Recently, on television, I caught an old episode of the All in the Family television comedy series. It’s still interesting to think about the iconic character, Archie Bunker, and his attitude toward race and social change.

My sentiments about Archie evolved over time. When I first learned of the concept for this situation [...]]]>

Recently, on television, I caught an old episode of the All in the Family television comedy series. It’s still interesting to think about the iconic character, Archie Bunker, and his attitude toward race and social change.

My sentiments about Archie evolved over time. When I first learned of the concept for this situation comedy, I agreed with observers who opined that it would trivialize the serious topic of racial prejudice and set back recently gained progress in the area of race relations. My initial viewing of the show affirmed my concerns.

For starters, the open expressions of prejudice angered and dismayed me. The idea that someone could build a “comedy” around behaviors and beliefs that had harmed so many was appalling. As the show matured, my anger evolved into a simmering resentment about the exploitation of such a serious issue. Yet, strangely, I continued to watch.

In spite of my initial anger and resentment, I eventually found myself viewing the show with almost no feelings. I simply watched as if I were an “objective” observer accepting what for many was an accurate portrayal of the American scene.

This acceptance mode gave way to a period in which I laughed heartily at Archie, sympathized with him or even empathized with his views; although, I in no way endorsed his thinking. Here is where I asked myself, “What’s going on? Why are you developing a strange fondness for this bigot?”

My appreciation for Archie has grown over the last few years, as I have continued to explore the nature of diversity and have gained – in my view – an enhanced understanding of Archie’s dynamics.

At a very fundamental level, Archie was a bigot. No doubt about it. But he was a different type of bigot. He did not emit the malice and hatred that I had come to associate with bigotry. Archie appeared to be a “benign” bigot who intended no harm to anyone. Perhaps Archie’s bigotry came across as less harmful because it was not confined to race alone, but ran the gamut of the human experience.

Indeed, Archie faced multiple challenges across a wide breadth of dimensions – race, gender, ethnicity, geographic origin, economic class, sexual orientation, age, and political affiliation, just to name some of the most frequently mentioned ones. Archie grappled with diversity and its inherent differences. He found it difficult to address mixtures characterized by differences and similarities. Hence, he was severely “diversity challenged.”

This state of being “diversity challenged” can exist independently of bigotry. One can be a bigot and not be “diversity challenged,” and one can be free of prejudice and still be “diversity challenged.” This offers one explanation as to why Archie’s prejudicial behavior projected little hatred or malice. His behavior was not driven by hate, but rather from the frustration of an inability to effectively address a growing number of diversity concerns.

At still another level, Archie struggled with change. He vehemently disliked change. In one episode, as Edith brought him a glass of beer, the following exchange occurred:

Archie: Why are you bringing me my beer in a glass? You lose so much to the air.

Edith: Archie, I thought it would be a nice change.

Archie: Well, remember this! I don’t like change!

This dislike for change came through loudly and clearly. “Those Were the Days” served as the comedy’s introductory theme music. Everyday, Archie came home at six, expecting his dinner on the table and nobody in his easy chair. In one episode, his daughter Gloria declared, “Daddy, I don’t want to end up like you and Mom. You do the same thing everyday!” But this predictability and lack of change constituted Archie’s very essence.

Norman Lear, the creator of All in the Family, once commented, “Many found Archie to be a despicable character. I did not. I saw him simply as a man struggling to deal with change.” In this context and in a time of rapid change, Archie’s prejudicial expressions conveyed little hate, because they were really cries for help from a proud and confused man.

So, what lessons can we learn from Archie Bunker in terms of race and racism? Certainly, the elimination or containment of prejudice alone will not be sufficient to bring substantial, sustainable progress in race relations. Archie’s problems with race grew out of his prejudices, his inability to deal with diversity in general, and his struggles in general with change. In other words, racism was not the only causal factor.

Any effort to enhance race relations must operate on at least three levels: (1) elimination/containment of bigotry, (2) expanded individual and societal capability for dealing with diversity, (3) and improved ability to accept and implement change. A most sobering and disturbing reality is that our society and corporate America have for the last forty years or so focused primarily only on the first level. We still have a long way to go.

In this context of multiple causes, we must exercise care in diagnosing and interpreting racial incidents. For example, in analyzing corporate racial conflicts, care must be taken to determine the principal cause of the dynamics, such as racism itself, inadequate diversity management, and/or an inability to deal with change. Effective remedies require accurate diagnosis.

To say that more than bigotry can undergird poor race relations does not minimize prejudices or the need to contain them. The point is that other dynamics can be in play.

The notion of multiple causation has helped me understand why I was laughing at Archie. I laughed not at his bigotry, but rather at that part of him struggling with diversity and change. In my view, many of us share with Archie these diversity and change struggles independent of any prejudices we may have.

Finally, obsession with racism can blind us to other situational dynamics. Over the years, I have read much commentary about All in the Family, but I have never seen it discussed from the perspective of dealing with change, or even from the perspective of Archie’s struggles. Instead, the focus has centered on his bigotry.

The lessons above suggest that improving race relations is much more complex than we earlier assumed. Continual progress will require that we broaden our perspective about the multifaceted and often emotionally provocative issues concerning race, diversity, and change.

Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., is the CEO of Roosevelt Thomas Consulting & Training (RTCT) and the founder of the American Institute for Managing Diversity. He has been at the forefront of developing and implementing innovative concepts and strategies for maximizing organizational and individual potential through Diversity Management. He is the author of Building a House for Diversity; Beyond Race and Gender; Redefining Diversity; and Building on the Promise of Diversity.

Chief Diversity Officer’s (CDOs) worried about the fate of diversity management efforts during the current economic downturn are in good company. For the past several months, diversity practitioners have routinely asked, “What are you seeing?” Most who did so fully expected major cutbacks by their organizations. Indeed, several internal diversity practitioners have already reported a [...]]]>

Chief Diversity Officer’s (CDOs) worried about the fate of diversity management efforts during the current economic downturn are in good company. For the past several months, diversity practitioners have routinely asked, “What are you seeing?” Most who did so fully expected major cutbacks by their organizations. Indeed, several internal diversity practitioners have already reported a reduction in the status of their positions.

Few expect an early economic comeback. Clearly, CDO’s must rely on their wits if they are to thrive in the near-term environment. They must, in short, be clear about the value of diversity management efforts and adept at communicating this value to their organization’s decision makers. The five strategies that follow should help in doing so.

(1) Focus on the upside. Remember that a crisis can facilitate Diversity Management (making quality decisions in the midst of differences, similarities and related tensions and complexities). The shared danger experienced by organizational participants in crisis can clarify the “ties that bind,” encourage the dissipation of petty rivalries, and mandate the establishment of priorities –all of which can foster a greater awareness of the importance of and benefits of quality decision-making in the midst of diversity.

(2) Understand and assert that if diversity and Diversity Management offer viability benefits in “good times”, these contributions are equally or more important in difficult ones. For example, Diversity Management’s enhancement of the ability to make quality decisions in the midst of differences and similarities is a particularly valuable contribution in hard times.

(3) Seek and share a basic understanding of concepts. Through conceptual differentiations, you can heighten appreciation of unfinished diversity business. For example, differentiate between work force representation (having a work force profile reflecting the demographics of society) and work force diversity (having behavioral variations). Those advocating for work force diversity should recognize that both are needed.

Similarly, differentiate between diversity and Diversity Management. Organizational leaders who achieve diversity, but fail to make quality decisions in the midst of this diversity risk losing their representation and diversity gains. So, the greater the representation and diversity progress, the more essential Diversity Management becomes.

(4) Look for non-traditional opportunities to display the power of Diversity Management, particularly when the potential gains for leaders and the organization are significant. In difficult circumstances, mixtures beyond the CDO’s usual domain often present ripe opportunities for demonstrating Diversity Management’s potential. For example, organizational leaders must make balanced and insightful decisions that address the diverse requirements of the crisis situation and the status quo. CDO’s can help their organizational leaders understand how valuable Diversity Management can be in addressing this diverse mixture of requirements.

(5) Offer the Presidency of Barack Obama as a case study in diversity. This Presidency is an interesting diversity case study because President Obama in essence is embracing diversity and Diversity Management.

Mr. Obama says, for example, that he wants to be President for all, not just for those who voted for him. Serving this diverse–and sometimes unruly–mixture represents a major Diversity Management challenge.

He has also assembled a cabinet that is representative not only in terms of race, but also gender, ethnicity, political affiliation, ideology, experience, style, education and other attributes. Behaviorally, these individuals will generate and passionately present a multitude of diverse prescriptions for their various policy areas. A key Diversity Management task for President Obama will be to foster quality decision-making in the midst of these significant representative and behavioral differences and similarities.

In support of the Diversity Management challenges he is facing, President Obama has called for engaging our differences and similarities productively as we problem solve around pressing issues. This will require that Americans of all persuasions engage and understand each other, disagree without being disagreeable, problem solve, and remain unified as a country in the midst of our differences and similarities. These attributes are central to effective decision-making in a pluralistic democracy.

By publicly following the Obama presidency, CDO’s can spotlight Diversity Management lessons as they emerge. Implicit in adopting the presidency as a case study is the message: If the President of the United States can benefit from Diversity Management; surely, it merits serious consideration for adaptation by the country’s various organizations.

The strategies noted above suggest that CDO’s can thrive in these difficult times. Doing so will be challenging, but achievable. Practitioners who pragmatically understand the challenges and address them with flexibility and creativity can play a great role in helping our country and its organizations move through these difficult times.

The 2008 Presidential election led many of us to believe that there is a widespread hope, even a longing, for a post-racial society. The incident between Dr. Henry Louis Gates and Sgt. James Crowley in the summer of 2009 reminded us that confusion and uncertainty remains.

To me, the ongoing [...]]]>

Where is America “at” with respect to diversity?

The 2008 Presidential election led many of us to believe that there is a widespread hope, even a longing, for a post-racial society. The incident between Dr. Henry Louis Gates and Sgt. James Crowley in the summer of 2009 reminded us that confusion and uncertainty remains.

To me, the ongoing conversation about race in this country demonstrates two challenges that may thwart the progress that has been made. We have an inability to distinguish pluralism from diversity; and we have an intense aversion to diversity tension. Many Americans who think that they are comfortable with diversity are in reality comfortable with pluralism. So what is the difference?

Pluralism is defined as the presence of multiple variations of an attribute. Diversity is defined as referencing both attribute and behavioral differences and similarities. In such case, the presidential campaigns of Senator Clinton and President Obama were milestones in pluralism. Their campaign successes broke racial and gender barriers and contributed racial and gender pluralism to the field of politics. But neither campaign brought much behavioral diversity to the arena.

In this respect, these candidacies can be compared to the hiring of Jackie Robinson, America’s first Black major league baseball player. Certainly, this represented a monumental milestone with respect to racial pluralism in baseball. However, it added little or no diversity to the game because Robinson brought few-if any-behavioral variations to the sport. He simply played the game better then most.

Why is it important to make this distinction? Because diversity tensions arise at the point in which the behavioral differences integral to pluralism surface. This tension is an anathema to many Americans, who have counted on political correctness to suppress or eliminate racism. Their insistence on avoiding diversity tension through political correctness has become the second key barrier to advancing racial progress.

This insistence became most evident in the speed and forcefulness with which those who played the race card were discredited. In a genuinely diversity comfortable society, such people would have been essentially ignored. Yet we pounced on the offenders with frenzy and fear, as if their deviations from political correctness would thrust our entire society into full-fledged race wars. Or, worse still, as if such indiscretions might require us to admit that our diversity progress is less than we had hoped.

Remember the reaction to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racial pronouncements? President Obama followed the Reverend’s You Tube debut with a landmark speech that called for a different discussion about race. Yet most references to race since the You Tube event have been divisive and full of fear and anger. The incident between Dr. Henry Louis Gates and Sgt. James Crowley being a case in point.

Clearly, if the American Experiment in diversity is to work, we must become more sophisticated about the accompanying tensions. Politically, the challenge is to acknowledge this tension, avoid the temptation to use it to divide, and seek to develop “ties that bind” even in the midst of gut-wrenching tension.

What is true for the nation is true within organizations as well. Diversity executives must become more reasoned and flexible in their responses to alleged acts of racism. They should certainly not tolerate these acts. However, they should tailor their responses to the consequences of the offending behavior, eschewing emotional outrage as the only viable response.

Diversity management – with its emphasis on making quality decisions in the midst of differences, similarities and related tensions – can help them to do so. It sharpens the focus on business objectives; thus helping to keep racism in perspective as a dimension along which people can be different and similar. It also provides a framework for making quality decisions in the midst of a difficult situation.

Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., is the CEO of Roosevelt Thomas Consulting & Training (RTCT) and the founder of the American Institute for Managing Diversity. He has been at the forefront of developing and implementing innovative concepts and strategies for maximizing organizational and individual potential through Diversity Management. He is the author of Building a House for Diversity; Beyond Race and Gender; Redefining Diversity; and Building on the Promise of Diversity.

Over 20 years ago, I raised the question of whether corporations were prepared to recruit, select, develop and utilize a diverse talent pool. I also wondered aloud whether managing a racial, gender and ethnic diverse pool of human resources called for a different capability than that of managing a relatively homogeneous group of people. I [...]]]>

Over 20 years ago, I raised the question of whether corporations were prepared to recruit, select, develop and utilize a diverse talent pool. I also wondered aloud whether managing a racial, gender and ethnic diverse pool of human resources called for a different capability than that of managing a relatively homogeneous group of people. I contended that two different sets of processes were called for, and I labeled the process for a diverse pool “Managing Diversity.”

The goal of this process was “full utilization of human resources” in pursuit of competitive advantage and productivity gains.

A critical implication for Chief Diversity Officers is that they must assure the integration of Managing Diversity with all of the people processes in their organization. I rarely see this degree of integration. If anything, Managing Diversity is integrated with recruitment and hiring, but, seldom do you see other people processes being designed with an explicit built-in diversity capability assuring effectiveness for all individuals.

Another implication for Chief Diversity Officers is that they must work to enhance the development and credibility of the field within their organization and in the broader societal context. . Unfortunately, progress “with numbers” and “best practice” awards do not necessarily translate into credibility beyond the boundaries of the field. More attention will have to be given to the development of Managing Diversity concepts, principles and skills, and their intersections with other managerial disciplines.

The stakes are high. If diversity considerations are not present in efforts to achieve competitive advantage through the development of talent, any gains in numerical representation of women and people of color will be difficult to sustain.

Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., is the CEO of Roosevelt Thomas Consulting & Training (RTCT) and the founder of the American Institute for Managing Diversity. He has been at the forefront of developing and implementing innovative concepts and strategies for maximizing organizational and individual potential through Diversity Management. He is the author of Building a House for Diversity; Beyond Race and Gender; Redefining Diversity; and Building on the Promise of Diversity.