The new hot topic in town is diversity. Whether you are discussing politics, the global market, employment, sports, media or business; a new focus has become the obsession of finding disparities within old processes of including those who who have been disenfranchised from the norm.
Although it may be new to many, diversity, or the lack thereof, has always been a hot topic. However, most of the discussion has racialized the problem, which has caused further exclusion from diverse perspectives in male dominated industries and professions. It is now either a black and white or male and female perspective, which for the most part, sounds quite reasonable until you take a full view of diverse perspectives in a new non-diverse world. As an advocate for the professional ascension of high achieving women in c-suite professions and hyper-growth business, I cannot ignore some of the stereotypical beliefs about diversity and inclusion. There are those who understand the value of inclusion vs those who create a selfish bias about the lack of inclusive corporate and lending practices. Yes, there are racial barriers which factor into the normative discussion, but I assure you, there is much more. Some of the under-represented groups that fail to gain entry into the discussion of diversity are:
However, if you consistently take the stereotypical “black and white” perspective on the inclusion debate, who will stand in the gap to support him? Once you racialize diversity, there is no more room to consider a diverse talent pool which may include people with a different sexual preference. The male hetero-normative behavior bias is a factor. Recently, I conducted a impromptu study with 5 decision makers during a recruitment fair in Florida. I noticed hiring managers, who had an open policy toward racial inclusion, were reconsidering tentative offers made to a few candidates due to where they reside. They looked at the zip code and immediately determined that the candidate lived in a potential “war zone,” which could make them a risk for possibly gang involvement, criminal behavior and other community based “pressures” that may harm the value of the company. These were Caucasian candidates. “You never know how long they may last,” said one of the directors. These are the practices that are not discussed when we look at how gender and racialized approaches to diversity and inclusion are beginning to have an adverse affect on the act of corporate inclusion. Exclusion is the act of only viewing inclusion from your perspectives and beliefs and whether we want to admit it or not, it often comes at the expense of our own biases. Changing the corporate culture to value more inclusive practices can only be defined as a working policy when the policy makers decide to remove themselves out of the equation and have a direct conversation with their teams to learn more about who is on board. The firm I discussed earlier thought they had “one of the boys” on board, but they never bothered to have an unfiltered discussion to learn more so they can create new policies that will fit the new social climate of their environment. Diversity will never truly work unless we stop having color and gender dialogue. The world is changing and if race becomes the defining context of fixing a broken system, then what will happen to everyone else who may have other boxes to check off? Are we ignoring the black woman who is a Veteran, suffering from PTSD and wheelchair bound for life because the company refuses to build a ramp? Are we ignoring the Muslim man who has all of the qualifications for the job, but no one can pronounce his last name? Are we omitting that young Latina woman who graduated from an Ivy League school, but went back to live in the housing projects of NYC because she cannot find a job post graduation? Are we ignoring that educated German man because English is his second language? Or are we committed to the conversation that diversity stops with race and gender? The Solution!
We have more work to do, but we cannot exclude other factors that create an inclusive and diverse leadership pool. We cannot continue to take a reactive approach to an issue that has openly proactive solutions. We cannot continue to support a homogeneous approach to a non-homogeneous issue. Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|