A Possible Game-Changer for Diversity & Inclusion Efforts: Collective Impact

My colleague, Lisa Whitten of SUNY Old Westbury, and I presented a workshop on the Collective Impact approach to creating change at the Academy of Management conference in August of 2014. Collective impact represents a disciplined and ambitious approach to making deep, societal change through collaboration of organizations across different sectors–such as government, education, and the private sector. We noted that many intra-organizational diversity & inclusion practices attempt to create more inclusive work environments. But few collaborate with a diversity of external organizations to address root causes of exclusivity–such as societally-based sexism and racism. At our session we addressed applications and challenges of this approach.   Given the complexity of the forces aligned against true inclusion, we believe that this multi-disciplinary approach involving a number of stakeholders is a fruitful one.

Has anyone in the private sector attempted a collective impact change effort? What were the results?

Our session description can be found here: session description

by

How do You Bridge the Research/Practice Gap?

In organizational development, it seems there is always a barrier between academically-inclined researchers and hands-on consultants. I notice in my own work with research colleagues that there is a desire to stay within one’s own comfort zone. As long as the Cronbach’s alpha for a scale is high enough, as long as batteries being used in data collection have been accepted by peer-reviewed journals, all is right with the world. However, there is a gap between measured/ quantified phenomena, and solutions to issues/ problems stemming from those phenomena. Researchers typically don’t ‘boil the ocean’ in looking for answers; they start with well-defined hypotheses and attendant measures. I would suggest that at the design phase there be more attention paid to the practical implications of their work – how precisely does a battery of items translate into what should be done with the results? It seems that if researchers and practitioners consciously formed teams—BEFORE research is designed and fielded–the actionable results would be more effective.

Here is a thoughtful article from the American Psychological Association on the topic:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/06/gap.aspx

What have you done in your own work, to bridge this gap?

by

D&I Programs will be More Effective with an Examination of Power Dynamics

An approach to diversity and inclusion based on an understanding of power dynamics among groups is important. Leaders need to be aware of who has a “voice” in the organization and who may be being silenced. In my work with groups – both inside and outside corporations — I’ve been struck by the surface and incomplete interpretations of behavior that are made in the absence of such dynamics. Too often, sub-par performance among members of majority groups are still rationalized, explained away, and otherwise forgiven, whereas similar performance by marginalized groups (e.g., women of color) are subject to intense scrutiny, attributed to overall incompetence, and often result in irreversible damage to reputation and standing. As has been documented in research, dominant group members often have strong informal relationships with senior power holders whereas those from marginalized groups do not. One step for D and I programs is to get more granular in assessing how their programs work to “even out” such power dynamics. For example, in formal mentoring programs, are mentors providing equal knowledge of organizational politics and access to senior people to their majority and minority mentors? My research shows that this is not the case, in looking at white women mentees vs. women of color mentees. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/optimizing-mentoring-programs-women-color

Outcome measures such as overall satisfaction with the mentoring relationships are incomplete. Without an understanding of how willing power holders are to share their influence with those “unusual suspects” from minority groups, D&I programs and practices will not be as effective as they could be or as they were intended to be.

by

The “Outsider-Within” Perspective of African-American Women

In my research on women of color, I have noted that many African-American women appeared to embrace an “outsider within” perspective. That is, they brought the knowledge and experience gained from being an outsider (e.g., African-American woman) to the role of an insider (professional or managerial employee). I hypothesized that having this outsider perspective helped them more readily recognize issues of unfairness and exclusion, as well as the subtle (or at least unacknowledged) privileges that accrue to those in power and that may be invisible to the empowered.

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/advancing-african-american-women-workplace-what-managers-need-know

I would further suggest that the “outsider within” perspective, along with a lower degree of loyalty to, and identification with, an organization (as compared with same-level peers) should also help one avoid groupthink—conformity of thought and ignorance of alternatives that leads to faulty decisions. Groupthink occurs more readily among teams whose members are similar in background and isolated from outside opinions. By contrast, if at least some group members—such as African-American women –keep a distanced perspective and are confident enough to voice alternative opinions, the group stands a better chance of making sound decisions. Business leaders who value conformity at the top (and such leaders do still exist, in spite of outward protestations of commitment to diversity) need to take a closer look at their organization’s cultural norms, decision-making processes, and core values.

by

How “Levelist” is Your Organization?

Many business organizations provide training and resources intended to further the inclusion of diverse groups such as women, racial minorities, LGBT, and the differently abled. Yet, few organizations explicitly recognize an “ism” that is embedded in the structure of the organization itself: “levelism,” or the differential treatment accorded employees based on job level.

In traditional, bureaucratic organizations, those who rise to certain levels and functions have more decision-making power than those who report to them; this segmentation is considered essential to effective functioning. But in some organizations , informal norms may support rank-based mistreatment. For example, those who are senior in rank may publicly belittle a junior colleague and face no repercussion, while a junior colleague behaving similarly toward a senior person may be reprimanded or fired.

At what point do rationally-based differences in rank morph into disrespectful treatment? How can organizations work to forge civil environments, in which there is a base level of respectful treatment expected of everyone regardless of level?

And finally, how levelist is your organization?

by

What is Wrong with Just Wanting to Hire the “Best” Candidate?

At the outset of consulting engagements intended to take better advantage of diverse talent, I sometimes hear senior leaders state that their company “just wants to hire the best candidate.” On interrogating that comment, I have found that “best” is often conflated with characteristics of the senior leadership team. For example, most team members may be graduates of Ivy League universities and prefer candidates with similar backgrounds. But it is doubtful that an Ivy League background in and of itself predicts superior performance.

Have you deconstructed what comprises the “best” candidates for various positions in your organization? Have you experienced any “aha” moments or surprises in identifying skill or value-based characteristics of the best talent? At least some companies are quite thoughtful about the recruiting process, as per these techniques outlined by Fast Company.

http://www.fastcompany.com/3034524/the-future-of-work/instead-of-butting-heads-how-hiring-managers-and-recruiters-can-work-toge

Do you use these forward-thinking tips in your recruiting?

by

Navigating the Politics of an Unfair Performance Review

Posts have appeared on how to respond to negative performance reviews. These discussions have centered mainly on situations in which there are clearly performance gaps on the part of the subordinate. However, as many working people know, there is a political aspect to consider in a negative review. What if you have honestly reflected on your performance, listened carefully to your manager, and you believe that his or her review is not fair?

Several years ago, I got one of the best pieces of advice, ever, from a friend. I had been asked out by my male boss – yecch – and had politely turned him down. I told a friend, a social psychology professor, about it. Very luckily for me, she was doing research at the time on sexual harassment. I still remember her immediate comment: “You know what you have to do now.” I replied, “Uh, no… what?” She told me that I had to carefully document my performance — every day – so that if, and when, my boss retaliated against me for refusing his advances by writing a negative performance review, I could rebut it.

I took her advice to heart, and every day kept a log of my work. The year proceeded with no warning that my work wasn’t good. But I did, in fact, get a negative review from him. I carefully, in objective, emotion-free language, rebutted each one of my boss’s points. For example, one piece of feedback was that my written reports took “several drafts” before they were acceptable. I was very easily able to document – with photocopies of his comments on each report draft — that of the several reports I’d written that year, each one had taken a maximum of two drafts to complete.

My reply to the review received some attention from senior management, which was helpful. And very fortuitously, my boss was cycling off his assignment in my department and I had a new supervisor. She held off on overtly supporting my “side” of the review. This was understandable, since she was new to the organization and we had not yet established a working relationship. But, she essentially was convinced enough to give me a fresh start. Without expressing any negative expectations or concern that I would not perform well, she treated me like every other able performer. I did very good work under her, and was rewarded with a plum assignment that gained me visibility throughout my division.

Of course, you should do your best to facilitate a good working relationship with a boss—this can involve asking for feedback, building trust by initiating candid dialogue, and, of course, performing well. However, sometimes you may have the bad luck to work for an unsupportive or even hostile boss who (for a variety of reasons) assesses your performance unfairly. Here are some tips to keep in mind:

  • Be on the alert for signs of a less than constructive working relationship with a manager. E.g., your boss dismisses your questions; spends more time giving pointers to colleagues than s/he does with you; answers your questions about your work or assignments in a less than straightforward manner; is unappreciative or dismissive of skills you have that s/he may not share.
  • Document your performance carefully
  • Groom supporters from amongst the ranks of your colleagues – help them out; share ideas; and ensure that they see you as a valuable resource.
  • Create “chatter” about yourself that will help astute senior managers see your manager’s perspective as an outlier. You can do this by cc’ing senior managers on particularly good work.
  • Form relationships with those from a variety of functional areas in your organization.
  • Research indicates that the more functionally diverse employees’ networks are, the more likely these employees are to be successful. More specifically, by doing so you may gain mentors or sponsors who can provide political “cover” if your relationship with your boss sours.
  • Keep your options open. Maintain your connection with external professional groups, keep up networking activities, and maintain an updated resume. If your unsupportive boss’s behavior is a reflection of a poorly managed or even “toxic” environment, you should consider finding a job in another organization.

While many managers are well-meaning, you may have the bad luck to work for an unethical one. If you do, follow these basic pointers and you should be able to keep your head above water.

by

Want to Make Positive Change for Women of Color? Step 1 is Courage

Years of research on women of color in business organizations have led me to believe that courage is crucial to combating bias. Yet, in my experience, I have encountered relatively few managers who have the courage required to buck organizational norms.

If leaders truly want their companies to include women of color, they have to prepare for profound change. What is this change, and how can we bring it about?

Recent research on inclusive leadership identified four traits as essential to being an inclusive leader: empowerment (enabling direct reports to develop and excel); humility (admitting mistakes, learning from criticism and different points of view, acknowledging one’s own limitations, and seeking help from others); accountability (demonstrating confidence in direct reports by holding them responsible for performance); and courage (setting aside personal interest to do what needs to be done for the good of the team and acting on convictions and principles even when it requires risk-taking).

One common example of courageous behavior at work is when a team member develops a unique idea that has never been tried before. Her manager may worry that his boss won’t like it and will be critical of him for authorizing his team member to move forward. In spite of the risks, a courageous leader will tell his team member to go ahead, and work with her to craft a compelling argument in favor of her project.

This is one level of courage, but managers and leaders need to kick it up a notch if they are going to make real change for women of color. As organizational theorists remind us, modern organizations are morally complex environments that impose significant ethical demands on their members. What we mean by “courage” is malleable and context-dependent.

This is where true leadership comes in. When you take a closer look at those charged with carrying out diversity-related change in many organizations, it’s clear why inequality continues to flourish. Many managers do not truly favor more inclusive policies—or they are afraid to “rock the boat” by enacting them. For example, a diversity leader may enact a policy that focuses on getting women of color into mentoring programs, without taking on the difficult task of ensuring that the mentors they are assigned are providing the same political support and “insider” knowledge to women of color as they are to white women.

In your organization, has a manager ever relied on superficial judgments and stereotypes when interpreting certain behaviors? Too often, sub-par performance from members of majority groups is still justified, rationalized, or otherwise forgiven, whereas similar performance from members of marginalized groups (e.g., women of color) is subject to intense scrutiny, attributed to overall incompetence, and frequently results in irreversible damage to professional reputation and standing.

In traditional, bureaucratic organizations, those who rise to certain levels and functions have more decision-making power than their direct reports. In some of these organizations, informal norms support rank-based mistreatment. For example, those who are senior in rank may publicly belittle a junior colleague and face no repercussions. It’s frequently more common in such environments for minority members to be singled out for this disrespectful treatment.

Women of color need managers who will challenge this behavior, and Human Resources departments that will oversee individual performance reviews and take note of any excessively personal or biased comments therein.

Modeling courage can prompt similar behavior across entire teams. If senior leaders truly want to make change, I encourage them to reward courageous behavior on the part of middle managers. Women of color need champions who are familiar with the obstacles they face at work—and willing to take the risks necessary to overturn them.

by

Have You Considered Economic Inequality in your Research or Practice?

While it is not often discussed in the context of organizational change efforts or diversity and Inclusion policies, political progressives are charging corporations with irresponsible practices that disadvantage workers and derail economic stability. For example, the Center for Popular Democracy has published a report quite critical of the financial services sector.

http://populardemocracy.org/news/big-banks-and-dismantling-middle-class

In your research or practice, have you considered addressing such contextual issues? If so, how have you done it, and what has been the response?

by

Is Your Organization Treating Human Resources like Rodney Dangerfield?

I get no respect at all. When I was a kid, I lost my parents at the beach. I asked a lifeguard to help me find them. He said, “I don’t know kid, there are so many places they could hide.”

For those of us old enough to remember, Rodney Dangerfield’s comic routines were hilarious. The self-demeaning comedian regaled his audiences with tales of getting absolutely no respect, from anybody, in any area of his life.

But unfortunately for those who have to live through it, the theme of “no respect” is enacted frequently within work organizations. In political wrangling among functional areas for who has more power, resources, status, decision-making ability, etc., people can get lost in the shuffle—with those from historically disadvantaged identity groups (e.g., people of color) getting downright trampled.

In your organization, do double standards persist? That is, situations in which similar levels of performance result in different outcomes for the employee, depending on his or her status. Research finds that problematic performance from members of dominant groups is often forgiven, whereas similar performance from members of marginalized groups is subject to intense scrutiny and may be attributed to overall incompetence.

A savvy Human Resources department will be on the alert for such differential treatment and nip it in the bud. Whenever a business leader brings up a performance issue, it is HR’s job to advise the leader on the best way to handle the issue. However, overbearing business leaders may prefer to follow their own agendas and overrule HR’s recommendation, treating those from marginalized groups unduly harshly.   Senior leaders who consider the judgements of business leaders as superior to those of HR are either not letting HR do its job, or themselves have done a poor job in selecting the company’s HR team.

People matter. Allowing your talent to be treated like inanimate pieces to be pushed back and forth on a game board at the whim of business leaders results in low morale, lost productivity, regretted losses and–most destructive to the pocketbook of the organization and its reputational capital–lawsuits.

Senior leaders need to take a 10,000 foot view of their organization and give HR the respect this function deserves. In this way the organization has a chance of becoming a healthy environment, one that allows employees to thrive and develop to their potential—and one in which “I get no respect” is a comic punchline rather than a dismal reality.

by