporate leaders in particular would do well to turn their attention to identifying and addressing diversity outside of the workforce (more about this subject in Chapters 7 and 8), simply because it can produce considerable financial rewards.
Perhaps most destructive, however, is that politicizing any issue turns it into a power struggle. One side must win; the other must lose. By politicizing diversity, we have hindered greatly our ability to work creatively and flexibly to develop techniques that complement the traditional affirmative action framework. Those who discredit affirmative action feel validated; those who want to promote it feel frustrated.
FIGURE 1-1
Diversity Inc.’s qualities of the Top 50 Companies for Diversity.*
Item | Frequency |
Recruitment and retention | 22 |
Constant attention to diversity numbers/metric measures | 17 |
Diversity education, training, and programs | 16 |
Community involvement/philanthropy | 16 |
Supplier diversity | 15 |
Women hired and promoted to higher-level positions | 14 |
Involvement, support, and leadership from CEO/president | 10 |
Rewards, bonuses, or monetary incentives for diversity | 8 |
Mentoring programs | 8 |
Multicultural marketing | 7 |
People of color hired and promoted to higher-level positions | 6 |
Support from managers and senior executives | 5 |
Partnerships with outside organizations | 5 |
Communication between upper-level/lower-level/community/vendors/consumers | 4 |
Emphasis on the individual | 3 |
Hiring of interns of color | 2 |
Hiring of people with disabilities | 1 |
Total | 159 |
SOURCE: This figure was developed from data presented in “Top 50 Companies for Diversity,” Diversity, Inc. (June–July 2004), pp. 46–110.
