Toward a Multicultural Organization
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Toward a Multicultural Organization By Jarrow Merenivitch and Dan Reigle A seminal paper produced by the authors when they were with The Procter & Gamble Company. Mr. Jarrow Merenivitch is now a Board Member with VISIONS Inc. JANUARY 1979 Table of Contents Historical Background . Page 1 The First Generation of Affirmative Action . Page 2 The Second Generation of Affirmative Action. Page 6 Summary Affirmative Action: First and Second Generations . Page 9 Principles for Design and Development of Multicultural Organizations . Page 10 Conclusion . Page 14 Historical Background From a historical perspective. Affirmative Action represents a societal response to organizational and institutionalized racism and sexism. It can be described as an attempt by organizations to increase the membership and participation of minorities and women. Prior to the implementation of Affirmative Action, organizations passed through two other stages: 1. Stark segregation. This stage represented the obvious denial of opportunity to minorities and women. As recently as 1956, ads in the employment section of newspapers stated that Negros should not apply; both minorities and women were segregated by custom and historical assumptions. Racial segregation was tolerated in most cases until the 1960's even though the armed services and federal agencies under the Truman Administration made attempts toward racial integration. 2. Nondiscrimination. As a result of the civil rights movement of the 1960's and early Equal Employment Opportunity legislation, a type of moral consciousness surfaced. This made it necessary for organizations to remove blatant evidence of discrimination, and advertisements began to carry the notation that "we do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin." (Policies regarding gender were still largely unstated.) This nondiscrimination stage - vestiges of which can still be discerned in some of the nation's organizations - represented a passive approach which emphasized the removal of policies and activities that actively exclude the affected classes from employment. This approach involved no aggressive efforts to recruit, retain and promote minorities or women. Therefore, it did not produce much change in organizational makeup. Women, white males, blacks, and other minority groups all received different treatment. As a result of the lack of progress made under nondiscrimination policies, the federal government in the early 1970's began to require more proactivity in eliminating discrimination and its effects. U.S. organizations in general have now moved from passive nondiscrimination to Affirmative Action - the operative word being "action." The Affirmative Action stage can be divided into two sequential phases, or generations, characterized by different issues. As organizational attention and energy are focused on resolving first generation issues, new issues tend to emerge and the organization moves into another phase of development - the second generation. The first and second generations of Affirmative Action are transition steps in the organizational evolution toward becoming an effective multicultural organization. An organization's progression from first to second generation to multiculturalism is seldom divided into clear-cut steps; rather, the stages overlap and each stage will probably include some issues indicative of both earlier and later stages (see diagram on page 9). 2 The First Generation of Affirmative Action When an organization is in the first phase of Affirmative Action, women and minorities are present in small percentages only, or occupy just the traditional roles - e.g., secretarial for women and heavy labor for blacks. The primary aim of organizations in the first generation is to comply with government regulations; there is little attempt to manage male/female or minority/white dynamics. FIRST GENERATION ISSUES 1. Focus on numbers. Numbers are the primary indicator used to determine whether additional organizational effort is needed. The heaviest emphasis is on recruiting and on initial promotion of minorities and/or women from first level to second level. Numerical goals tend to be based on the government's minimal standards rather than considering the "critical mass" which may be needed to normalize the participation of women and minorities in any particular organization. There is often a collective "sigh of relief" from the top management of an organization that is on target with regard to reaching numerical goals. Interpretation of numbers does not necessarily point toward organizational change. For example, high turnover among women and minorities is treated as an individual problem ("We need to hire better qualified women/minorities") rather than an organizational problem ("We lost two women managers out of four - does the organization need to change to improve this?"). Focus on numbers is often accompanied by rather superficial and/or short-term planning. For example, an organization may look at its needs for second-level minority managers in 1982, but not set up specific plans for getting there or identify the conditions and actions necessary to achieve the goals. The numbers focus leads to fears and suspicions of reverse discrimination and potential charges and suits. For example, white employees who believe that meeting numerical goals for minority employees is the organization's only concern are likely to believe that the organization will hire or promote any minority person just to meet the goal. 2. Crisis orientation. Male/female or minority/white problems must be overt, visible, and serious in their implications before the organization is stimulated to act. An absence of such crises leads to a "why do anything?" syndrome, which is usually reinforced by the "numbers" orientation. The compliance/legal focus gauges need-for-action solely by the active crises or the suits and charges in process; "If we aren't getting EEO charges or open confrontations, we must be in an acceptable position." The organization's position is clearly reactive rather that proactive. 1 3. Resistance to proactivity. There is a fear that proactivity will cause problems; to look at the problems will create (more, worse) problems. This situation is exacerbated if there is an unsupportive, skeptical organizational hierarchy to whom it is difficult to explain proactivity. 4. Social issues. Problems may stem from unfamiliar relationships both inside and outside the office or plant. These new issues may include (a) housing for minorities in previously all-white neighborhoods; (b) tensions arising when men and women travel together on business; (c) accommodations in hotels and restaurants; (d) men and women, whites and minorities working together on irregular shifts where social needs are largely met in the work setting; (e) black managers' involvement in controversial community matters. 5. Racial and sexual hostility. Hostility of men toward women and of whites toward minorities is evident in racial slurs, sexual jokes, and open labeling or discounting. These incidents are not viewed by their perpetrators as racism or sexism. In fact, hostility is denied: "I didn't mean anything by that." 6. Trust. Unfamiliarity and newness of work relationships between whites and minorities, and between men and managerial level women, produce doubt and mistrust. For example, black managers perceive that they are being watched and tested by both management and black non-management employees as to where their "real" loyalties are. 7. Technical competence. There is skepticism concerning the ability of minorities and women to succeed in some (if not all) types of positions or jobs. This is frequently the result of a deficit model applied to women and minority employees: women and minorities are assumed to be less capable than white males unless proved otherwise, and there is a feeling of surprise when a woman or minority person does in fact succeed. Also, black schools are not viewed as "good enough" preparation for certain positions. One result of these attitudes is that women and minorities tend to be retained in staff or support jobs longer than equally qualified white men before being given a line assignment. Another result is the creation of negative self-fulfilling prophecies. 8. Upward mobility. The lack of women and minorities at upper levels of the organization and the effects of the deficit model operate to impose a perceived ceiling on their movement. White males are concerned that standards not be lowered for women and minorities. Little attention is given to the long-range utilization of women and minorities, with the result that they do not perceive much future for themselves beyond the second level. 9. Evaluation. In both hiring and performance appraisal situations, white male managers demonstrate and often admit to - an inability to recognize and assess the real potential of minority and women employees. White male managers usually see groupings of minorities or women, as opposed to seeing a range of individuals with different skills, styles, and capabilities. This often results in poor or nonexistent performance feedback for women and minorities, or evaluation against purely subjective and varying criteria. 2 10. Involvement and accountability. White males feel that the Personnel Department is responsible for Affirmative Action issues. In addition, Affirmative Action is not seen as a legitimate area for demonstration of managerial competence and potential. There is a mistrust or discounting of the