|
|
Excerpts from "Managing Diversity: A Handbook for the New Employee" (Barbu, 1998) ( continued from previous page)
Race Stratification in the 21st Century: The Changing Workplace
Have you ever seen an old training film from the fifties or earlier? Haven't you ever asked yourself, 'where are all the female employees'? Or, 'where are all the Black, Asian, Latino, etc. employees'? The United States is going through rapid and monumental changes demographically, and those changes will dramatically affect the workplace of the very near future. Ramirez states that "Since the 1960's, three important demographic trends have changed the face of America and its race relations: first, the percentage of people of color has increased; second, the percentage of people of color who are not black has increased; and third, the number of people who consider themselves multiracial has increased" (Scott, 21). What Ramirez has demonstrated in this passage is that while people of color and multiracial background are increasing in percentage, the previous dominant work group, white males, are decreasing. We are rapidly approaching the end of the age of Anglo-dominance.
Just as the demographics are changing, so must the attitudes of the modern workplace. There is no more room for an 'out' group. According to Henry, if birth rates persist, "...the Hispanic population will have further increased an estimated 21%, the Asian presence about 22%, Blacks almost 12%, and Whites a little more than 2% when the twentieth century ends" (Time, 28). While the formerly dominant work groups diminish, the formerly minority work groups will substantially continue to increase. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to realize that within the lifetime of any current employee, there will be more people of diverse ethnicity in the workplace as the years accumulate. So, wouldn't it be logical to drop the superiority complex now, since it is just a matter of time before there are more out-group members than there are in-group members? Henry goes on to say that by the year 2020,"...the number of U.S. residents who are Hispanic or non-White will have more than doubled...while the White population will not be increased at all. By 2056...the 'average' U.S. resident, as defined by Census statistics, will trace his or her descent to Africa, Asia, the Hispanic world, the Pacific Islands, Arabia--almost anywhere but White Europe" (Time, 28).
On the issue of racial stratification in the American workplace, it should be noted that the sections in this handbook entitled racism, prejudice, ethnocentrism, and discrimination have already treated the issue of inequality, however, and we will now explore this issue in further detail. A good example of stratification in America is what Jaret refers to as the color line that separates Whites and Blacks: "They had in mind the fact that most White Southerners invoked racist doctrines of white supremacy to justify the 'color line' and felt that Whites were or should be superior to Blacks" (441). Since we already covered racism, we won't analyze Jaret's statement any further than pointing out that the 'differences' we have with people of different ethnicity is so minute that a line of demarcation between the races is completely unnecessary. Compound this with the perpetuation of fear; Fear stratifies people. It is fear that makes a person do things that defy logic. If Jaret's above statement were worded to say 'most white southerners invoked racist doctrines of white supremacy to justify the 'color line' because Whites were afraid of Blacks', and then at least it would make sense. Fear is an obstacle to clear, honest communication.
Just as fear is an obstacle to competent communication, it is ignorance or the lack of correct information that leads to fear. With the anticipated radical demographic shift in workplace personnel, the incorrect information one may have about people of diverse ethnicity multiplied by their fear of the unknown will lead to an unwillingness to let go of their old ideologies. But the change is imminent. As we have discussed already, and as we will discuss in the next sections, there is no reason to be afraid. Bad information is the child of ignorance. When you have the opportunity to meet or work with someone from a diverse background, investigate for yourself. You will find that when you keep an open mind, you won't be afraid because the person is more like yourself than you thought.
|
|
|
Anti-discrimination Law, Afirmative Action, & The Concept of Equity
In 1896, the Supreme Court decided in Plessy vs. Ferguson that people of color could be discriminated against solely on the basis of their skin color. The law of the land had sanctioned it. The law was wrong. Plessy upheld the practice of segregation, which was a justification for discrimination (Jaret, 506). Under the separate but equal decision, Jaret states that "...state laws requiring racial segregation in public accommodations, schools, streetcars, stores, and even cemeteries were upheld...It held that races are equal in legal and political terms, but 'social equality' is another matter" (1995, 467). Although the law stated separate but equal, it was obvious that the line in the sand had been drawn; Scott states that "Non-Europeans were taught that there was nothing that they had contributed to humankind; they were nothing but beasts of burden..." (1997, v). People of color were being kept from participating in the ongoing process of American society. Hence, the nomenclature of separate but equal has an inherent flaw; in order to be equal, you can not be separate. The pervasiveness of institutional racism had permeated the legal aegis of the highest order. The blessing of Plessy would shame the country for fifty-eight years.
In 1954, the Supreme Court reversed its decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (Topeka, KS). In their decision, the court ruled that "...states or other governmental jurisdictions could not operate separate school systems for different races...that 'separate educational facilities are inherently unequal...to separate (children in schools) from others...generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community'..." (Jaret, 303). After six decades, the highest court in the land realized that anything shy of absolute equality is the same as total inequality.
The Brown decision dominoes right into the 1964 civil rights act, and the 1965 voting rights act. It appears as though minorities in America had finally achieved an equal status. But equal status was hard to transition into from that of unequal. It was as if the United States were a baseball game. In 1776, the first pitch was thrown out. Plessy happened in the third inning and gave injustice a seven run lead for those who have benefited from the system thus far. By the time of Brown and the 60's legislation, the score was injustice, nine, and equality zero (if you will forgive the baseball analogy!). So the concept of the level playing field is the same as people of color having the same chances against an equal opponent. However, as of the sixties, the equal minorities of America had entered the game in the seventh inning, trailing by nine runs! In order to even the score and hope for extra innings, the minorities would need to score three runs an inning for the next three innings. That would mean outperforming the side of injustice. This analogy paints a picture of how the concept of equity works. Equity is the means of promoting equality through advantage (to the disadvantaged) until such a time that all forms of disadvantage have been eradicated. Gordon argues that "Equity speaks and refers to fairness and social justice. It is to be distinguished from equality, which references sameness and the absence of discrimination...In societies of unequal members, equal distribution is not equitable. Equity requires that the distribution of resources be sufficient to the condition that is being treated" (751). Therefore, it is necessary that we implement, and continue the implementation of equitable programs in all American institutions.
Affirmative action is an exemplary program that will allow placement into society those that are hobbled, and at a disadvantage to those who have benefited from society's previous institutions. Affirmative action insures that proper 'mixes' of all of societies ethnic groups are represented in every American institution. But isn't affirmative action reverse discrimination, you might ask? No, it isn't. Jaret poses a more appropriate question to those who would point to reverse discrimination: "With minority-majority disparities in income, wealth, health status, and political representation as great as they are, how, they ask, can Whites seriously complain about being discriminated against?" (1995, 266). Affirmative action is clearly anything but a freebie that Whites give to those who didn't earn it for themselves. What affirmative action does is act as sentinel to guard the hard-fought rights achieved by our non-white citizens.
How does this apply to the workplace? As the next section will show, the variety of culture and diversity in America today can make some people interpret the radical change as an 'invasion' to their own former cultural hegemony.
|
Diversity, Culture, and the Melting Pot
As of this point in our diversity management training, we have discussed all the nasty things that people do to each other. It is now time to discuss the benefits of working in a multi-cultural, diverse work environment. Basically, if you are always around people that act, think, dress, eat, talk, etc. just like you, then how can you learn from other points of view? Unless you read the seminal works of Edward Hall, you will continue to live in a bubble. We need others to co-exist with us, and those others can show us so much about ourselves because they are different. In the modern (and evolving) workplace, there are countless opportunities to learn about other cultures. By learning various points of view, we can alter the way we used to do things to be more positive, understanding, tolerant, and efficient. The other side of the argument, for those who refuse to open their experience potential, is not very positive. First of all, being an ethnocentric, racist, prejudicial, etc. type of person that won't allow even the slightest modification to their Weltanschauung will never be happy while in the diverse workplace. Secondly, their job will never be secure, especially if the 'minority' that they insulted or told an ethnic joke about just happens to be their supervisor. And lastly, the changing demographics of the workforce are an inevitable phenomenon. For the open-minded employee, the transition to a more diverse work environment will be an exciting new experience.
Diversity in the workplace has many faces. Someone that is from a different culture than yourself, someone that was born in another country, someone that has a different gender than yourself, even someone with a different sexual orientation than yourself. For this section, we will focus on cultural diversity, and discuss the other aspects in a later section.
Tubbs defines culture as "...a way of life developed and shared by a group of people and passed down from generation to generation" (421). Tubbs' definition indicates that a person's culture could be generations old. He also goes on to say that "Not all members of a culture share all its elements. Moreover, a culture will change and evolve over time"(421). Therefore, someone's culture could be so ingrained that in order to adjust to our environment would require patience and understanding on our behalf. Also, since culture can be dynamic, and different people participate in selective aspects of their culture, we must not stereotype or assume what someone is like. Lustig defines culture as "...a learned set of shared perceptions about beliefs, values, and norms, which affect the behaviors of a relatively large group of people" (35). Lustig's approach varies in the respect of culture as an entire Weltanschauung, or the worldview of its participants. So, it is clear that communication with people from diverse perspectives can be exhilarating and at the same time difficult, or even frustrating. We just read examples of how a person's worldview can vary from them not really participating in their native culture (so be aware of stereotyping them), to them being entrenched in a cultural world that has been the family tradition for generations (so don't be ethnocentric). What is important to remember is what we discussed in the second section; be empathetic, understanding, and patient. Your open-mindedness will be an example of good faith that will allow both of you to get over the awkward initial stages of meeting until understanding can be accomplished.
Jaret states that the concept of cultural pluralism has been an American institution since our country was founded. He says that "...cultural pluralism...is a process in which racial-ethnic differentiation and heterogeneity are maintained or created anew...Historically, cultural pluralism springs from several sources and first arose with religious diversity" (Jaret, 412). We as a nation have always maintained an identity by also having identities within our national identity. By imposing a Eurocentric or ethnocentric perspective on all of your fellow co-workers, you could be going against what the United States was based upon.
To discuss all of the differences between cultures is well beyond the scope of this handbook, but we will go over one example to point out the distinct differences that two cultures can have. We will be looking at the differences between European and African decent people in the context of speaker and audience. Foss states that "The notion of delivery in the African-American context also differs from the Eurocentric view, in which a speaker presents a text to a largely passive audience. African-American audiences participate in the speech itself--through affirmations, interruptions, and the like. These responses do not constitute a mere expression of agreement with the speaker but are joint creations of the text by members of a culture in which collective experience is valued over individual needs" (288). What Foss is saying is that people of European ancestry tend to be passive when interacting in an audience environment, while people of African ancestry tend to be active, or even participatory in its creation.
Try to visualize an employee rally, or even an informal get-together in which you or someone else may become uncomfortable at the energy level that each culture's audience displays. The abundance of or lack thereof in enthusiasm or participation does not indicate either an air of snobbery or ill manner, but a cultural perspective. Before being educated into the meaning of the difference there may have been contempt, but with knowledge comes understanding and even appreciation of someone else's culture.
The fallacy of the great American 'melting pot' is just a sneaky way to teach the ethnocentric ideology of cultural homogeneity, or assimilation. According to Lustig, "Assimilation occurs when it is deemed relatively unimportant to maintain one's original cultural identity but it is important to establish and maintain relationships with other cultures" (342). What Lustig means is simply by assimilating to the dominant culture, the culture you were born with suddenly is not that important. Yeah, right! To ask someone to 'give up' their entire heritage in order to be more like everyone else is easy for the dominant culture to ask, they're not the ones making the sacrifice! It is highly unlikely that a person will extricate the very essence of their being in order to be like everyone else, as if to say that they are an inferior person unless they assimilate. Jaret calls this phenomenon of assimilation in the United States Anglo-Conformity: "...(it)implies that although a diversity of groups enter, settle, and interact in the U.S., it's the institutions and cultural patterns of British origin...that shall predominate and be adopted by all"(400). The 'melting pot' is not an accurate depiction of the American public, for there are aspects of every person that are inseparable from them. Instead of a cultural homogeneity where everything is melted together and recreated into a 'new and uniquely American' similarity, there has always been a Eurocentric conformity prevailing. The melting pot is in reality a 'smelting pot', where the ore of other-ness is burned away, and only the pure iron of northern European culture remains. The idea of retaining one's cultural ancestry and at the same time still being 'American' is the proper perspective to have. This perspective has the motif of a tapestry, where all the threads are different in color and texture, size, length, etc., but the real beauty of the completed product is far superior to that of a rug that has been woven homogeneously. In the workplace, lets remember that our colleagues that are different than us are merely different threads in the same tapestry that we call the United States.
|
|
|
|
Geting Along With Everyone
Now that we know what it is that prohibits our seeing other people as just like us, what do we do when we are still in conflict with individuals, regardless of their ethnicity? After all, even if people see each other as equal no one superior or inferior there will always be personality conflicts. In their national bestseller "Getting to Yes", Fisher and Ury take a four-step approach to understanding. First, separate the people from the problem (Fisher, 17). We have become competent in relating to people of diverse backgrounds through the process of equality, now we have to treat individuals in a conflict situation as having their own specific needs. By separating the person, as an example, 'Chuck', who is an Asian man, we will listen to what Chuck is saying, and forget for a moment that he is both Asian and male. Then we determine if the problem can be solved without hurting anyone's ego. The solution should be as reasonable and beneficial to all parties concerned, regardless of who is of higher position. The key is to remember that no one will accomplish as much as they would like when someone on your wagon is dragging their feet.
The second point to remember is to focus on interests, not on positions (Fisher, 40). Ask yourself the question as you hear out your colleague's complaint; 'is this a problem that will benefit us mutually, or is this a challenge of rank'? There is nothing worse than an employee that challenges their supervisor's authority, except maybe a supervisor that is imposing rank! When two people sit at the table and discuss ways to improve mutual gain, it shouldn't matter what position on the ladder that each person has.
Third, Invent options for mutual gains (Fisher, 56). When confronted with a conflict situation that appears to have no easy solution, or if the solution is not mutually beneficial, go outside of the usual and invent an option that will satisfy everyone. So long as all parties agree to the sanctions, feel free to do something weird in the name of cooperation and peaceful coexistence.
Finally, the fourth step in Fisher and Ury's system for mutual agreement is to insist on using objective criteria (81). A solid list to base trust on is one that is mutually agreeable, such as market value, precedent, professional standards, cost, efficiency, how a court would decide, tradition, reciprocity, moral standard, equal treatment, etc. (Fisher, 85). If you can't decide on what is a fair standard or procedure, then the best bet would be to seek a third party.
Before we get too far off course for the scope of this handbook, it is very important to know when a neutral third party can mediate a conflicting situation and allow an acceptable outcome for everyone concerned. According to Hocker, mediation can provide three advantages that otherwise would not happen: the promotion of mutual stake in the resolution, the likeliness of creative elements in the resolution, and flexibility (221-222). Essentially, the third party should have nothing at stake with either of the complainants except the desire for a mutually beneficial resolution.
The need for better communication will always be present when two or more individuals interact. We have just discussed methods of conflict resolution, but there may be times when no solution is possible. Sometimes people just need to let off some steam, also known as the 'catharsis' approach. Sometimes people just want to be heard; by simply listening to a co-worker gripe may be the solution to their problem. In fact, Wolvin and Coakley have found listening to be "...the most important communication skill for entry-level workers, subordinates, supervisors, managers, job and career success, productivity, upward mobility, communication training, and organizational effectiveness" (Adler, 107). Sometimes, we can avoid a potential situation by simply allowing it to diffuse itself.
|
The Diverse Workplace
As we mentioned earlier, the workplace is changing. People no longer desire to assimilate into one big mass of Americana. In fact, it is more often than not impossible to separate the language from the culture. In fact, as Fine states, "Our understanding of multicultural communication in organizations must begin with a theoretical position that confronts difference directly by recognizing the assumption of difference rather than the assumption of homogeneity as the organizational norm" (263). What was once a majority of European decent is now a mix of people that are not only of different culture, but also of different cultures. Multiculturalism is very common today. I like to think of it as a sign that people are seeing similarities in their differences. If someone has a background that is Anglo, Latino, and Pacific Islander, as an example, then it would be unfair to think of them as only Anglo, Latino, or Pacific Islander, lest they be denied part of their heritage. The same goes for women of a diverse background. Collier states that "Sometimes, the women appreciated similar kinds of conduct from others that affirmed their identities as women; other times, they preferred conduct more relevant to one of their ethnic identities" (317). Throughout the content of this handbook we have identified what parts of our humanity lie in the Nether region, and we have discussed ways to overcome those parts. We have thus far discussed racial and ethnic variations and have worked to achieve equality throughout. In this final section, we will discuss an all-new bastion of discrimination; homosexuality.
A gay person has as much right to work as anyone else. The fact that gay people are discriminated against in itself categorizes them as what Hay calls a "Cultural Minority" (286). Hay goes on to say that "We were absolutely the same as everybody else except for a minor sexual variation, and homosexuals had absolutely nothing in common with each other except for their sexual inclinations" (286). To stereotype all gay people is like saying that all people with blue eyes tend to drive Yugos (remember those??)! But at the same time, gay people have united as a minority to fight their common oppression. The preference of an individual's sexuality is a matter of their own privacy. The Gay Rights lobby is an act of defense, not of offence. By asserting their voices, gay people are saying that all they want is to be equal. And that also applies in the workplace. Duncan points out that "...the starting point is clear...recognize homosexuals as equals and as equals allow them neither more nor less than can be allowed any human being" (232). Just like the military's often repeated motto, 'don't ask, don't tell', we should all take that position and keep all forms of sexual discrimination out of the workplace.
The scope of sexual harassment could not possibly be covered in this handbook, but we will briefly mention it since the changing demographics include an increase in women, but harassment is not only directed against women by men, it could also be directed by women against men, women against women, or men against men. Let's try a little exercise to help in our awareness of sexual harassment. Imagine, if you will, you are working with your supervisor. Out of nowhere, you are being looked at in a lustful manor, or perhaps you are being touched inappropriately, or pinched, etc. How focused on your job are you? Do you feel that by halting their aggressive behavior will ruin your work relationship with that supervisor ? Your job? Now imagine that you are the supervisor. Do you really think that this person is interested in you outside of work? Is your job worth losing ? What will you tell your family?
We shall close our discussion on the new workplace for the new and improved employee by stating some current as well as upcoming significant statistics.
The following statistics come from the National Multicultural Institute (1998):
Through the 1990's, people of color, women, and immigrants will account for 85% of the net growth of the nation's labor force.
By 2000, women will be 47% of the labor force.
During the 1980's, immigrants accounted for 1/3 of the total U.S. population growth.
35-54 year olds will increase from 38% to 51% from 1985 to 2000.
Over the next 20 years the U.S. population will grow by 42 million. Hispanics will account for 47% of the growth, Blacks 22%, Asians 18%, and Whites 13%.
Persons with physical and mental impairments comprise the single largest 'minority' with approximately 45 million individuals.
Miami is 2/3 Hispanic.
San Francisco is 1/3 Asian American.
By the year 2000, English will be the second language in California.
With this in mind, welcome to the new workplace. May tomorrow be productive, cooperative, and peaceful.
|
|
|
|
Music selection: WHO'S CRYING NOW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
