Excerpts from "Managing Diversity: A Handbook for the New Employee" (Barbu, 1998)
Prejudice
Prejudice is a common phenomenon in society today. Its pervasive quality allows it to be common in the workplace also. But prejudice is not the product of a civilized society, for it allows people to pre-judge others without even knowing them. Prejudice is the by-product of an ignorant mind, a mind unwilling to meet a new person with the freshness of a blank slate. Lustig defines prejudice as the "...negative attitude toward other people that are based on faulty and inflexible stereotypes" (309). When we examine Lustig's definition, the first thing we see is 'negative attitude'. We all know how unpleasant a person can be at work when they have a negative attitude; productivity is reduced, quality of work is inferior, and on top of that, everyone in the vicinity starts to be negative by osmosis. The rest of Lustig's definition states 'based on faulty and inflexible stereotypes'; when we haven't been given the opportunity to prove our worth, but are instead summarily dismissed due to our appearance or manner of speech, we feel a profound sense of resentment. By not allowing another person the opportunity to express themselves, we could be shortchanging ourselves of the opportunity that this unique individual affords us. working as a team, this can be fatal, especially if the person we rejected (who may have been the key to group success) was rejected for frivilous reasons. The point is that by judging others without knowing them and their abilities, we are cutting our own throats. Instead of judging a person on a pre-conceived idea, judge them on what you KNOW about them as individuals.

Prejudice is the materialization of two distinct groups: us and them. We will call the 'us' group the 'in' group, and the 'them' group as the 'out' group. Anytime we categorize ourselves as being similar to certain segments of people, we form an in-group and push everyone else into the out-group. The inherent fault here is that on a micro scale, we are all diferent. Therefore, by creating a superfluous in-group we are excluding scores of individuals. For example, it is similar to saying that all blond-haired people have shared traits, but the reality is that all blond-haired people all have blond hair! That's it! We are more different between ourselves as individuals than we are between ethnic group!

Alongside the 'us & them' philosophy is Festinger's Social Comparison Theory, which argues that "...people are driven to self-evaluation through comparisons with others, especially when they lack confidence in their own actions" (Reardon, 37). What this means is that when people lack the confidence to judge themselves on their own merit, they compare themselves to other groups of people. When the comparison with others leaves the in-group looking good and the out-group looking bad, then we have what Festinger refers to as cognitive dissonance (Reardon, 136).

So, prejudice is nothing more than sheer ignorance; in this context, ignorance means to not know, but to still base decision on. Everyone in the workplace is qualified, or they wouldn't be there. Hence it is irrational for an intelligent person to evaluate another person solely on the basis of skin color, or any other shallow basis that does not take the INDIVIDUAL into account. Therefore, in order to reduce workplace anxiety and at the same time remove any ignorance that ALL people have (in varying degrees), get to know the person in front of you. Tzeng states that "...when members of different groups interact under certain favorable conditions, prejudices are reduced" (259). Tzeng calls this interaction 'contact theory', and by getting to know your diverse colleagues on more intimate terms can the ugliness of prejudice be eradicated.

Stereotypes and cross-cultural communication problems

A grasshopper walks into a bar and plops himself down at the counter and beckons the bartender. The bartender approaches the grasshopper and says to him, "Ya know, we got a drink named after you!", to which the grasshopper replied,"You have a drink called 'BOB'?"

In Lippman's monumental work "Public Opinion" we will find the original use of the term 'stereotype'. Lustig refers to stereotype as "...a selection process that is used to organize and simplify perceptions of others" (305). Let's examine this definition; 'a selection process that is used to organize and simplify', or, the act of compartmentalizing objects or referents, and putting them together with other objects or referents for quicker, easier understanding. This is our nature as humans! The next part of this definition, 'perceptions of others', is what we 'beleive' the other person to be like. When we put this definition together, we have a neat little mental file cabinet that we can put people in according to what we 'think' they are--all so we can save mental processing time by not evaluating each person as individuals. Again, this is a normal mental function, but as the head of the food chain, we have the capacity for rational thought, and not just 'instinct'. Stereotyping is a sign of animal baseness--it is not something that intelligent human beings do when evaluating another human being. In this context, stereotyping can easily lead into prejudice if we allow cognitive dissonance to influence our judgement. Lippman argues that we stereotype because "Each of us lives and works on a small part of the Earth's surface...any public event that has wide effects we see at best only a phase and an aspect...Inevitably our opinions cover a bigger space, a longer reach of time, a greater number of things, than we can directly observe. They have, therefore, to be pieced together out of what others have reported and what we can imagine" (53). Hence, we construct and judge our world and its people with stereotypes, by what others say and also by what we may think, but may not know.

Stereotyping your co-workers because they look or sound different than yourself not only makes you look like an Ass, but also the organization that you are affiliated with. If decisions are based upon secondary information sources, and are not validated for veracity, then the decision is being based on opinion. This is how the ignorant mind operates. If a business operates like this, they would not be in business very long.

Stereotyping makes a person feel as if their contributions as individuals are not valued. If the person is simply referred to as 'that Black guy' or as 'the Mexican', they may feel as though their value as an individual is low. In business, would you think that a marginalized team member would give you 100%? Probably not.

Once a person starts to believe in a stereotypical role of a particular group of people, that belief can influence their future interactions and decisions pertaining to those groups. In the workplace, this would mean that certain people would be excluded from upgraded positions because the person in charge of making the promotion decision didn't evaluate the personal qualities of the individual in question, but instead went with the pre-conceived notion about that person. It would mean that (as a gross but pertinent example) 'those people don't like that kind of work'.

Whenever you meet a new person that is different than yourself, remember that you also look different to them. Once two people have built a relationship, then the differences are not inhibiting. There are many ways in which the perception we have of the world--our worldview--can influence the communication transactions we have with others. When these perceptions are based on incomplete or incorrect information (which is ignorance), we will have problems; the problem is compounded when interacting with people of diverse backgrounds. In fact, forming opinion or making decisions without knowing enough information about other people leads to cross-cultural communication incompetency. The severity of this is further compounded if a person then sees ALL people of the target group as being a problem, even if the problem is their own (hence the birth of a stereotype).

According to Gudykunst, the components of effective cross-cultural communication are "A tolerance for ambiguity, which involves patience and minimal discomfort with novelty, (which) helps communication with cross-cultural strangers. A second component...is empathy...because empathy involves 'imaginative intellectual and emotional participation in another person's experience'" (Reardon, 198). One of the most important considerations while interacting with someone who is different than yourself is to first, keep an open mind, and second, visualize yourself in that person's position. It is amazing how easily you can acquire new colleagues through patience and empathy.

Remember Bob the Grasshopper? The most important thing to remember while meeting a new acquaintance is that our minds have a way of 'compressing' data (a stereotype) into neat little files. However, the file marked 'people' needs to be read for each individual, and not just a broad classification based on parameters such as skin color, type of speech, etc. We need to see all of the distinct trees, and not just the forest.

Ethnocentrism
According to Tubbs, "the tendency to judge the values, customs, behaviors, or other aspects of another culture using our own group and our own customs as the standards for all judgments' is ethnocentrism" (436). Whenever we make a mental evaluation about someone else as being 'weird' because they are different than ourselves, we are evaluating them on our standards, and not theirs. It is important to remember that everyone is a little 'funny' when they are not in their home land or are not among their own people. Just because a person is in 'our' country, it doesn't mean that they want to abandon their culture. This is also true for people who have been in the U.S. for many years--they arrived here with different ways of doing things, and they want to continue their heritage. Similarly, Native Americans are different than what is considered to be 'mainstream' American, but they were here first, so those of us who are not aboriginal to this continent are technically the foreigners who brought over our cultures and wanted to keep our heritage alive!

As Lustig points out, "All cultures teach their members the 'preferred' way to respond to the world, which are often labeled as 'natural' or 'appropriate' (85). It is a natural inclination to see one's own culture as 'normal', but everyone also sees themselves as normal. The important thing to remember here is to be courteous when encountering someone else's way of seeing the world. We must avoid making ethnocentric judgments--lest we fall into a spiral of stereotypical thinking processes. Lustig continues, "All cultures train their members to use the categories of their own cultural experiences when judging the experiences of people from other cultures" (85).

When ethnocentrism becomes a natural way of doing things, then the way we think becomes an obstacle to competent communication with others from a diverse background (Lustig, 304). However, as Jaret points out, there is a difference between pride in one's own heritage and distaste for someone else's; Jaret identifies 'mild' ethnocentrism as "...respect for and pride in one's own group because of its goodness or its accomplishments" (56). Jaret identifies 'wild' ethnocentrism as "...often viewed as unhealthy or something that causes trouble, even though it is actually very hard to say exactly what the dividing line between 'mild' and 'wild' ethnocentrism is" (56). There is a grey area between pride in one's self and disgust with someone else.

Here is a little exercise to help: Visualize that you have left your homeland for work, school, or political asylum. Upon arrival to your new 'home', you had to quickly learn a new language and all new customs. You had to 'un-learn' some of your most cherished practices. People make fun of you, they think you are strange, they think you are hygenically substandard. You are easily stereotyped as loud, clumsy, and even unintelligent. Your musical choices are 'funny' sounding. People are impatient with you, and you make many speech errors. You are evil, because the religious belief you cherish is not common in your new 'home'. And if there is someone who you think is attractive, think again--his/her parents won't allow their son/daughter to date foreigners. Does this sound like a lonely place? It is closer than you can imagine.

Ethnic humor
"Come on, we were just having a little fun--what are you, a party pooper?" This phrase is commonly used to defend the use of an off-colored joke--a joke that is designed to belittle another person's cultural/racial/religious beliefs. Ethnic humor serves many functions--none of which are legitimate reasons to use. The first function serves as a rite of intensification, or 'bonding', between in-group members. Since the joke is designed to belittle out-group members, it is only humourous to in-group members. It is as though the joke's author wants to show some kind of inherent flaw in the out-group, but again, the in-group is using their own standards to evaluate. Schacter refers to this intensification as 'group cohesion': "...the total field of forces acting on members to remain in the group" (Tubbs, 281). By laughing at an ethnic joke, a person is agreeing with it and is sharing the in-group's view of the out-group's alleged shortcomings. Ehrlich states that "Joke telling as a reciprocal act can also be used to strengthen group morale or generate group cohesion" (Jaret, 217). For some people, ethnic humor is an outlet for their racist ideology. By making light of what would otherwise be taken as an insult, the racist can gradually indoctrinate other less rabid group members, children, etc. into 'beleiving' the message of the humor. How do you argue that anything that can make you laugh is bad? Vega states that "People laugh when other people are in pain" (1998).

Another reason why people resort to ethnic humor is to build themselves up at the expense of making others look bad. Nwosu calls this an ethnophaulism, which is the use of ethnic humor in the commission of devaluing another (1998). Jaret explains that "The theories that claim that prejudice arises from people's need to build up their own self-esteem at the expense of others, or a need to project negative traits outward onto others are relevant here" (217). Also, according to Davies, the racist joke-teller can "...ascribe human deficiencies to other ethnic groups in an excessive or ludicrous fashion" (Jaret, 219). In essence, the person who tells an ethnic joke is as racist as a person who verbalizes slurs directly to the intended person(s).

On the job, ethnic humor is counter-productive. If you are a part of a workgroup and someone uses ethnic humor directed at the ethnic group you belong to, does that make you want to try harder or contribute 100% to the group? Probably not.

Put yourself as the butt of this joke as an exercise: This (your gender and ethnic background) walks into a bar and sits on the barstool. The bartender, seeing this, walks over and says to (him/her), "Sorry, but we don't serve (insert relevant racial slur)-ers/-s". "That's okay", you reply, "I drink beer"!

Not so funny, is it?

Go on to next page for more on this handbook!