Before I forget this, I wanted to mention and article I read a few weeks ago (March 8th) in the Ideas Section of the Boston Sunday Globe on the topic of bias and diversity. The article by Drake Bennett reported that recent research studies have been unable to demonstrate that the ubiquitous diversity training programs have resulted in significant positive changes. They measured headcount and promotions at major corporations where such programs have been de rigueur for the past decade or so, and the results were, well, unexpected. They were the same as in places that did not have such programs.
I think the reason for this is simple: No one can make a compelling argument that more diversity results in a more profitable company. Or a better basketball team.
In the same section a Globe editorial cited the staffing at Wheelock College in Boston for their high "participation" rates of black and Hispanic employees. One might gather from this emphasis that the definition of "diversity effectiveness" is hiring more minorities and women into "good" jobs and paying them the same as white males.
In other words, diversity training is perceived as having pretty much the same goals as affirmative action. Many managers see affirmative action as an artificial device to lower standards to allow less qualified applicants to have hiring preference. (If you have been in conversation with a customer service agent who can barely speak English, you can appreciate how ineffective some of these program can be.)
The discussion seems to revolve around race and gender. We don't hear so much about other aspects of true diversity - age, disability, nationality? Moreover there seems to be a widening gulf between economic classes. People - especially older people - seem to be most comfortable around people who are compatible educationally and economically. I think discrimination in 2010 may have less to do with skin color than it does with social values (at least in the Northeast). People who can afford it are choosing to live in communities where The Association dictates the color of your house and the credit score - not the skin color- of your neighbors. Racial intolerance like public smoking has become unacceptable.
Political polarization has become the dominant divisive force in our culture to an extent never seen before (at least by me). In the old days, you would invite people of different views to stimulate interesting dinner conversation. Nowadays, we segregate our dinner guests by their political beliefs to avoid shouting matches and other hostilities.
I think the reason for this is simple: No one can make a compelling argument that more diversity results in a more profitable company. Or a better basketball team.
In the same section a Globe editorial cited the staffing at Wheelock College in Boston for their high "participation" rates of black and Hispanic employees. One might gather from this emphasis that the definition of "diversity effectiveness" is hiring more minorities and women into "good" jobs and paying them the same as white males.
In other words, diversity training is perceived as having pretty much the same goals as affirmative action. Many managers see affirmative action as an artificial device to lower standards to allow less qualified applicants to have hiring preference. (If you have been in conversation with a customer service agent who can barely speak English, you can appreciate how ineffective some of these program can be.)
The discussion seems to revolve around race and gender. We don't hear so much about other aspects of true diversity - age, disability, nationality? Moreover there seems to be a widening gulf between economic classes. People - especially older people - seem to be most comfortable around people who are compatible educationally and economically. I think discrimination in 2010 may have less to do with skin color than it does with social values (at least in the Northeast). People who can afford it are choosing to live in communities where The Association dictates the color of your house and the credit score - not the skin color- of your neighbors. Racial intolerance like public smoking has become unacceptable.
Political polarization has become the dominant divisive force in our culture to an extent never seen before (at least by me). In the old days, you would invite people of different views to stimulate interesting dinner conversation. Nowadays, we segregate our dinner guests by their political beliefs to avoid shouting matches and other hostilities.
I mention it because this is an area where race clearly matters less than ideology. Many on the Left decry the Tea Party rank and file as ignorant racists, partially because the membership is predominantly white. But this does not accurately describe the motivation for Tea Party activists - which is principally economic.
The Diversity movement gained its broadest acceptance during the boom years. The crisis of double digit unemployment over the past two years has probably changed the landscape. It will be interesting to see if struggling companies meet their stated diversity objectives as they rebuild their decimated workforce.
I would not be surprised to see American businesses start to move away from "diversity" as a goal, since it has no real business value, other than to assuage the guilt of those who feel that they have been the fortunate beneficiaries of a good genetic dice roll. When the central purpose of a business is profit, talent will almost always trump bias. (Note the qualification "almost always" because the Hobbesean truth is - some people are just nasty, brutish and short. )
