(Part 4 of 4 Parts)

Attempts to justify current discrimination based on historical discrimination increases bias and discrimination. This approach results in continuous conflict as groups strive to advance their causes at the expense of other groups.   

Effective organizations focus on eliminating bias in the workplace without sacrificing the rights of other groups.  Examples of fair-to-all practices may include:  

Culture. Create an inclusivity culture where leaders at all levels support equal opportunity  practices.           

Policy. Scrub policies and job descriptions to eliminate demeaning stereotypical phrases.    

Hiring. Make job openings assessable to potential candidates of all backgrounds and origins.   

Surveys. Periodically survey employees to encourage reporting of firsthand experiences of bias with questions such as: (1) Do you feel safe in our workplace? (2) Are you comfortable expressing your opinions? (3) Are contributors with different identities valued?       

Software. Utilize artificial intelligence (AI) applications to assist with goal setting, analytics, surveys, third-party integration, assessment, benchmarking, and eliminating implicit bias.

Employe Resource Groups (ERGs). Encourage the formation of ERGs to identify the needs of all contributors and communicate with management to find ways of responding. 

External consultants. Consider periodic use of external consultants to assess recruiting, performance measurement, training, financial performance, disability practices and the like. 

Part 3 of 4 Parts

Elon Musk, (Telsa, Space X, X) said, “The point was to end discrimination not to replace it with different discriminations.” Unfortunately, a strong focus on inclusivity goals often trumps merit and fairness to all. 

Reporter Teresa Hopke says that companies rushed into inclusivity by hiring individuals, usually from underrepresented groups, who did not have the experience or resources to move the needle. As a result, states are passing laws limiting the reach of inclusivity programs and companies have moved away from mandatory anti-bias training.         

Universities that prioritized inclusivity over merit have struggled.

• The Supreme Court ruled that Harvard University and North Carolina admission programs prioritizing race-based admissions violated the equal protection clause and were unconstitutional.

• Writer Steven McGuire reported that the University of Michigan’s 2023-2024 DEI program included 241 staffers and a $30 million budget.  Their previous five-year program cost $85 million and black enrollment dropped from 4.3% to 3.9%.  Student dissatisfaction with the university’s climate decreased from 72% to 61%. 

• A Claremont Institute study at Texas A&M University, found that the percentage of black people who felt like they belonged dropped from 82% to 55% despite an annual DEI budget north of $11 million.

Organizations that strive to attain inclusivity goals by subordinating merit put their mission at risk.

Part 2 of 4 Parts

Inclusivity proponents report that inclusive cultures aid financial performance, recruiting, decision making, employee retention and public image. 

• McKinsey in their Diversity Wins study of more than 1,000 companies across fifteen countries showed the most diverse executive teams were 21% more profitable than executive teams in the fourth quartile of diversity.  Companies ranked in the top quartile of diversity were 36% more profitable than companies in the fourth quartile.

• Above average diversity in leadership teams, according to the Boston Consulting Group analysis, showed 19% more revenue from innovations than teams with below average diversity.

• The Deloitte Global 2022 Gen Z & Millennial Survey revealed that this group of employees valued diversity and inclusion in the work environment.  The survey also showed that Gen Z and millennials might refuse to work in cultures that were not consistent with their personal values.

• Inclusive cultures may also contribute to retention.  The CNBC/SurveyMonkey Workforce Happiness Index found that 78% of employees believe it is important to work for a company that prioritizes inclusivity.

• Eighty-two percent of employees in a LinkedIn Employment Survey of 2023 said it was important to work for a company culture that aligned with their values.

Part 3 addresses concerns with inclusivity practices.

Part 1 of 4 Parts

“They got little baby legs and they stand so low you got to pick’em up to say hello . . . don’t want no short people round here.”  These lyrics making fun of short people appeared in Randy Newman’s song titled Short People—listed as Number 1 by U. S. Cash Box Top 100 in 1977.

In all societies, there is ample evidence of discrimination based on skin color, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, hair color, race, height, weight, physical features, freckles and other observable differences.  Researchers Neuberg and Cottrell suggest that bias may be hard-wired in our brains.  Survival of our ancestors depended on living in groups.  Outsiders who looked and acted differently were seen as threats.

To combat bias and discrimination during the last two centuries, social pressure and litigation have birthed movements such as the right to vote, desegregation, civil rights, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), LGBTQ2S+, ageism, lookism and others.   

As the labels and acronyms for fairness continue to evolve, I use the term “inclusivity”—make everyone feel equally supported and involved in the workplace regardless of who they are—to represent all elements of the movements.

The second blog in the series deals with the case for inclusivity.

Almost a third of talent acquisition managers, according to a survey by ResumeBuilders.com, say they avoid hiring Gen Z employees because they ask for too much money, are not loyal, stress over a 40-hour work week, insist on working remotely, and quit for not good reason.

History reports that older generations have a penchant for criticizing younger generations.  Philosopher Aristotle, in the 4^th century BC wrote, “Young people are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life. . . .They think they know everything and are always quite sure about it.”

Heck, when Rome was burning in 64 AD, Nero and his council probably complained about the irresponsible young Romans spending too much time racing their chariots.

Of course, interests (and maybe conscientiousness) of younger and older employees differ, but does that mean the younger generation is less resolute than their grandparents were at the same age?  I doubt it.

Rather than twisting employee manuals into knots trying to accommodate nuisance differences among age groupings, it would be better to focus on what all generations—young and old—seek in their work cultures: full appreciation, respect, growth opportunities, meaningful work, clear expectations, effective leadership, transparent communication, collaborative peers, fair reward structures, and the opportunity to do what they do best. 

Seventy-three percent of managers in my surveys say they spend more time with marginal performers than they do with high performers.  When I ask “why?” I get responses like:  “They need more help.” “The best way to improve is to fix your weaknesses.” “I take pride in developing people.”   Underdogs, long shots, and dark horses get our sympathy.

According to survey results reported by Karie Willyerd, a workplace futurist for SAP SuccessFactors, in the Harvard Business Review, high performers produce 400% more than average performers.  High performers value competitive compensation, merit rewards, monthly 1:1 sit-down sessions with their managers, work challenges and personal growth

Authors Smith and Rutigliano, in a Business Journal article, suggest you allocate your time with team members as follows:

• 50-60% of your time with your stars,
• 20-30% of your time with talented newcomers,
• 10-15% of your time with experienced performers who have acceptable performance, and
• whatever time you have left professionally removing your chronically low performers.

Please understand, I do not suggest abandoning average and new performers. I do suggest dramatically increasing support for higher performers.  You will get better results; and although they may not need your attention, they have earned it. 

“I’ve got to find a way to improve my team’s performance,” a frustrated manager said to me. “Competition has increased in my territory and we are losing ground.”

“What have you tried?” I asked.

“I’ve made my team aware of our declining performance metrics. I’ve asked them to work a little harder and be more diligent in serving our clients. I’ve also explained that we will lose positions if the decline continues. I’ve asked for suggestions, but we haven’t been able to move the needle in the right direction.”

I recommended three things the manager can do to improve performance: better people, better tools and better methods.

By far, the most impactful, and the most difficult, path to improved performance is to infuse the team with more talented and resolute players.

Improved tools (think technological advancements—robots, software applications, smart devices) have accounted for much of the productivity improvement over the last five decades.

A third path to better performance is to invent better ways of doing what you are doing—eliminate or refine required processes, allow performers more freedom in how they do their jobs, require fewer approvals for decisions.  Many bureaucratic requirements are costly but add little value.