April 5, 2013
White Guys Say They Promote Diversity, Others Say ‘Not Really’
In a recent RetailWire poll, 61 percent agreed with the statement: "retailing is still largely a man’s world." Thirty-five percent of those responding disagreed with the statement as did a number of commentators on the discussion. The reason for the rehash here is new research from Greatheart Leader Labs which found a disconnect between employees of different gender and skin color regarding their perceptions of the success of diversity initiatives.
According to the findings, 45 percent of white male managers gave a positive rating for diversity effectiveness among other white males within their organizations while only 21 percent of women and individuals of color agreed with that evaluation of white male managers.
White male managers were found wanting when it came to coaching and improving the performance of those not like themselves. They also fell short on promoting based on merit and other diversity criteria.
The chief complaint when it came to white male managers, however, was a failure to say what they really thought. The belief is that many were not being forthright over fears that something they said could be used against them.
"You don’t provide the feedback you would give to the people who look like you," Chuck Shelton, the managing director at Greatheart, told Today. "Ultimately you’re discriminating because you’re not allowing that person to improve and get ahead."
Greatheart’s survey included 700 managers working at Alcoa, Bank of America, Intel, Exelon, Marsh & McLennan, PepsiCo, Walmart and PWC. About 58 percent of the survey’s respondents were white males.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Have companies explained the business need behind fostering diversity within the organization? How good a job do most companies do in training employees to recognize their own subconscious biases?
Poll
Most companies do not do a good job fostering and explaining diversity because most companies lack the right expertise, the right experience, and the right voices, to do the explaining. I believe that the more common mentality is to “put up” with diversity because it’s regarded as a necessary evil.
But what white male executives really need to understand is that diversity is not only the right thing to do but also happens to be very good for business. Another way to look at it…I can think of very few companies today that are run by all white males that are doing as well as companies that have diverse leadership.
This is obviously a very provocative topic. As a white male, who has experienced some level of business success, I certainly can relate to the overwhelming benefits of having a diverse work force, especially at the executive levels. In conversation and other writings, I have often alluded to a “55 year-old white male” dominated supermarket industry. I have sat in many meetings, both large and small where there was a dearth of perspective from women as well as key ethnic groups. It is very difficult to serve diverse customers when your senior leadership is nested in narrow viewpoints, no matter how smart and experienced they are.
As the shopper-base continues to change from an overwhelming homogenous group of shoppers to one that is increasingly diverse, success will be difficult unless retailers do their very best to strive to hire a diverse workforce and can relate to and understand their shoppers.
Finally, and on the other side of the argument, I have seen the best-intended companies struggle to find a pool of talent, with the experience and educational base they require among key ethnic groups. In my view, many of the current societal shortcomings that thwart providing a skilled and competitive workforce hinder corporate diversity.
The relative silence on this topic is deafening. Execs from large corporations are no doubt afraid to put their two cents in for fear of a misstep or a misinterpretation of something they say. We all know we need more diversified workplaces and better communication, but how to accomplish that without regressing to ‘corporate speak’ is the question.
A topic that is sure to bring out opposing views and murmurs or whispers. In answer to your questions – No, companies in many instances have not done justice to explaining the compelling business reasons for diversity of thought, experience, and backgrounds among their employees (and especially executive ranks). Diversity is often seen by employees in terms of “affirmative action” and an HR issue to be managed for “quota and tokenism” sake. Obviously, as this article points out – there are SO MANY other reasons to seek diversity.
As for the subconscious bias training question – unfortunately, too many executives believe that they are above that influence and think it applies to “the other guy” (or more correctly, the other white middle-aged guy). We often don’t see the blinders we wear and only see the shortcomings of those around us.
Diversity will be discounted as long as it is seen as “just” an HR initiative. Further, for the duration of it being seen as a “minority” issue, it will also be seen as less critical. It is an issue for ALL companies at all levels and functions. Being able to view it through the lens of innovation, expansion of possibilities, new opportunities, etc. and not as a counting of how many people are “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” classifications is essential.
The 27 percent of respondents to the poll question who disagree with the need for diversity in the workforce probably means one of two things.
1. Companies and retail industry groups have not adequately made the dollar and cents case for diversity.
2. A percentage of people regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary will continue to believe what they believe no matter how wrong. It harkens back to a quote from the most recent presidential campaign: “We’re not going let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
I have to go with Al on this: (only) 5 – with mine, 6 – responses, and none from our most quote-worthy independents (unless of course they didn’t clear the censor’s bar). But in answer to the actual question, I don’t think companies do a very good job “explain(ing) the business need” for a simple reason: I don’t think most execs actually believe it’s true.
I’m not saying every manager is a racist and/or misogynist, and in the case of objectively measured skills like finance or engineering, I think the distribution of hiring — at least up through the level of mid-managers — is “diverse.” But once you reach the c-suite, the deep-seated belief is that — but for political correctness — the best candidate would be “someone like me.” And to the extent that they want to be surrounded by sycophants, they’re right.
Despite overwhelming evidence that a fully diverse workforce and leadership team leads to a sustainably successful enterprise, few organizations consistently make diversity a reality. Why? As humans, we naturally gravitate to what is comfortable and predictable. This translates to making hiring and promotion decisions based largely on a ‘more like me’ mentality.
Companies that are making great progress in this area do so driven by a CEO and an executive team that truly embraces and drives a diversity agenda. Not by quotas, but by ensuring ongoing education on diversity, and oversight. Not by dictating, but by creating a culture of diversity, an ethos that over time embues decisions with a color-blind, gender-blind mentality.
With the sensitivity around race, gender and other biases that abound in today’s hyper political correctness, the survey findings are not all that surprising. Providing constructive criticism can be difficult in the best of situations; add to that the fear of being accused of providing negative feedback due to racial/gender issues and it is not surprising that some managers avoid the situation.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Most companies do not do a good job fostering and explaining diversity because most companies lack the right expertise, the right experience, and the right voices, to do the explaining. I believe that the more common mentality is to “put up” with diversity because it’s regarded as a necessary evil.
But what white male executives really need to understand is that diversity is not only the right thing to do but also happens to be very good for business. Another way to look at it…I can think of very few companies today that are run by all white males that are doing as well as companies that have diverse leadership.
This is obviously a very provocative topic. As a white male, who has experienced some level of business success, I certainly can relate to the overwhelming benefits of having a diverse work force, especially at the executive levels. In conversation and other writings, I have often alluded to a “55 year-old white male” dominated supermarket industry. I have sat in many meetings, both large and small where there was a dearth of perspective from women as well as key ethnic groups. It is very difficult to serve diverse customers when your senior leadership is nested in narrow viewpoints, no matter how smart and experienced they are.
As the shopper-base continues to change from an overwhelming homogenous group of shoppers to one that is increasingly diverse, success will be difficult unless retailers do their very best to strive to hire a diverse workforce and can relate to and understand their shoppers.
Finally, and on the other side of the argument, I have seen the best-intended companies struggle to find a pool of talent, with the experience and educational base they require among key ethnic groups. In my view, many of the current societal shortcomings that thwart providing a skilled and competitive workforce hinder corporate diversity.
The relative silence on this topic is deafening. Execs from large corporations are no doubt afraid to put their two cents in for fear of a misstep or a misinterpretation of something they say. We all know we need more diversified workplaces and better communication, but how to accomplish that without regressing to ‘corporate speak’ is the question.
A topic that is sure to bring out opposing views and murmurs or whispers. In answer to your questions – No, companies in many instances have not done justice to explaining the compelling business reasons for diversity of thought, experience, and backgrounds among their employees (and especially executive ranks). Diversity is often seen by employees in terms of “affirmative action” and an HR issue to be managed for “quota and tokenism” sake. Obviously, as this article points out – there are SO MANY other reasons to seek diversity.
As for the subconscious bias training question – unfortunately, too many executives believe that they are above that influence and think it applies to “the other guy” (or more correctly, the other white middle-aged guy). We often don’t see the blinders we wear and only see the shortcomings of those around us.
Diversity will be discounted as long as it is seen as “just” an HR initiative. Further, for the duration of it being seen as a “minority” issue, it will also be seen as less critical. It is an issue for ALL companies at all levels and functions. Being able to view it through the lens of innovation, expansion of possibilities, new opportunities, etc. and not as a counting of how many people are “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” classifications is essential.
The 27 percent of respondents to the poll question who disagree with the need for diversity in the workforce probably means one of two things.
1. Companies and retail industry groups have not adequately made the dollar and cents case for diversity.
2. A percentage of people regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary will continue to believe what they believe no matter how wrong. It harkens back to a quote from the most recent presidential campaign: “We’re not going let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
I have to go with Al on this: (only) 5 – with mine, 6 – responses, and none from our most quote-worthy independents (unless of course they didn’t clear the censor’s bar). But in answer to the actual question, I don’t think companies do a very good job “explain(ing) the business need” for a simple reason: I don’t think most execs actually believe it’s true.
I’m not saying every manager is a racist and/or misogynist, and in the case of objectively measured skills like finance or engineering, I think the distribution of hiring — at least up through the level of mid-managers — is “diverse.” But once you reach the c-suite, the deep-seated belief is that — but for political correctness — the best candidate would be “someone like me.” And to the extent that they want to be surrounded by sycophants, they’re right.
Despite overwhelming evidence that a fully diverse workforce and leadership team leads to a sustainably successful enterprise, few organizations consistently make diversity a reality. Why? As humans, we naturally gravitate to what is comfortable and predictable. This translates to making hiring and promotion decisions based largely on a ‘more like me’ mentality.
Companies that are making great progress in this area do so driven by a CEO and an executive team that truly embraces and drives a diversity agenda. Not by quotas, but by ensuring ongoing education on diversity, and oversight. Not by dictating, but by creating a culture of diversity, an ethos that over time embues decisions with a color-blind, gender-blind mentality.
With the sensitivity around race, gender and other biases that abound in today’s hyper political correctness, the survey findings are not all that surprising. Providing constructive criticism can be difficult in the best of situations; add to that the fear of being accused of providing negative feedback due to racial/gender issues and it is not surprising that some managers avoid the situation.