I think the Frieds topic is engaging from the beginning because of how relatable it is. He starts off his talk by posing a problem: why people can’t seem to get work done at work. He then discuses a question : where do you need to go when you need to get something done? These two statements caused me to think and reflect about my own personal experiences which continued to keep me focused. He then argues that this is because people are trading in a workday for “work moments”. I think it is interesting how he builds his argument by walking us through a “typical workday” that is filled with distractions and commitments that result in unproductivity. He also has a funny and sarcastic tone when he talks about manager and meetings which furthers his argument about how disruptive they both are. He proposes suggestions for offices to change, such as silence for more efficient workdays. By the end of this video, I was very supportive of his ideas because his arguments were very logical, organized, and personable.
2.
After watching Heffernan TED talk, I was torn between claiming her evidence to be anecdotal (stories with a point) or analogical (comparison to different things) (maybe it is both or neither). Heffernan walks us through multiple stories (touching upon how predicting epidemics as well as forecasting wildfires is unrealistic) with the same themes: technology is unreliable, the world is unpredictable. She then argues that society is growing dependent on technology. She compares different instances where we utilize technology too much, that we are lacking somewhere else where it is more important. She lists real life examples (no sources, no numbers), but it is compelling and logical. For example, she discusses how the more time we use parenting apps, the less we know about our kids and how the more time we spend with people that we are predicted and programmed to like, the less we can connect with people who are different from ourselves.
She does a great job tying very different stories together with the same underlying themes and ideas. I think she has a great ability to make connections and “points” which is an effective way to engage viewers. The organization and structure of her arguments caused me to accept and understand everything she said without sources or data. I also think she is so persuasive because of her confidence.
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
“The association between unemployment status and physical health among veterans and civilians in the United States” by Than V. Tran, Julie Canfield, & Keith Chan makes a sound argument supporting the increase of vetrean employment programs in order to reduce the negative health impacts of being unemployed. Throughout the article, the author’s emphasize the health disparities that can arise from unemployment as well as the the hardships unemployed people have to go through in order to join the workforce. This process becomes increasingly burdensome for veterans due to their need to adjust to civilian life not to mention any other outstanding medical issues they may have gained while serving.
Tran, Cainfelid, and Chan relied on the evidence found in the “Interaction effect of employment status and veteran/civilian status” study. “This study hypothesized that the status of being unemployed would have an adverse effect on physical health across the populations, but specifically, this effect would be greater for veterans compared to non-veterans.”. Through this, the authors are “expanding the canon” of diversity and inclusion by adding to the collection of works created with the intent of increasing public awareness of the struggles that marginalized people face as a result of the current systems of America.
This article, in conjunction with others that make up the canon of diversity and inclusion, have enlightened me on the privileges that I have and the struggles of those who are different then me. Because of this I have been inspired to further my research in order to engage in meaning full forms of activism that spread awareness of these issues and bring about change. One of the most striking pieces of work that I have uncovered in my search was this Ted Talk that focused on the struggles of the shift from military to civilian life. In the video Brian O’connor, a United States Marine Corps veteran, makes an analogy between the dissociation of identity that he felt after service in which he says “This bryant outfit doesn’t fit anymore, its like I stole a young kid’s clothes”. This quote allowed me to experience a fraction of what it feels like to be a veteran.
References:
Tran, T. V., Canfield, J., & Chan, K. (2016). The association between unemployment status and physical health among veterans and civilians in the United States. Social Work in Health Care, 55(9), 720–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2016.1191582
I absolutely love the way that Heffernan approached her TEDtalk. She was able to get her main theme across to the listener, that efficiency is not always the best work aspect, by way of storytelling and setting different scenes. In the beginning of her talk, when she first mentioned the supermarket method to have each worker come to be assigned a task and then return for another when finished, I personally thought it was a very good idea. It was not until she made her point that there are always unpredictable aspects to the day when I realized that she was right. The way Heffernan was able to bring forward her argument in a small easy to understand way and then follow it with much bigger real-world examples was brilliant. She also included some very well-timed anecdotes that became very memorable for the audience members. One in particular was around minute 12:50 when she remarked about when efficiency and productivity are the only things valued. Heffernan then stated, “What gets left out? Anything that can’t be measured—which is just about everything that counts”. This made the viewers, especially me, realize that being efficient is not everything and that there are sometimes much more important things than work.
For question number two, I chose to analyze Renata Salecl’s TEDtalk titled Our Unhealthy Obsession with Choice. It was clever of her to start out with a bunch of quotes about choices and then stating that she was unable to choose the best one. It led into her main idea very well, that humans are very caught up in the need to make the best possible choice and then becoming overridden with anxiety or guilt on whether it was the correct one. She then led into very compelling real-life examples of the anxiety and the fickleness of the human unconscious. The first story she told was perhaps the most memorable to me. When Salecl mentioned her friend at the car dealership who would plant ideas into her customers head and encourage them to make decisions they most likely would not have made on their own. It just goes to show that human choices are impacted by their surroundings and upbringing. She then connects her next two stories by using the idea of anxiety and its connection to predictability, which in turn connects us back to our main idea of choices can be scary but we know we will always be making them. Each of Salecl’s stories blend into each other seamlessly and further proves the point from before while still introducing a similar but new idea. I personally thought it was very well done and created a lot ideas to further ponder.
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).
The style of Margaret Heffernan’s TED Talk, The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World, was quite compelling. Ms. Heffernan, an entrepreneur, CEO, writer and keynote speaker, immediately grabbed our attention by sharing case studies that presented examples of things the audience likely would predict had happened, then surprised us by showing that we were wrong.
Heffernan led us through the telling of multiple stories with unexpected endings primarily because every case involved humans versus technology. Our presenter’s voice possessed a cadence that kept her audience’s attention and she engaged us by asking a question then answering it. She used descriptive words like “robust”, “inefficient” and “preparedness” repeatedly to drive home her point. Heffernan was able to captivate her audience by discussing things that mattered to them, like the value of humans over algorithms.
Once she drew in her audience, Heffernan shared some philosophies that are important to her like how outsourcing to machines displaces people in low-income jobs or how technology leads us to not connect with people different from ourselves and have less compassion for others. In the end, she proved to us that humans are uniquely cut out for unpredictability and all its wonder.
Response #3
Margaret Heffernan, entrepreneur, CEO, writer and keynote speaker, is an innovator. She started out by looking at what made women-owned businesses different from others. Now she examines the intersection of business, technology, society and family.
During her TED Talk, “The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World” we find that Heffernan’s views align quite well with many of the issues we’ve been studying in class. She understands that nothing is in a vacuum and that all things are connected. Ms. Heffernan spends a lot of time examining how the impact of one action can have a domino effect on multiple, seemingly unrelated, things. This is an important point as shown in “Key D&I Concepts” where Kaplan and Donovan illustrate how executive Kim unknowingly causes negative impacts on several of her employees through seemingly innocent acts. Similar to Austin and Pisano’s Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage, Heffernan’s TED Talk also speaks to the problematic nature of algorithms resulting in disconnection from and dispassion for others unlike ourselves. In an attempt to be efficient in hiring by using algorithms, many companies miss out on surprisingly beneficial relationships with atypical job candidates. As Ms. Heffernan put it, “We are attempting to force-fit a standardized model of a predictable reality onto a world that is infinitely surprising”. While we delve deeper into our work on Diversity and Inclusion, I hope we learn to do away with force-fitting standardized models on people and embrace everyone’s differences.
Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm written by Hanna Bertilsdotter an associate professor in sociology ,Nick Chown a book indexer who researches and documents his findings on Autism , and Anna Stenning a welcome trust research fellow in humanities and social sciences, explore the world of Neurodiverse people and the challenges they face in the workplace. Through their extensive research the authors have been able to maintain their stance of supporting the “Neurodiverse movement”. They reiterate throughout their writing that neurodiverse people, no matter how qualified they may be, face many obstacles when searching for employment. There has been evidence from the PARC, an organization which collects research on autistic people ,that has shown that even when a person with autism holds a doctorates, they are rarely able progress to further research and lecturing contracts. The writers attribute this to the invalidation of “impaired bodies” making neurodiverse people constantly struggle to establish credibility due to the ableist viewpoint prevalent in society today. It was also mentioned that when a study was conducted, many neurodiverse employees have admitted that they have been in situations in the workplace where in order for them to fit in they felt that it was necessary that they mask any characteristics that might indicate to others that there were different. The writers contend that in order for this to be rectified, there must be an emphasis on inclusion in these spaces so these employees can feel safe and work their best.
This article was written with the intention of educating readers about neurological differences and how they don’t limit people from functioning and completing the same tasks as everyone else. Since people cannot seem to look over neurodiversity and appreciate what these people are able to contribute, oftentimes they are treated as if they are beneath everyone else and are not able to showcase their capabilities. It was mentioned in the Austin and Pissano article that since many neurodiverse people do not exhibit the standard “good employee” behavior through characteristics such as “solid communication skills, being a team player, …” they are unfairly screened out and excluded from job opportunities. This article has educated me on methods of including neurodiverse people rather than excluding them. Many people with autism especially have trouble adjusting their vocal tone and pace to match the conversations they partaking in so we can learn to realize the differences in our communication skills so that we don’t misinterpret vocal/motor traits as aggression. We can also make changes in the workplace environment to make neurodiverse people more comfortable in their space such as holding shorter meetings or regulating noise levels. Small changes over time can have everlasting impacts so it is important to take action now and implement more inclusive environments.
In this ted-talk, Tashi Baiguerra a 21 who has been diagnosed with autism mentioned something that stood out to me a lot. Tashi said “Most autistic people don’t actually suffer from our autism. We suffer from the way the world sees and treats our autism. To the world my brain is broken…But my brain is not broken.”. Neurodiversity should be recognized as another thing that makes people different but does not make them any less capable than others. It Is hard for many people to accept all the things that make us different however until we learn, we won’t be able to progress and become the society we have the potential to become.
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.
In his TEDxMidwest talk, “Why work doesn’t happen at work” (October 2010), Jason Fried, entrepreneur and founder of Basecamp, argues that it’s time for companies to change their thinking and practices about office work. He asserts that the typical office is an unproductive environment full of interruptions and activities that waste time, and he makes a case that employees will be more productive working in environments of their own choice. Fried’s rhetorical approach is interesting because it relies entirely on anecdotes to support his claims. He does not cite statistics or external sources. Fried knows that office workers are the audience for this talk, and he engages them by telling stories they can relate to. For example, most office workers can relate to Fried’s anecdotes about meetings that were a complete waste of time or a boss who has a habit of interrupting them. He really strikes a chord when he compares interrupted work with interrupted sleep. In delivering his talk, he does not speak from the position of an authority on office work but from the position of a peer, as someone who has developed insights from experiencing office work directly himself. He wears worn jeans and hardly ever makes eye contact with the audience as he shuffles back and forth on the stage. His tone is conversational. All of this helps him convey the message that “I’m one of you,” and create the pathos that helps his audience emotionally connect with his ideas. Fried also knows that radical organizational change is hard to achieve quickly, so he offers some simple and practical ideas that his audience can try wherever they work. For these reasons, I think Fried’s rhetorical approach is effective in getting his audience to believe his argument.
Response to #2
Margaret Heffernan begins her TEDSummit talk “The human skills we need in an unpredictable world” (July 2019) with a story about a grocery chain that tried to use technology to improve its operations. It’s a story of good intentions with poor results and helps her illustrate the main theme that runs throughout her speech, and that’s: the expensive and inefficient human way of solving problems often delivers better results. Her objective tone and poise establish trust with her listeners, which is important because she wants them to understand that her subject is serious with implications for everything from climate change to financial crises to epidemics. To appeal to her audience and build up support for her claims, she uses a pattern of stories followed by ideas. These stories are her evidence, and she draws them from many different areas of life, such as the grocery store, home health care, and sports. These stories create pathos and emotional connection because her audience can relate to these scenarios and outcomes. In her story about home nursing care, Heffernan also incorporates data to support her argument, noting that after an experiment “patients got better in half the time and costs fell by 30 percent.” This tactic helps creates logos and appeals to listener’s sense of logic and reason. Heffernan is a polished speaker, and she is also very skilled at using rhetorical strategies to strengthen her argument and persuade her listeners to share her point of view.
