Perhaps no singular event in the past year has focused more of a spotlight on the issue of diversity than the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. In the era of Obama, it's significant that diversity remains such a source of controversy and contention in our society, particularly as it has been suggested that the election of the first African-American president represents a "post-racial" society, proof that laws and initiatives designed to increase opportunity may be unnecessary and obsolete.
We cannot afford to dismantle genuine efforts by corporate America to increase diversity. Yet, as the economy has suffered, diversity in key sectors -- from finance and law to media and consumer products -- has also declined. A recent report revealed that African-Americans are disproportionately affected by the economic downturn. In New York City, layoffs in the finance and professional services sectors have been abundant, and economists suggest that African-Americans have suffered in greater numbers because they had less seniority when layoffs occurred.
This trend is unsettling and unacceptable, especially when social scientists and economists point to the adverse consequences that such reductions have on the power and value of opinions, ideas, and input that make organizations and companies unique, strong and successful.
At a time of crisis, in the midst of the worst economic environment in generations, is it fair or even appropriate to demand that business leaders focus on diversity rather than solely profitability? Yes--in fact, you cannot divorce the two.
Diversity drives growth. Creating business opportunities for women and minorities at every level of management, in board representation and through government and corporate supplier diversity, is critical as it leads to a more competitive economic environment as well as stronger communities.
Diversity drives creativity. People from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds as well as both genders offer different perspectives that drive innovative thinking. According to Dr. Scott Page, author of The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies, people from varied backgrounds are more effective working together than those who are from similar backgrounds, because they offer different approaches and different perspectives on developing solutions.
Diversity drives value. When describing the need for a continued commitment to a diverse board, Eric J. Foss, chairman and CEO of Pepsi Bottling Company, told The New York Times, "It's not a fad. It's not an idea of the month. It's central and it's linked very directly to the business strategy. That is the case in great times and in more challenging times....diversity allows our company to create more shareholder value."
This isn't about window dressing or checking boxes. Ensuring that people of color and women have access to senior leadership roles is just the start. Real diversity -- and the success that comes from it -- can only be the outcome of a comprehensive approach that improves the mix at every level of management. But experience has taught us that diversity doesn't just happen. Special recruiting efforts and programs to develop a culture that favors and facilitates diversity often require a significant investment of time, money and resources. In a troubled economy, it's particularly challenging not to let those efforts become stuck in a backwater.
We need an approach that suits the moment -- an integrated, multilevel strategy that recognizes diversity is key to profitability. So what can companies and organizations large and small do to engender increased diversity while managing the investment required to do so?
A commitment to diversity is paramount. Companies can promote progress through partnerships, leveraging relationships with external specialized professional/advocacy associations, and fostering internal ones to gather input from various parties. Companies can promote advancement, by focusing on recruitment and mentoring to build towards promotion at every level of management, including board leadership. And companies can promote a culture where diversity is an integrated and expected element of every strategy, from team development to succession planning.
Let's press forward with an agenda that inherently believes that diversity can and does add value to the achievement of excellence and improves America's competitiveness. If diversity is valued at the highest court of the land, then surely corporate America can continue its strategic efforts and investments to integrate diversity as a fundamental component of profitability.
You are a hiring manager in your organization. You are looking for a physicist. You have one opening for one. You have whittled the thirty applicants down to three, based on their CV's. You feel the education and experience of these three make any one of them an ideal candidate. One's an Irish-American man, one a Mexican-American woman, and one an African American man.
Who gets the job? Why?
NOTE: ALL THREE ARE OUTSTANDING CANDIDATES.
The young Indian guy was not experienced enough and the code snippets he showed me looked questionable and of low quality.
The old Texan guy, OTOH, had me after a few minutes in the interview. He knew exactly what I wanted him to do, he was obviously capable of doing it by himself, completely unsupervised and he had tons of experience. I picked the old guy... and he delivered 105%.
Why do you think the tall man with the big hat got the job? Because he was white? Or because he had what I was looking for?
In other words, you will NEVER find three people with the same qualifications in reality.
In any case, both of the two Indian engineers could probably have delivered, too, but it would have taken more hand holding.
http://jimjacobusbankruptcy.blogspot.com/
Diversity programs seek to expand what's already there to bring more voices to the discussion. To open new markets and exploit more talent from new sources. Obviously, when selecting someone for hire/promotion, competence and experience are paramount considerations, but if you have 50 applicants for 5 openings, what else is brought to the mix must be considered to ensure the long-term profitability of an organization.
Can we see the data behind this argument?
But that's just me. I'm silly that way.
One disturbing point (disturbing insofar as it does have some intellectual gravity) I've heard far-Right Wingers raise is that relatively homegenous nations like Japan and China show that diversity isn't really a necessary factor for prosperity. Obviously, these are the sort of folks who tend to distort phrases like "Celebrate Diversity" into "Celebrate Subversity". Anyone have any thoughts on that?
"Fire white people because they are white."
As for the supremely ignorant statement below:
"diversity" is what all companies will pursue freely without coercion, because investors will demand it. Because make money for ownership is why companies exist.'
Do you mean that they will do this in the way the big banks were careful with our money and didn't bring the global economty to its knees out of pure greed? Or how they didn't sell risky subprime mortgages to predominantly poor Black people? Is that what you mean? You don't live in the real world. The world's top neurosurgeon and undeniably one of the smartest people on the planet is a Black man called Benjamin Carson. Why are there no top Black bankers on Wall Street? By your logic, it must be because Black bankers is NOT what investors want and this is the only area in which your logic works. Organisations in the 'for-profit' sector are useless at self-regulation at the best of times and they will somehow do the right thing voluntarily on the issue of diversity?