Creating this I intended for my main audience to be people working in an office or community where there are or could be people who are a part of the LGBTQ+ community. I feel, however, that everyone could benefit from reading and learning the information that I learned. I think that it will open most people’s eyes into seeing that they did not know as much as they thought they did, the same way it did to me. I would like people to take what I researched and apply it to their daily lives as they communicate with people whose backstories they do not know, or even do know.
In Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity, Baker and Lucas, both researchers interested in social identity and workplace dignity, claim that people who identify as non-heterosexual and non-cis gender will likely face bullying, discrimination, harassment, hurtful jokes and taunts, and ostracism throughout their careers. To understand the extent and effects of homophobic, transphobic, and queerphobic attitudes of employers and coworkers, the authors conducted semi structured interviews with 36 LGBTQIA+ working adults. The authors coded the responses into four categories of identity sensitive dignity threats experienced by LGBTQIA+ individuals in the workplace: social harm, autonomy violations, career harm, and physical harm. Additionally, the authors presented protection strategies that LGBTQIA+ members in the workforce can implement because of the clear threats to their safety and security. These strategies are avoiding harm by seeking safe spaces, deflecting harm with sexual identity management, offsetting identity devaluations by emphasizing instrumental value, and creating safe spaces for authenticity and dignity. The authors advocate for widespread education regarding the struggles faced by LGBTQIA+ in the workforce as well as change within organizations to be more inclusive and respectful.
Pride FlagThese statistics look at the different reasons why LGBTQ+ are not “open” in the workplace
Algorithm-Driven Hiring Tools: Innovative Recruitment or Expedited Disability Discrimination? by Lydia X. Z. Brown, Ridhi Shetty and Michelle Richardson, presents us with a compelling report on the consequences AI based assessments have on employment of the disabled. Many of us revel in all the latest advancements in technology. We think the more tech, the better. Brown, et al., however, immediately set about clearing up any misperceptions we may have had about the neutrality and fairness of artificial intelligence-based hiring tests. We are treated to an informative and eye-opening breakdown of all the different types of tools and tests currently being used for hiring. Although it is not expressly noted by Brown, who is autistic and an expert on disability rights and algorithmic fairness, it is clear neurodivergent employment candidates have a high potential for being discriminated against via these tests. The authors also make certain to share with us that many employers do not realize how biased these tests can be. Hence, Brown, et al., spend a great deal of time pointing out the numerous ways an employer could be held liable for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)1. As such, this report proves to be a valuable resource for self-advocates and employers alike. Although, it is important to note that it was prepared by the Center for Democracy, an advocacy group who focuses on equity in civic technology and digital privacy/data among other things.
More than anything else, this paper is an exercise in both empowerment and how to be an anti-ableist in the hiring process. It educates us on the use of personality tests, face and voice recognition and resume screening for patterns. The authors remind us that algorithms are created by people and people have bias, hence there are biased algorithms. We are provided with shocking statistics such as,
“76% of companies with more than 100 employees use personality tests.”
“An estimated 33% of businesses use some form of artificial intelligence in hiring and other HR practices.”
“The employment rate for people with disabilities is about 37%, compared to 79% for people without disabilities.”
Screen capture from info.recruitics.com
We learn that candidates are ultimately chosen, not by a human, but by a machine. Machines ignore nuances and context and lack empathy. Just as the articles we read in class helped enlighten us on what unconscious bias and inclusion are, Brown, et al., are resolute in persuading us that the abilities many of us take for granted, like good eye contact, could make us blind to how disabled people (autistic in this case) are forced to maneuver the employment landscape.
The authors offer us insight into how the intersection of people’s disability, race and socioeconomic status leads to hiring discrimination. This is something our class might want to further explore. As mentioned earlier, Brown, an autistic person who also possesses intersecting identities, is a champion for equity in hiring. They appeared in HBO Max’s documentary2“Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests” where they elaborated on the devastating effects of digital hiring assessments on neurodivergent people and other marginalized groups. Not only will disabled readers see that Brown, is like them and advocating for them, but the authors hope to appeal to our ability to empathize with people unlike ourselves. Brown, et al., also “walk the walk” by providing a plain english version of their report and offering solutions (like using disabled software developers) based on Civil Rights Principles for Hiring Assessment Technologies3
Some may say the report itself is biased. But is it bias if you’re telling the truth?
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) (2018); 29C.F.R. § 1630.10(a) (2019). Three other ADA provisions similarly prohibit disparate impact of people with disabilities. These prohibit (1) limiting, segregating, and classifying an applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects their opportunities or status because of their disability; (2) contractual or other relationships that have the effect of disability discrimination (a simple agency theory of liability); and (3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that have the effect of disability discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(1)-(3) (2018), 29 C.F.R. § 1630.5-.7(2019).
In the majority of workplaces across the globe, diversity seems to be a problem, evident in the large disproportion of minorities in positions of power or even in minor company roles. Specifically, the police force is an organization that struggles with diversity. These two charts show that, while there has been a slight increase over the decades, much can be done to improve.
These two statistics show how small the percentages of women and other minorities are in local police departments.
Three women Debra Langan (Criminology Professor), Carrie Sanders (Criminology Professor), and Tricia Agocs (a citizen who worked in police services for 10 years) wanted to delve into the treatment of women in the Canadian police force to bring awareness towards the issues female police officers often face, especially during pregnancy. The police force is already a predominantly male profession, so women are, like Kaplan and Donovan stated, an outsider group within the larger organization. To determine real life examples, Langan et al created a study which, while it only featured 16 Caucasian females from across Ontario, Canada, the authors acknowledged this small size throughout the article. However small the sample size, the majority of the women reported a poor work environment, in addition to stating that the culture and management is inadequate and in much need of improvement. This is evident in the study conducted where “one in five [officers] … think about leaving their current police force from once a week to several times a week”. Women often push themselves extremely hard, believing that they need to prove themselves more to show that they deserve to be there. When considering becoming pregnant, one woman stated that it was very important to make sure that you have proved yourself because if you get pregnant too early, then you would be looked down upon by colleagues. It was a fear for many policewomen that, by announcing their pregnancy, it meant judgment from everyone, and when a woman was on maternity leave, their coworkers often had to take over the mother’s work, which further caused poor feelings. When returning to work, the policewoman now needs to reprove herself to try and remove herself from the new demoted position because after time off she might not be an adequate police officer anymore. So instead of just proving herself once, earning her way onto the force, she now must do it again, even though all her coworkers already know what she is capable of. Langan et al want the police departments across Canada to address these issues and expectations for women due to their unfair treatment. There needs to be change and therefore the authors chose to broach this diversity topic.
Many of the articles we have previously explored mentioned the various issues regarding diversity in the workplace. I wanted to expand on the discrimination that we saw females face in the Kaplan and Donovan article when the executive looked down on the other workers, so I chose a specific career that I knew often contained a lot of bigotry. Hearing the examples these 16 women gave to show how they are treated was very eye opening and it became clear how brave they are for staying especially since many considered quitting. This study was conducted in Canada about five years ago. It is unfortunate that, despite all this evidence showing the problems and where the department can be improved, nothing significant changed. Problems with diversity within the police force still prevail everywhere. Three years after the study, this particular TEDtalk, linked below, gives additional evidence on how females face discrimination in the police, only this time, it is focused on the United States.
A TEDtalk from a woman that has been a US officer for the past 25 years and has worked her way from officer to chief. She talks about the benefits to having women on the force based off statistics and how females are still being discriminated against.
In this TEDtalk, a policewoman who has been in the force for 25 years reveals that a very high percentage of women fail out of the academy due to unfair regiment that favor males over females and have very little to do with what officers will face during their actual career. This means that out of all American police officers, only about 13% are women, which has statistically been very steady for around the past two decades. This number is incredibly low especially given the amount of data the TEDtalk gives that shows how valuable they are.
The reason I chose these pieces of media was to give evidence to our much-researched topic of the lack of diversity in workplaces. It is important to see these real world examples, how discrimination impacts daily life, and how little has been done to stop it. More awareness is necessary to fix this issue, which is why we need to keep spreading the media being researched in class.
Article citation:
Debra Langan, Carrie B. Sanders & Tricia Agocs (2017) Canadian Police Mothers and the Boys’ Club: Pregnancy, Maternity Leave, and Returning to Work, Women & Criminal Justice, 27:4, 235-249, DOI: 10.1080/08974454.2016.1256254
In “Strategic Diversity Leadership: The Role of Senior Leaders in Delivering the Diversity Dividend” (Journal of Management, September 2020), Luis L. Martins shines a spotlight on the role that top executives play in shaping organizational culture and driving organizational performance. In this paper, he discusses his findings from an extensive literature review of contemporary research on strategic leadership and workplace diversity and inclusion, work that led him to develop a new framework he calls “strategic diversity leadership.” His purpose is to share this framework with organizational leaders who are seeking competitive advantage as well as his academic peers to inspire further study.
As a professor and chair of the management department at The University of Texas at Austin, Martins knows a thing or two about organizational cultures and organizational performance. Over a 30-year academic career, he has conducted research and written extensively on the factors that drive innovation, change, and performance, including diversity and inclusion. He has also consulted for dozens of clients, such as Coca Cola, FBI Crime Labs, Samsung, and Waffle House, to test solutions in the real world. Business and academic leaders know that when Martins finds a new way of solving a problem, it is worth taking a closer look.
A missing link
There is a significant body of research that shows diversity leads to better organizational performance, but there is also evidence that shows the implementation of diversity and inclusion programs do not always lead to the desired results. Martins defines the diversity dividend as “the enhancement in an organization’s performance that is attributable to its diversity” (1192). When he investigates why the diversity dividend is not realized, he discovers a missing link between the traditional role of top executives and the role they must play in their organization’s diversity and inclusion efforts. If Martins is right, which I believe he is, implementing a strategic diversity leadership framework to close this gap is the key to better performance.
Leaders must lead
Martins defines strategic diversity leadership as “the shaping of the meaning of diversity within an organization by the organization’s senior leaders” (1194). Martins’ strategic diversity leadership framework is extremely useful because it directly links the role of senior leaders to the efforts and outcomes associated with the organization’s diversity and inclusion initiatives. Because they hold positions of authority, Martins asserts, top executives have both the platform and the responsibility for realizing the benefits of a diverse workforce. That is to say, supervisors and other employees can only do so much if the organization’s top executives do not lead the way.
Fig. 1. Strategic diversity leadership framework showing the link between traditional senior leader roles and organizational diversity initiatives (Martins 1195).
Martins argues that senior leaders must use the power of communication to establish a vision and articulate that the “current state is unacceptable” (1198). He also argues that senior leaders must participate in public activities that promote diversity and inclusion, including rituals and ceremonies (1198-1199). In other words, top executives must symbolize the value of diversity and inclusion through both words and actions. Only by taking full responsibility for the design of the organizational culture can senior leaders create organizational performance that maximizes the diversity dividend.
The strategic diversity leadership framework Martins proposes is important because it shifts our focus for solving organizational culture challenges from the level of supervisors, staff, policies, and tasks to the level of executives, vision, strategy, and organizational design. Martins is telling us that those who hold the most power in an organization also hold the most responsibility and they must be held accountable. I couldn’t agree more. While the strategic diversity leadership framework holds great potential for bringing about change, Martins understands that he is breaking new ground and proposes further study to finetune his theories and reveal additional insights. I look forward with optimism to seeing his ideas confirmed.
After discovering that an astonishing 67% of full-time faculty at business schools are white, Professors Grier (a professor of marketing at American University) and Poole (a professor at the University of San Francisco) decided to dive deeper into why diverse groups are underrepresented. To do this, they conducted a qualitative study through interviewing professors in business schools. Through interviews, Grier and Poole were able to study five components of the Critical Race Theory which offered some explanation into why there is not a proportionate number of diverse faculty members to students. The elements include: unchanged race and lasting racism, the interconnected nature of race with forms of subordination, the idea of one dominant ideology, experiential knowledge and commitment to social justice. The interviews also revealed in detail about how many schools care about the ‘best athlete’ construct, where only outputs matter. Schools do not take into account inputs, or extra duties performed by many underrepresented staff, including mentoring diverse students and serving as members in hiring committees. Grier and Poole’s research found that in order to be successful in creating an inclusive environment, everyone must be enthusiastic and open to change. By documenting the issues surrounding diverse faculty in business schools, the professors hope other professors will reflect on their own environments, and advocate for change.
The research done by Grier and Poole is essential in understanding the reasons why there are not more faculty who are considered diverse. In my opinion, by understanding the reasons behind not having a more diverse faculty, people will be able to change components of their organization. For example, we need to start understanding and celebrating how many professors take on different tasks to promote diversity. The dominant ideology has never represented the underrepresented minority experience, yet has always served towards the best interests of dominant groups. Many may find it difficult to embrace change, as they are a part of the dominant group. By promoting change, they are not serving in their own best interests. Along with this, it is difficult for another person to truly comprehend another person’s experiences if they have never experienced them themselves. Being in a dominant group and promoting change through words is different than taking actions to promote change. As a result, many underrepresented groups may not feel as though others are advocating for change.
We already know why having faculty that is diverse in their views is important, as illustrated by Austin and Pisano, Gundemir, along with this clip:
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owogyWB_lqE
However, understanding what to change is essential in feeling the effects of a more diverse faculty. By understanding different aspects that explain why many organizations do not have a more diversified staff core, we will be able to reflect and change these components, eventually leading to a diverse staff that represents everyone’s backgrounds and experiences. In my opinion, Grier and Poole’s article is critical in helping us reflect on our surroundings and understanding that we all need to be supportive of change.
In Bowen, Havercamp, and Nye’s “A call to action: Preparing a disability-competent health care workforce”, from the Disability and Health Journal, the authors successfully illustrate two initiatives that would eliminate the failure of competence towards those who are disabled as well as their essential care. Being the largest minority group in the world, the authors of this article clearly understand the urgency of this issue. Bowen and the rest of the writers start by dissecting why the needs of those who are disabled aren’t met by evaluating the preconceived notion caretakers have towards them. It is stated that their misunderstanding is a result of a biased mindset, where caretakers believe those with disabilities have a lower quality of life and function and have low expectations for their health which results in less urgency towards proper care. We can see this same mindset in many forms, whether it attacks minorities due to their race, income, gender, and endless others. Bowen et al. state that disability training can address the improvement of accessible treatment and increase better communication and understanding. This will be successful IF there is a balance between intent and effect, where health care workers will have to be conscious of the similarity of their words and behavior, which leads to the authors’ two initiatives towards this issue.
The urgency of these initiatives also circles back to hopes of systematic change. The article mentions that the systematic organizational framework in this country has disrupted the development and growth of disability healthcare. The two initiatives given in this article to facilitate fair and accessible health care would establish learning objectives and core foundations for health care workers which would increase their understanding and urgency, as well as simply continuing education training and bettering it as a whole in hopes of competent health care for those with disabilities. These initiatives are set up by two frameworks, the Disability Competencies and the DCC (Disability Competenent Care). The Disability Competencies provides a set of skills and behaviors needed to provide accommodating health care towards those who are disabled. Through various studies, this framework was proven successful and applied to the full range of disabilities.The DCC offers structure in educating the health care workforce and addresses the patient as a person, not just by their disability.
Bowen et al. do not just analyze these initiatives and calculate their success and stability but recognizes the dire need for change at this very moment in time. The authors acknowledge that the incompetence seen is due to systematic instability and that their initiatives would develop a foundation for practical, real change. This mindset is crucial while tackling the unfair treatment of all minorities. The authors believe these initiatives need to be required and that healthcare licensure should be reevaluated the same way recruitment in the business workforce should. This adds to the understanding that this instability is systematic and has been seen repeated in different shapes and forms, usually all having similarities in oppression. It is safe to say that the authors are aware that using these tactics in other scenarios, letting go of assumptions, uplifting, and acknowledging those who are diverse would create small steps towards competent systematic change. If those who are meant to help a specific issue don’t, who will?
