In a paper published in the American Sociological [...]]]> Estimated in 2003 to be an $ 8 billion industry, diversity training is now included in most learning and development course lineups. But still not without its controversy, naysayers conclude that diversity training does not work, at least not in improving the profile of visible diversity in managerial ranks.

In a paper published in the American Sociological Review in 2007, Frank Dobbin, professor of sociology in Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Alexandra Kalev of the University of California, Berkeley, and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota concluded that training did not lead to increased representation of women and minorities in leadership positions. However, their study concluded that assigning accountability for diversity, mentoring and establishing employee network groups were more effective in changing the makeup of the managerial workforce.  The authors’ maintained that the only truly effective way to increase the presence of minorities and women in managerial positions is through programs that create organizational responsibility.

I would agree that diversity training as a stand- alone activity will likely not accomplish the goals of any diversity program.  However, I would also assert that training, when well conceived and effectively delivered can influence attitudes and behaviors and be a positive factor in success.

The Winters Group philosophy is to educate rather than train. Training efforts are typically designed as one-time events with a focus on tolerance and sensitivity and perhaps a small amount of skill building. Whether the training is for one day or one week, a single event is not likely to yield the desired result. There are a myriad of controversial subjects that can only get surface coverage. Without opportunity to fully examine one’s own beliefs and values, and then have the opportunity to apply, practice, and internalize the concepts through the trial and error of triple loop reflective learning, little sustained change will occur. Once the training event is over, employees go back to their work environments either positively or negatively charged, with incomplete knowledge and little understanding about what will be different. Soon it’s business as usual and the diversity training becomes a vague memory.

As one possible way to understand why diversity training may fall short of the desired outcomes, consider Robert Hargrove’s (1995) concept “triple-loop” learning.  Based on original work by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1974), in the context of coaching, Hargrove distinguishes between single-, double- and triple-loop learning. Single-loop or incremental learning encourages skill development; double-loop learning has the goal of reshaping patterns of thinking; and triple-loop or transformational learning creates a fundamental change in perspective and self-awareness. Hargrove contends that much corporate learning is focused at the single loop level.

Diversity training that has the objective of shifting perspective from a more mono-cultural to an intercultural view of the world is more likely to achieve the desired objectives.

More and more I see diversity training being focused on building skills and competencies that enable learners not only to value differences but also to be able to utilize them in making better business decisions. There is consistent agreement among practitioners that ongoing learning is necessary to become diversity competent. Therefore the type of training curricula that are being developed today by many companies with comprehensive diversity strategies are fundamentally more robust than the  initiatives of the previous eras. They include more course offerings (e.g. separate classes on gender, sexual orientation, managing multiple generations, intercultural communication) and various types of learning modalities (e.g. e-learning, learning labs, learning communities, and intact work group sessions).

Positioning diversity as a competency has created another major paradigm shift; the assumption is no longer that only certain groups need training (e.g. white men or minorities), but rather that all employees need to be more cross-culturally competent in an increasingly global world. It is just as important for an African American male to learn more about his Chinese co-worker or vice versa.

Some key  premises underlying the new paradigms for diversity learning reflect double and triple loop learning and include the ideas that:

• Diversity learning should be integrated, ongoing, relevant, applicable, and based on solid needs assessment.
• Diversity is a competency and as such the learning should be based on building blocks that start with elementary concepts and move on to increasingly more difficult material.
• Diversity learning should not just happen in the classroom but rather should be integrated into other business processes and activities.

Most forward thinking organizations realize that there can be tangible benefits from leveraging differences such as increased productivity, engagement and innovation. Effective educational interventions are an integral part of a compendium of initiatives that lead to culturally competent, high performing, and profitable organizations.

Mary-Frances Winters is founder and CEO of The Winters Group, a 25 year old diversity and organizational development consulting firm headquartered in the Washington, DC area. She is the author of three books, including Only Wet Babies Like Change: Workplace Wisdom for Baby Boomers, Inclusion Starts With I, and CEO’s Who Get It: Diversity Leadership From the Heart and Soul.www.wintersgroup.com

The corporate world cannot fix the pipeline problem alone. It is complex and [...]]]> Even in the midst of a recession, there are shortages in such jobs as engineering, healthcare, and information technology. The Employment Policy Foundation estimates that 80 percent of the impending labor shortage will involve skills, not numbers of workers. Obviously, the pipeline issue is serious.

The corporate world cannot fix the pipeline problem alone. It is complex and will take the collaborative efforts of educators, government, not for profits and most importantly parents. Corporations employ parents. Parents have the most direct influence on their children’s lives and today many parents spend more time at work than they do at home. Combined weekly work hours for dual-earning couples with children rose 10 hours per week, from 81 hours in 1977 to 91 hours in 2002, according to a study by the New York-based Families and Work Institute.

Bill Gates was on The Oprah Winfrey Show a couple of years ago and said that if we do not do something about public education, The US will soon lose its status as a world power.

He and his wife Melinda have already allocated over one billion dollars through The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to radically change the course of public education in the US. They have also launched a nationwide campaign called “Stand Up” to encourage everybody to get involved in some way.

But the poor state of education in this country is not a new story. The last concerted focus on the poor quality of US schools was in the 80′s.

Lots of corporations got involved back then too, such as IBM and Xerox. Former Xerox CEO David Kearns pursued a mission to save public education for nearly two decades after traveling to Japan convinced him that education was what gave that nation its competitive advantage. And, in 1986, Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, wrote an influential report on education titled “A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century” in response to the 1983 report “A Nation at Risk.” Tucker found that American schools had been too slow to adapt high school curriculums to the real-life demands of college and the workplace. Citing the failure of educational experts to account for the trends of globalization in the last half of the 20th century, his studies comparing education in America with that in Western European and Asian nations revealed the U.S. to be severely lacking. According to Tucker, “The authors of A Nation at Risk made a terrible mistake. They thought…it was the performance of our schools that had changed. What had changed was the world around them.”

Unfortunately, these efforts just seemed to fizzle out. Even though executives were sent into schools to help, culture clashes thwarted the efforts. The corporate envoys talked a different language, had different processes and in some cases were considered arrogant and elitist. Educators felt that their expertise was not valued and resisted the changes the corporate gurus suggested. Most of the efforts just stopped.

Fast forward to today and the current outcry. In Jonathan Kozol’s book “Shame of the Nation,” he claims that public schools are more segregated today than they were in 1968. He calls them apartheid schools. The performance of the so-called ”apartheid” schools is appalling. According to Kozol:

• By 12th grade, today’s average black and Latino student is doing reading and mathematics at the level of a white seventh-grader.

• Only 6% of students enrolled in urban schools will graduate from high school.

• Nationwide, from 1993 to 2002, the number of high schools graduating less than half their ninth-grade class in four years has increased by 75%.

• In total, 30% of US high school students drop out and 50% of blacks and Hispanics drop out.

ABC News 20/20 aired a special called “Stupid in America.” The investigative news program found that, at age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

Twenty-five years ago the US ranked number one in math and science in the world. Today we rank number 25 in math, number 20 in science and 12^th in reading.

Who is to blame for what Bill Gates calls a state of emergency? The issues are complex and systemic and it does no good to play the blame game.

I think the only way we will see change is if parents are held much more accountable for their children’s education, and I think employers can play a significant role in facilitating greater involvement.

Employers have an incentive to require parental involvement and to monitor the outcomes for the children of their employees. If the children of current employees do not receive a quality education, the shortage of skilled workers will escalate beyond the dire predictions we have now.

The corporate world needs to get involved again in public education, like they did in the 80s, but this time focus on parents rather than the teachers and administrators. The business world needs to help their parents with parenting skills, give them incentives to require their children to stay in school and to excel, provide career exploration opportunities for students and parents on the types of skills that will be needed, and in general make education their business. The bottom line depends on it.

Specifically, how can the corporate world encourage parents to get more involved in their children’s education? Here are several ideas:

• Provide parenting skills training on-site, or collaborate with a not-for-profit to provide the service.
• Not only give time off for parents to attend parent-teacher conferences but expect and reward parents for attending school functions.
• Establish “education advocates” to step in for parents when they are not able to meet with teachers and to help them understand and navigate the system.
• Set up tutoring programs with employee volunteers.
• Provide career exploration training for parents and students.
• Monitor student report cards and hold parents accountable for their children’s progress. Reward both parents and students.
• Utilize existing venues like “take your children to work day” to focus on the importance of education and to provide career exploration.
• Provide scholarships and employment opportunities for the children of your employees.
• Make education everybody’s business, with marketing and communication efforts throughout your organization.

Mary-Frances Winters is founder and CEO of The Winters Group, a 25 year old diversity and organizational development consulting firm headquartered in the Washington, DC area. She is the author of three books, including Only Wet Babies Like Change: Workplace Wisdom for Baby Boomers, Inclusion Starts With I, and CEO’s Who Get It: Diversity Leadership From the Heart and Soul.www.wintersgroup.com

Without spirit, we are empty vessels, sapped of our innate power and genius. Workers, especially leaders need to reconnect to the excellence within, to [...]]]> Workers have been on a roller-coaster ride for more than two decades as organizations have downsized, outsourced, reengineered, delayered, divested and otherwise transformed. These monumental changes have left workers frustrated, angry, and dispirited.

Without spirit, we are empty vessels, sapped of our innate power and genius. Workers, especially leaders need to reconnect to the excellence within, to rediscover their true calling and the special gifts they can offer the workplace and the universe.

My personal journey has taught me we have more power than we think, more choices than we can imagine. When we open our souls to the universe, new energies and capabilities spill forth.

The most important asset we have is ourselves. Do we know who we are? Do we know the source of our peace? What our kernel of genius is? What makes us unique? Have we searched for our calling? Have we explored the depths of our souls to find our authentic selves?

When we can transcend all of the mundane bureaucratic aspects of work and seek to operate from our center, our core, our soul…from our passion, we achieve results beyond our wildest expectations.

Writers, philosophers, religious leaders, and behavioral scientists have advocated for centuries that knowing self is the secret to a self-fulfillment but as the current business environment necessitates that we do more with less, multi-task and learn, unlearn and relearn new ways of work, there is little time for meditation, introspection or reflection.

While productivity rates are climbing in the United States as a result of technology advances, American workers actually log more hours today than in 1977 with an average increase from 43.6 to 47.1 hours.  According to research by Circadian Technologies workers here actually work 350 hours per year more than in Europe.  Another recent study for the Center for Work-Life Policy reported that 1.7 million people consider their jobs and their work hours excessive because of globalization. The study found that fifty percent of top corporate executives are leaving their current positions and although sixty-four percent of workers feel that their work pressures are “self-inflicted”, they state that it is taking a toll on them. The study revealed that, nationally, seventy percent, and globally, eighty-one percent, say their jobs are affecting their health. Between forty-six and fifty-nine percent of workers feel that stress is affecting their interpersonal and sexual relationships. Additionally, men feel that there is a certain stigma associated with saying “I can’t do this”.

Most of us need to work and therefore the challenge is uncovering ways to consistently perform at our peak, to find sheer joy in our work and at the end of the day feel fulfilled and at peace.

Here are three ways to facilitate self-discovery to enhance your ability to find peace in the workplace.

1. Understand your Natural Response to Change

We each have our own unique way of managing the monumental change that we are experiencing on our world. Do you know what yours is? Based on Winters Group  research and outlined in the book Only Wet Babies Like Change we identified six responses to change that we call the 6 F’s.

• Foggies: Oblivious to the changes all around them.
• Fakers: Tell themselves and others that they are on board with change but make no personal changes to their behavior
• Faultless: They see the changes around them, do not like them, and constantly complain.  They see themselves as hopeless victims of an unfair system.
• Fearful: Fear is a natural response to uncertainty.  Fearful people engage in self-protectionist, non-team-oriented behavior.  There is low trust and oftentimes paranoia sets in.
• Fighters: There are two types of fighters. One who rejects change and ardently promotes a status quo position. The second type of fighter wants change and feels frustrated by the lack of progress.  They are vanguards, often seen as troublemakers by those who fear change.
• Futurists: These are individuals accustomed to change, and/or highly self-differentiated, or workers new to the culture.  They are adaptable, flexible, and global in their thinking.  They know that they are in control of their destiny.  They are career-resilient.

1. Calibrate your Speed

There is no doubt that the world is moving at breakneck speed with constantly changing             requirements. Consider the myriad ways we can communicate today beyond e-mail (which is still a challenge for some) such as texting, “tweeting”, FaceBook, LinkedIn, MySpace, and the list goes on. Just keeping up with all of your messages can be stressful.  A critical part of being self aware includes being “self-caring”. Everyone has a different internal “battery life.”  Being in tune when your body needs “recharging” can make a big difference. Even if it means a 5 minute walk up and down a flight of stairs or  finding a place with complete silence where you can take a few deep breaths, you will return with greater energy and clarity to complete the task at hand.

Finding the right “speed” will be a constant challenge. Technology will continue to allow us to move faster, but just like bigger is not always better, faster is not always more productive. Moving too fast can lead to disaster. Everybody has his or her own “speed limit”—the speed where you can be your best self and do your best work. Do you  know what yours is?

1. Learn to be at Peace with the Paradoxes of Change

Among other things, rapid change causes an imbalance. It often puts us in a quandary, caught between the old and the new. We have one foot firmly planted in our old familiar ways and the other teetering in the new environment we find ourselves in. It is human nature to want to feel a sense of balance but the magnitude of change that we are experiencing in the workplace and the world means that there are often no clear answers and, in fact, choices seem paradoxical.

One paradox is “do more with less.”  In theory we should be able to achieve more because of technology advances but in some instances it is just impossible or nonsensical to believe that more can be done with less, which is why so many workers are under increased stress as jobs are eliminated and those left are expected to pick up the slack. However in some cases, we are unwilling to let go of old methods and are actually duplicative, testing the new while maintaining the old.  For example, in conducting some research for a major company on how to get closer to the customer, I discovered that all of the sales representatives had laptops and were able to download orders directly into the regional office. The company, however, continued to require the sales representatives to complete a three-part paper form, with signatures from the customer and the head of sales. When I asked why the paper form was still used, I did not get a very compelling answer. I think that there was simply a fear of letting go of what was familiar and predictable.

Other paradoxes include: (1) slow down but move faster. On the one hand we are advised to find balance but on the other there are greater demands on our work and personal lives As stated earlier, find your own best speed; (2) Simultaneously be a specialist and be multi-skilled. In today’s environment, all employees regardless of their role may be required to grasp technology, group facilitation skills, teamwork,             intercultural communication and any number of other skills. (3) We are told we are in an “empowered” work environment but workers often ask, where is the power as hierarchy seems to still predominate; (4) Most organizations today espouse a value for diversity but often conformity is what is rewarded. There is much talk about valuing not only the traditional ethnic, racial and gender diversity dimensions but also diversity of thought. However, we don’t seem to have achieved the balance yet still teetering more towards rewarding conformity and “fit.”

These and many other paradoxes are normal aspects of change.  Recognizing them as they manifest can make them easier to navigate. Ask yourself what part of this seeming paradox am I responsible for and what behaviors can I change to enhance the situation?

The increasing complexity of the world makes it imperative that we learn new coping skills. We cannot begin without looking at ourselves and getting in tune with who we really are—what we stand for, what we want from life, and what we give to life. Such introspection takes us to a higher plane of existence and allows us to continually reframe ourselves in the wake of the changes all around us.

Mary-Frances Winters is founder and CEO of The Winters Group, a 25 year old diversity and organizational development consulting firm headquartered in the Washington, DC area. She is the author of three books, including Only Wet Babies Like Change: Workplace Wisdom for Baby Boomers, Inclusion Starts With I, and CEO’s Who Get It: Diversity Leadership From the Heart and Soul. www.wintersgroup.com

If someone from another planet dropped in and listened to any of our numerous news sources over the past several months, what clues about our culture might he/she take away?

I conjecture that there would be at least five major glaring observations:

1. We are opinionated and sharply divided in our opinions.

2. We [...]]]>

If someone from another planet dropped in and listened to any of our numerous news sources over the past several months, what clues about our culture might he/she take away?

I conjecture that there would be at least five major glaring observations:

1. We are opinionated and sharply divided in our opinions.

2. We operate in absolutisms: “us and them”, “win and lose”.

3. We “fight” in an almost child-like manner with no widely accepted rules of engagement.

4. Winning (almost at any cost) is all that matters.

5. We are in denial about the role and impact of race in our culture.

I would be the first to advocate for different opinions. After all I am a diversity consultant and that is an important element of our thesis. Diversity of thought enhances a group’s ability solve problems, think creatively and be more innovative. In his book, The Difference, Scott Page, shows example after example

of how heterogeneous groups that display a range of perspectives outthink like minded experts.

However, I also know that the studies show that diversity of any kind only works when it is well managed. Our esteemed colleague, Dr. Roosevelt Thomas, makes the point in his book, Building on the Promise of Diversity, that tension accompanies diversity of any kind. Therefore, the benefits of diversity only accrue if there is a process to manage the inherent tension. I would argue that the debates that are going on right now over health care reform and a myriad of other issues are prime examples of diversity tension that is not being well managed.

In my corporate work with clients, we attempt to provide skills to navigate through the murky and uncomfortable waters of difference. Developing competencies to (1) recognize difference, (2)appreciate and respect difference as normal, and (3) learn to create shared meaning in cross-cultural settings allows us to more effectively use our differences as an asset rather than a liability. It does start with language and communication. We need new ways to express our differences and new “rules” for how we communicate with each other to get to win-win. Incivility keeps us stuck not moving towards solutions. As with any competency, it takes years to develop such skills as well as a huge mindset shift away from a “win-lose” mentality.

Our “win-lose” world view comes from deeply held scarcity thinking and our highly competitive nature. The belief is that just about everything is finite and we are “fighting” to keep our share. If another group “gets” more (e.g. insuring the uninsured), it will mean that I get less. An alternative world view would be mutualism, where we see the interconnectedness and interdependencies for all of our survival. Our focus would be on creating “win-“win” rather than a “win- lose” scenarios. However, this thinking is not consistent with the fierce competitiveness of sports. There must be a winner and a loser. Too often we continue to embrace this mentality in other areas where the model just does not work. In government and business when our behavior suggests that our only motive is for “us” to beat “them”, regardless of the real merits of the argument, in the end we all lose. Maybe in sports winning signifies the “better” or more “capable, but even there it is sometimes just a lucky break.

Now to the issue of race. One side says when things get tough, we call the “race card” and it is clear the current dissention and incivility have nothing to do with the fact that Barack Obama is an African American. The other side says, it is obvious that race is an issue for our first African American President. For me the issue is not so much who is right or wrong but how different perceptions can be. When Pew does its survey on attitudes towards race in America, African Americans are usually at least twice as likely as whites to say that race is still an issue. So in essence both sides are “right” from their vantage points. It depends on your “lens”. It depends on where you sit. It depends on your world view and how you see the world based on all of your past experiences.

As an African American woman race is an issue for me 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It may not be for another African American and is likely not an issue for someone of another race/ethnicity. Therefore when some say race is at play, it is not calling the “race card,” I believe that it is a genuine expression how they are experiencing the situation. If those who don’t have that vantage point were diversity competent, they would not dismiss the other’s perceptions but rather acknowledge and try to understand them even if in the end they still don’t agree.

It is impossible to see what you have never seen or experience something just the way another has. Another one of my colleagues, Howard Ross of Cook Ross Consulting, speaks to unconscious bias. These are subtle ways in which we express our biases, prejudices and stereotypes that we are not even aware of. For example a newspaper account of Hurricane Katrina labeled a picture of blacks wading in the water with food as “Residents loot for food” and a similar picture of whites as “Survivors find food.” This difference in words (“loot” vs.”find”) for the same activity suggests a more positive attitude about whites than blacks. The Implicit Association Test, developed by a team of researchers and now housed at Harvard, is a method for measuring implicit or automatic attitudes through a series of pictorial associations that respondents, in rapid fire succession, indicate positive or negative feelings. Their body of research indicates that there is a much stronger bias against images of blacks than whites.

There continue to be deep seated biases in our culture and for us to conclude that race has absolutely nothing to do with what seems to be the growing incivility towards Barack Obama, I think is naïve. He is admirably trying to stay above the fray as others battle it out. Before we dismiss the role of race completely, we should each take stock of our own deeply held beliefs and feelings and ask, is it possible that unconscious bias could be influencing my thoughts and behavior? When we say we are against a particular policy being promoted by the current administration….is it the policy alone or does the person behind the policy have an impact? Acknowledgement and self-awareness are the keys to begin to break down racial barriers that continue to deter our progress as a society.