“Diversity
at Work:
Why Haven’t We Made More Progress?”
by Kim Cromwell
For many businesses, it’s a disappointing and unfortunate conclusion: Organizational diversity efforts have not made the progress that so many thought would be achieved by now. Understanding why U.S. organizations have not made more diversity progress is complex and deserves further exploration if we wish to remove the barriers. The bottom line? To maximize the impact of organizational diversity efforts, diversity work must be woven directly into our organizations’ people strategies and the way we manage our businesses.
A Brief History: The Early Days
Company diversity efforts were driven in the ‘70’s and early ‘80’s primarily by Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) law. For instance, EEO/AA law and subsequent diversity efforts focused on a subset of the population, requiring employers to increase the presence of under-represented groups in their workforce.
The scope of corporate diversity work expanded in the late ‘80s, at which time employers realized that hiring a more diverse group wasn’t enough; figuring out how to effectively work together was the bigger challenge and education about differences was introduced. While heeding the law was mandatory, this “extra effort,” which focused on diversity training and interpersonal learning, was optional, frequently not tied to the business, and often not as effective as leaders intended. While there were a few success stories, there were many cases in which participants either did not know why they were there or weren’t able to apply what they had learned back on the job because their corporate culture did not reinforce components of the education they had received.
Evolving Diversity Practices: The Past Decade
Increasingly, over the past decade, organizations have taken a more comprehensive view of diversity issues, not simply completing diversity training, then “checking the box” as if the work was done but, rather, looking at how the issue of diversity impacts our ability to achieve our mission and enhance our bottom-line.
Some organizations sought to understand the business rationale behind doing this work, and stopped there, unsure of what to do next. At the other end of the continuum, some leaders learned that attending to diversity issues could differentiate their organization as an employer, vendor, or service provider – and took action. Diversity was examined in the context of not only the business case but also the people dimension of the business strategy, which, in turn, has an impact on both the workforce and its customers.
Workforce Diversity Barriers to Progress
Looking at the evolution of diversity work from a distance, one might expect to see this century’s organizations enthusiastically embracing a diverse workforce. After all, if you assume talent is found in people of all differences, then it makes sense that people of all differences would be sought after, developed, and tapped for their fullest contribution to the organization. One might expect to have seen more diversity at the senior levels of organizations, as well as a workplace culture that actually draws upon the talents of all – old and young, men and women, people of color, whites, lesbians, gay men, transgender people, Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, and etc.
But reality has revealed that diversity progress is slow. For example, of Fortune’s top 1,000 companies, only 11 are led by women. In some cases, diversity has been re-cast by organizational leaders as not essential to business success, unachievable, and to be shelved as a “nice-to-do” during better economic times. Unless organizations commit to building a sustainable people strategy with diversity as a core component, we cannot expect significant progress.
What are the barriers to making diversity an imperative?
1) Most organizations have not taken the time to adequately understand how diversity impacts their bottom line, and therefore fail to recognize diversity as a competitive advantage, particularly as an employer. While customer demographics are commonly researched and applied to business practices, workforce differences rarely examined as closely and often misunderstood. Consumer buying among people of color nearly doubled over the last decade, rising at a rate much faster than overall U.S. buying power, according to the Selig Center for Growth at the University of Georgia. Hiring a workforce that mirrors the diversity of its customers can have a powerful impact on understanding the needs of those customers.
2) Many organizations focus on short-term survival in this challenging economy, failing to see diversity as a critical priority. Creating and managing a diverse workforce is perceived as one more thing to do outside of the scope of the business. Diversity is treated as programmatic rather than integral to the organization’s priorities. Imagine, however, if 100% of the workforce were contributing 100% and then some. Removing barriers to their contributions would make a significant impact on short- and long-term organizational success.
3) Organizational leaders act as if a meritocracy exists, believing that talent will rise to the top. It’s easier to increase racial diversity at lower levels simply by changing hiring practices, for instance. This action can also give the illusion of substantive progress. More complicated, but necessary, is an examination of all people practices – from sourcing to development, how projects or accounts are assigned, what competencies are rewarded, and why people stay with or leave the organization.
4) Responsibility for diversity leadership is delegated to a staff member, and is not treated with the same discipline, measurement and accountability as other business initiatives. Initiatives focused on quality have the same challenge. You can’t simultaneously say diversity is central to the business, while treating it as peripheral, and expect it to have a strong impact. Staff can play an important role, but ownership must reside with the decision-makers. Some organizations make the mistake of assigning someone responsibility for workforce diversity issues solely because of their racial or ethnic identity, rather than looking closely at the competencies required for the role and the person best suited to fit it. This does everyone a disservice.
5) We continue to be more comfortable with people like ourselves. When the going gets tough at work and we need to pull someone in to help with the project, or when it’s time to grab lunch with a colleague, we are often inclined to reach out to someone whose life experience is more similar to our own. Less effort is required when I can speak in short-hand and can readily depend on people with whom I have more in common. The flip side of this issue for minority groups is that they might not naturally find sponsors in the majority power structure of the organization.
6) Rather than work collaboratively, different groups continue to compete with one another. Underrepresented groups within organizations frequently compete with others for scarce resources. Rather than work collectively to bring about change, we often struggle with one another. Imagine the momentum we would build if we could truly work together. Beyond that, imagine the momentum we could build by stepping outside of our own group identities – where we might see men leading the battle against sexism, whites against racism, heterosexuals against heterosexism, and so on.
7) We don’t give one another honest performance feedback. While it’s difficult to give developmental feedback to anyone, it can be even more difficult to give feedback to someone of another gender, race or culture – for fear of being misunderstood. Whatever the reason, this lack of information often sidetracks careers, particularly for those who don’t receive performance feedback because the deliverer of that feedback fears being seen as racist or sexist and thus chooses not to give feedback at all.
8) We are too internally focused. There are diversity battles being fought in U.S. legal courts daily, many of which will impact workforce practices in the future. Courts increasingly see challenges by majority groups (whites and heterosexuals, for example) seeking to gain or limit access to resources: anti-affirmative action challenges in the schools; laws proposed to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. Census data shows that the U.S. Latino population grew 58% over the past decade, while only disproportionate numbers of Hispanic girls remain in school – an example of a “feeder pool” for talent that will dry up if not tended to. External forces play a critical role in shaping the future issues that will face employers.
Whether you believe diversity progress is more impacted by the carrot (e.g., access to potential business opportunities and increased market share) or the stick (e.g., laws to ensure fair treatment) there is no doubt that we face continued challenges ahead, to realizing diversity progress.
###
Copyright © 2004 Cromwell Consulting
Kim Cromwell is Principal of Cromwell Consulting, a consulting firm dedicated to helping organizations accelerate performance and enhance success through their people. She previously served as Director of Workforce Effectiveness & Diversity for BankBoston, and Vice President of Corporate Learning & Development at FleetBoston Financial. Kim will lead the Advanced Practitioners Forum at Linkage's 4th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity, talking about the issues discussed in this article, as well as how we can reach new heights in diversity efforts, benefiting individuals and the organizations for which they work.
This article was published in Link&Learn on December 1, 2002 by Linkage, Inc. (www.linkageinc.com).
Site Design and Hosting: SherwoodWeb