We are all treated the same

"That's what I am afraid of" 

Are we all treated the same? 

There is no doubt that there is racism in any workplace. As for my personal assessment at my workplace, we seem to have found a way to shove it down beneath the surface. Indeed even our year end reviews contain a rating for "embraces diversity". When I ask why I only get a satisfactory rating there I usually get an answer along the lines of 'well, that's not a bad rating" and that is true. So how can I achieve a better rating? I participate in multicultural events, I have been on diversity committees which means I have stapled stuff to bulletin boards. Being tall really helped out there. Bear in mind that frank, productive discussions are generally frowned upon. If you are overheard and taken out of context, you could find yourself getting what we refer to as "the call" to find out that the very thing you were earnestly trying to make better, has just brought your time with the company to an end. So the answer is not to talk about it. If you cant talk about it you certainly cant embrace it right? If your rating for Embraces Diversity goes below satisfactory, your overall rating becomes "Good-bye".

So what type of feelings does this foster? The "scorekeepers" have a ball with this. Who got away with what because they are whatever? As companies strive to achieve a diversified staff, are they training their managers for the multicultural issues that will arise?  There is of course diversity training. That's right folks, come early and get a good seat for the once a year video and discussion that will not land you in hot water. The trainings I have been through have actually been quite informative. Although it seems that right along with the trainings being scheduled, there are always rumors around that they are only holding the training because they have recently been sued for some sort of injustice.

So how effective is diversity training?  In order to even begin to define that, you need to consider what actually makes a person multiculturally competent. (Chrobot-Mason 2012) The issue there lies in the many ways in which a person can be considered multiculturally competent. the study I reviewed presented several definitions that all seemed to center around an individual being open to new ideas as well as being keenly aware that there are differences and possessing a high level of emotional intelligence. (Chrobot-Mason 2012) If you have leaders that are indeed competent, the next focus would be on the training itself.  While saying you have a diversity training program in place sounds great, there can be several pitfalls that should be avoided. Those pitfalls are a lack of follow-through in order to create lasting change within an organization, lack of clarification of goals and objectives for the training, and finally trainings that focus exclusively on differences. (Chrobot-Mason 2012) Focusing on differences can basically serve to alienate white males that are present. They tend to report feeling as if they were invited to the training merely as targets for blame. (Chrobot-Mason 2012)

Another concept that I feel it is important to discuss is Psychological Privilege. 

Psychological privilege may be defined as “an invisible package of unearned assets” that serves as a basis for denial to prevent awareness of the disadvantages of others in our society. In this context, privilege is defined not as monetary privileges or social privileges, but rather psychological privileges that give the dominant group the mental freedom to do as they please without having to consider their racial categorization. This mental freedom results in a highly ethnocentric view in which majority members perceive their actions, attitudes, and beliefs as normal, and fail to consider other perspectives or explanations. (Chrobot-Mason p203) 

Basically this is saying that it is incredibly important for members of the dominant group to be aware of the ways in which they are perpetuating biases and stereotypes. this leads to a denial of disadvantages. (Chrobot-Mason 2012) That sounds great in a study but how does one know they are actually participating and denying a disadvantage? Suppose I (a white male)  interview for a job and I am qualified for it. Suppose a person of color interviews for the same job and they are just as qualified. In the real world the interviewer is going to hire who they like best. Should I feel bad if the interviewer is white and I get the job? Suppose the other candidate gets hired and they feel like they got the job because they are of color. Is it possible now or ever that race wont at least enter into someones thought process? Even if the applicants themselves don't see it that way, someone will.

As with everything else we have modernized, we have also modernized racism. Modern racism theory describes the cognitive component of racial attitudes which characterizes the more subtle attitudes found in current American society, as opposed to the more blatant and observable racist attitudes that existed prior to the civil rights movement. (Chrobot-Mason p 204) The principal tenets of modern racism are: (a) discrimination is a thing of the past because Blacks now have the freedom to compete in the marketplace and to enjoy those things they can afford, (b) Blacks are pushing too hard, too fast, and into places where they are not wanted, (c) these tactics and demands are unfair, and (d) therefore, institutions giving Blacks more attention and status result in Blacks receiving undeserved gains in society (Chrobot-Mason p 204) I suppose it matters what level of an organization you occupy as to what level some or all of these sort of creep into your thoughts. I would imagine if most people really took a good long look at themselves and at what they have done (or not done) to get where they are, it would not all be terrific. If you look at a CEO of a major corporation, you could say that they have taken Psychological Privilege to the level. Excluding just about everyone. Yet they know that they need the workers in their organization to be happy and productive. Big companies are full of project people that churn out great ideas and initiatives. Racism and diversity in the workplace needs to be a constant project. I have leaned as much if not more from my coworkers than from any training class. Imagine if this topic was front and center in the everyday, as opposed to talked about once a year.  

   

Reference

Chrobot-Mason, D. (2012). Developing multicultural competence to improve cross-race work relationships. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(4), 199-218. doi:10.1080/10887156.2012.730440

Why do you want a job like this if you have a family to take care of? 

Sexism in the workplace

Sexism in the workplace can take on different meanings for different people. I don't feel that the victims of it feel any differently one way or the other. There is of course sexual harassment that can occur regardless as to job grade or gender. The book and film "Disclosure" took a hard look at this topic while reversing what we would expect traditionally to occur. A female boss pursuing her subordinate. Would the book and film have been as popular if it portrayed a male executive pursuing one of his direct reports? even as I write this I had to catch myself. I initially referred to the male boss as a "bloated executive" and trusting that you the reader would understand that I was inferring it was a male boss.

Two terms t I found interesting was "Benevolent Sexism" BS and "Hostile Sexism" HS Benevolent sexism is sexism directed at a stay at home mom where as hostile sexism is directed towards someone seen as direct competition in the workplace.  (Masser, Abrams 2004) There are several items that come to mind when considering these terms. The first issue that concerns benevolent sexism is, is the person doing what they hoped to in life? Is it fair to cast them in that light just because there is a tried and true stereotype that seems to fit? I can tell you that doctor appointments, sports, plays, play dates, birthday parties, homework, etc and everything else that goes into running a household is no walk in the park. If the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, that is because someone is taking care of the grass.

It is possible to hold both benevolent and hostile views of the same person. Specifically, suggested that BS would be related to the idealization and positive evaluation of women in traditional gender roles (e.g., homemakers), whereas HS would be related to the negative evaluation of women who violate traditional gender roles (e.g., career women, feminists). (Masser, Abrams p 610) The concept gets fairly complicated very quickly. Consider how a sexist person might view a woman with a family who works full time say as a nurse. Now consider how a sexist may view that same woman who has applied for an executive position in a large company. The sexist sees the nurse as less competition than that of the executive candidate. Subsequent performance reviews will have those views factored in.  (Masser, Abrams 2004) The sexist is being well, sexist in both examples.

So what kind of climate does all of this create in the workplace. There was a study conducted to answer that very question. The researchers proposed that a negative attitude toward women in management will actually negatively impact the perception of job satisfaction for everyone. However the perception that men have in relation to the negative feelings about women is actually diminished by the support structure in place for men. (Wessel, Ryan 2011) This concept actually seems like a self fulfilling one. If you have a negative perception or there is an overall negative view, then the gap between reality and perception grows. Pretty soon you are right back where you started. The study also took into consideration gender and ethnicity. That was based on the assumption that minorities would be more sensitive to gender differences in the workplace. Research indicates however that gender characterizations are more pervasive and happen more quickly than any other type of characterization. (Wessel, Ryan 2011)

One of the most compelling points of the study was that men reported less job satisfaction for themselves when there was a negative perception about women. This is in spite of the fact that there is an unofficial support structure generally in place for men. (Wessel, Ryan 2011) That is not meant to say that the results for women were the same, they were not. That is to say that negative feelings women perceived were indeed higher. (Wessel, Ryan 2011)

So perhaps to answer the title of this post, maybe someone wants the job because they have a passion and aptitude for it. the interviewer would need to at least acknowledge their biases and look past them. Maybe putting the right person in the right role will do you more good in the long run.  

References

Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the Glass Ceiling: The Consequences of Hostile Sexism for Female Managerial Candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9/10), 609-615.

Wessel, J., & Ryan, A. (2012). Supportive When Not Supported? Male Responses to Negative Climates for Women. Sex Roles, 66(1/2), 94-104. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0058-6

   

Its a number and its unlisted

Ageism in the workplace 

 Payouts resulting from age discrimination lawsuits are larger than those from sex and race discrimination. It has also been predicted that by 2020 that just over 39% of the workforce will be over the age of 55. (Rupp, 2006) The world of political correctness this seems to have left this one somewhat behind. Its a fine line that companies try to walk. There is of course a bottom line to worry about. If you can get someone to perform the same work for considerably less money, why not? There is a tremendous amount of evidence showing that older workers receive lower ratings from their managers despite being as productive. (Rupp, 2006) In fact there is substantial evidence that older workers are more reliable and productive, and are less prone to turnover than are younger workers.One study found that a sample of organizations staffed exclusively
at least 50 years of age had profits that were 18% higher, turnover that was 16% lower, 40% less absenteeism, and 60% less inventory loss compared with similar organizations staffed with younger
employees. (Rupp, pp 1339)

When I consider the company I work for there is certainly some anecdotal examples of older folks being scrutinized and subsequently "retiring".  Since I have been there I have seen the retirement age move from 65 to 50, with 15 years of service. To me this is a clear message that this is considered a young persons game. While having the option to step out while still fairly young has its advantages, it sets a tone for the performance of those workers in that age group. If a person is planning on moving on or feels they have hit the proverbial wall in their career, why not just do enough to get by? It is here that things get a little slippery. You could say that no matter what the persons age is. When people find out how old I am they tend to say "oh well you don't look that old" I realize its supposed to play as a compliment. Is it though? I am hearing "wow I have nothing else to say so I will say you don't look that old" I get it, the age I am is considered old.

When an older worker trains a younger one and subsequently becomes their boss it is hard to put a positive spin on it. Did that person interview so well that they trumped 20 years of experience? Most likely they trumped 20 years of hard work and the raises that went with it. 

References

Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J., & Credé, M. (2006). Age Bias in the Workplace: The Impact of Ageism and Causal Attributions. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1337-1364. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00062.x

 

           My intent is to spark a discussion regarding social class, ageism, racism and sexism in the workplace. Social class seems to be the broadest of these topics so I will begin with a discussion about that.
Social class in the workplace is a topic that does not get nearly enough attention. More to the point the effect or cumulative effect that managers can have on an individuals career. During my time in the workplace I have had a fairly diverse group of managers. While ratings I received from them could for the most part be considered fair, there have been some distinct differences. A study I reviewed attempted to quantify the effects that different managerial relationships have had on an individuals career.
            Homophily, or the tendency someone has to want to be with persons similar to them can have a significant impact to performance in the workplace. The study I reviewed indicates there are effects on performance a worker may not even be aware of. If you have a manager that could be considered part of your "social network" for example. I am not referring to a manager and a subordinate being friends necessarily but being the same gender for example. The reviews written by different managers or members of a different social network can definitely influence an individuals career, but do they all accurately depict the performance of the individual? No! Does the review content direct ones career and affect career decisions by an individual that eventually roll up into achieving business objectives or not? Yes! That statement does infer that performance reviews given by our own social network members are more positive, and it was meant to.
           So what is the answer?  Even in a setting where an individuals performance can be quantified with hard data, there is always going to be room for interpretation. Awareness may be a step in the right direction. At least then a person can step back and consider that learning and growing from their superior as opposed to trying to buck the system may be a better way to go.  

 

 Castilla, E. J. (2011). Bringing Managers Back In: Managerial Influences on Workplace Inequality. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 667-694. doi:10.1177/0003122411420814