Workplace Diversity Efforts Thrive Despite Backlash : Business: Many firms overhaul programs to target all groups. Confrontational approaches fall out of favor.
Even as America’s three-decade experiment with affirmative action takes a pounding, employers are clinging to their preoccupation with workers’ attitudes about race, gender and other human differences.
Diversity programs--campaigns that force people to consider these uncomfortable issues--are bigger than ever in the workplace, though they occasionally have been targets of the much noted “angry white male” backlash.
Rather than being out of touch with the nation’s political mood, however, business seems to be half a step ahead of the debate, overhauling policies and training efforts to tread more cautiously on sensitive themes.
Some firms have scrapped diversity training sessions resented by white male managers who felt that they were being branded as society’s “bad guys.” Policies that focused almost exclusively on removing barriers hindering minorities and women from advancing professionally now reach out to older workers, the disabled, homosexuals and parents. Or they put more emphasis on workers’ varying educational and economic backgrounds, rather than just their race.
“Inclusive is the buzzword,” said Berlinda Fontenot-Jamerson, personnel relations and diversity manager at Southern California Gas Co.
Employers are adopting more subdued and nuanced approaches to diversity management largely to avoid the fiascoes occasionally associated with earlier, more confrontational programs.
Some workplace diversity training sessions proved so disastrous that managers stormed out. They emerged “saying things like, ‘I didn’t make slavery. It’s not my fault. Why should I have to do something about it?’ ” said Anita Rowe, a Los Angeles management consultant who occasionally has been hired to cool off the emotions triggered by other diversity trainers.
In overhauling their approaches to diversity, however, employers and the consultants running their programs face criticism from both ends of the political spectrum.
“I’ve heard of diversity programs where people wouldn’t even mention, say, blacks or Asian Americans,” said Ann Morrison, a San Diego management consultant and author who specializes in diversity and leadership issues. “To me, that’s denial--or avoidance.”
But Frederick R. Lynch, a sociologist at Claremont McKenna College and an outspoken critic of affirmative action and diversity programs, faults many such efforts for still having “an attitude that the system is to blame for the failure of women and minorities to rise in the organization.”
Even as they evolve, diversity efforts appear to be entrenched at the nation’s biggest employers.
A survey by the Minneapolis firm Lakewood Publications found that employers increasingly offer diversity training to their staffs. The Lakewood poll, based on replies from 2,313 U.S. employers with at least 100 workers, found that 56% of firms provided such training last year, up from 40% in 1992.
With only scattered exceptions, the programs have survived widespread layoffs and cost cutting in corporate America. They have continued in the absence of statistical evidence that diversity initiatives improve employers’ bottom lines--and in the face of rising pressure to curb racial and gender preferences in hiring, promotion and college admissions.
Most working people appear to approve of diversity training, at least in principle. In a national survey of 987 workers conducted last summer, the Los Angeles Times Poll found that 62% of those questioned felt that programs “designed to raise sensitivities on issues relating to minorities and women” are worthwhile.
Perhaps reflecting some ambivalence, however, the poll found that only 26% believed that “more effort is needed these days to guarantee that racial minorities get fair treatment in the workplace,” versus 65% who felt either that “enough is being done” or that existing efforts have “gone overboard.”
Many who attend diversity programs--usually supervisors and managers--say they are pleasantly surprised.
One marketing manager who participated in a two-day program 2 1/2 years ago while employed by a Fortune 500 company said he worried that the sessions would be used to introduce gender- and race-based hiring quotas. Much to his relief, the program simply provided “common-sense” advice on avoiding stereotypes in hiring decisions.
An engineer who attended a different program six months ago said he was somewhat put off by a trainer’s use of “politically correct” terms such as “physically challenged” but found the course helpful nevertheless.
One tip he picked up: When inviting co-workers or customers to a social event, ask them to bring their spouse, friend or significant other rather than risk offending a gay man by suggesting that he bring his girlfriend.
Typically, employers say they run diversity programs out of economic self-interest, predicting that the initiatives will help attract talented workers, reduce turnover and unleash creativity. Advocates say the efforts give firms a better understanding of how to attract and retain customers--especially in industries where international or multicultural markets are important.
But legal concerns and public relations are behind the increase in diversity programs. Companies sued for employment discrimination often point in court to diversity efforts as evidence of their good-faith effort to eliminate bias.
Unless, of course, they backfire.
Back in 1988, already accused of gender discrimination, the Lucky supermarket chain put store managers through special training. As part of the program, managers were prodded to confess to the stereotypes that they had heard about women in authority.
They responded with dozens of barbs: “Women have a hard time managing other women,” “The work force would not perform for a black female,” “Customers might object to seeing a woman in management.”
While the sessions supposedly had the noble aim of uncovering the managers’ biases, they instead helped get the company into trouble. Notes of the managers’ remarks were used as evidence in a sex discrimination lawsuit that, under a settlement crafted last year, could cost Lucky more than $100 million.
A lawyer for the company, Kirby Wilcox, contended that the stereotypes were coaxed from the managers by a diversity trainer and were not their genuine feelings. But a federal judge in San Francisco concluded otherwise. The comments proved damaging to Lucky’s legal defense because they were judged to reveal the discriminatory intent of some managers making hiring decisions.
Wilcox said the program was of a type he calls “confessional” diversity training that, although declining in popularity, still is common. Trainers come into an organization and essentially say: “You’re all discriminating, I know you’re discriminating; let’s talk about the ways; let’s get it on the table,” he said.
The problem, Wilcox said, is that the approach often fails, because it doesn’t give managers concrete advice on how to deal with real-life problems.
“It ought to be put to death for once and for all,” he said.
Another controversy occurred at the Federal Aviation Administration in Chicago. Among other things, the agency’s three-day training program in 1992 included a session in which male air traffic controllers say they were run through a gauntlet and groped by female co-workers.
The ostensible purpose was to open the men’s eyes to the evils of sexual harassment. But one of the controllers sued for damages.
Douglas Hartman, 43, of Aurora, Ill., said he remains in favor of diversity programs that help working people deal with issues such as sexual harassment and racial discrimination. But, the controller added, “You don’t use abuse to correct abuse.”
In some industries struck by economic trouble, diversity efforts have been scaled back.
These days, David R. Barclay, Hughes Electronics Corp.’s vice president of work force diversity, is focusing less on diversity training and more on ensuring that the percentage of women and minorities in the Los Angeles-based company’s work force holds up. Employment at Hughes has been slashed to 30,000 from 52,000 since 1986, the result of sharply reduced defense spending.
Diversity programs took off in the late 1980s, galvanized by “Workforce 2000,” a much-publicized study by the Hudson Institute think tank. While the number of white men in the labor force would continue to increase, it predicted, more than five-sixths of the net growth at the beginning of the 21st Century would come from non-whites, women and immigrants.
Although the report still is widely cited by proponents of diversity programs, experts have come to recognize that it overstated its case on some counts. In particular, a predicted shortage of skilled labor by the year 2000--seen as creating an ever more pressing need for effective employment of women, immigrant and minority workers--has not materialized.
“That reality is probably pushed off for 10 years,” said Roger D. Semerad, a consultant in Leesburg, Va., who conceived the initial study while an assistant secretary of labor in the Reagan Administration.
Sapped of some of their urgent business necessity, diversity efforts are seeking new themes.
A major part of what Southern California Edison calls its diversity strategy is a “working life initiative” designed to help employees balance work and family responsibilities. For instance, Edison provides electric breast pumps for nursing mothers and offers pagers to employees with potential family medical emergencies.
All told, the utility’s program is intended to include more than “the civil rights agenda issues,” said Frank J. Quevedo, the company’s manager of equal opportunity.
Employees are far from universally convinced that Edison’s diversity efforts are genuine.
One of the nation’s most prominent plaintiffs law firms represents a group of black Edison employees suing the company for alleged racial discrimination. Meanwhile, a unit of the U.S. Labor Department is reviewing Edison’s employment practices regarding women and minorities at company headquarters in Rosemead.
“There is a widespread cynicism among Edison employees,” said Scott Hanlon, business representative of Local 47 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents 5,200 Edison employees. “When Edison fills its newsletter with articles about feel-good diversity and sensitivity programs, the typical employee’s reaction is ‘bull----!’ ”
At Bank of America, one reason for a new approach to diversity management is that blatant discrimination in the workplace has faded, said Valerie Crane Barkhurs, B of A senior vice president and director of corporate diversity development.
“The issues have become more subtle in some respects,” she said.
Her view is supported by a new American Management Assn. study, which found that among the 983 corporate managers surveyed, just 11% felt that minorities always or often were overlooked for key promotions, down from 21% three years ago.
Nonetheless, Barkhurst said, B of A recognizes that it still must provide a flexible workplace if it is to attract and retain talented managers of all backgrounds.
The path taken by B of A and the bank it acquired in 1992, Security Pacific, sheds light on the evolution of many big employers’ diversity efforts.
Back in the early 1980s, Security Pacific emerged as a leader in the field. It offered training programs and employee associations specifically for black managers and, later, for Latinos and Asian Americans.
The training programs typically reached an emotional peak during a session when participants were asked to recall a moment in their lives when they felt humiliated by racial discrimination. Many would break down and cry. “It was very gut wrenching,” said Jackie Hempstead, a former Security Pacific manager who now is a B of A vice president in charge of equal opportunity and diversity programs.
The goal, though, was to encourage the participants to rise above previous obstacles in their lives and learn how to advance their careers.
Today, the diversity programs that Hempstead has brought into Bank of America still deal with overcoming professional barriers. But the cry-your-heart-out sessions are long gone.
Also gone are programs developed specifically for minority groups. Now, white men, Asian American women and members of all other groups are trained together; diversity concepts are woven into training sessions on such general management topics as team building and customer service.
That approach, Hempstead says, reflects a broader company strategy on diversity.
“We are communicating clearly our intent to make it work for everyone. . . ,” she said, “and not to beat up on any individual group.”
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
About This Series
In this series, The Times examines affirmative action, a policy that has left its imprint on the workplace and college campuses over the last 30 years. With some now questioning whether giving preferences to minorities has been fair to all, this series, which will appear periodically throughout 1995, will measure the policy’s impact on American institutions, ideas and attitudes.
* Previously: Why affirmative action became an issue in 1995, its legal underpinnings, its impact on presidential politics, the difficulties of defining a minority, the views of its beneficiaries and a Times poll showing ambivalent attitudes on the issue.
* Sunday: Before affirmative action, there was merit. Or was there? Informal systems of preferences have always molded American life, extending advantages to some and shutting out others.
* Monday: How the same mechanisms of the mind involved in seeing optical illusions may be at work in racial stereotyping.
* Today: Diversity programs aimed at defusing racial conflict in the workplace have survived both the recession and the anti-affirmative action backlash.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Who Gets the Best Jobs?
More than half of managers surveyed by the American Management Assn. say minorities are never overlooked for top jobs.
Question: Are minorities overlooked for key promotions?
1995 survey results Never: 55% Sometimes: 34% Often: 8% Always: 3% 1992 survey results Never: 43% Sometimes: 36% Often: 16% Always: 5% Source: American Management Assn. 1995 figures reflect the answers from 983 managers, mainly at medium-size and big U.S. companies; 1992 figures reflect answers from 353 managers.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Race and the Workplace
As a caldron in which people of diverse backgrounds mix, work is a key testing ground for race relations. Polling data shows that most people say race relations at work are good, though many blacks disagree. Most people also feel that enough is being done--or that too much has been done already--to ensure that minorities get fair treatment on the job. Yet nearly two-thirds of blacks believe more needs to be done. Meanwhile, majorities of both whites and blacks agree that workplace training on diversity is worthwhile.
How would you rate race relations in your workplace or business?
Total Whites Blacks * Excellent/good 83% 88% 52% * Not good/poor 15% 10% 48% * Don’t know 2% 2% --
***
Do you think more effort is needed to guarantee that racial minorities get fair treatment in the workplace, or do you think that enough is being done, or that we have gone overboard?
Total Whites Blacks * Need more 26% 19% 66% * Enough being done 39% 43% 18% * Have gone overboard 30% 35% 11% * Don’t know 5% 3% 5%
***
Do you think classes or other workplace programs to raise sensitivities on issues relating to minorities and women generally are worthwhile?
Total Whites Blacks * Worthwhile 62% 59% 82% * Not worthwhile 31% 33% 14% * Don’t know 7% 8% 4%
Source: Los Angeles Times poll in July, 1994, of 987 American workers. Margin of sampling error is 4 percentage points in either direction.
