Valuing Diversity – Where From? … Where To? (Part 1)

When it comes to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging, and Accessibility (DEIBA), much has changed in the past 40+ years, but still not enough. Where in your own DEIBA consciousness did YOU begin, and how do you hope to evolve in that consciousness?

By Lewis Griggs

 

Part 1 – Where From?

Since creating our Valuing Diversity training videos and workshops in the 1980s was intended to enhance our consciousness well beyond legal compliance with Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity laws, and even beyond “political correctness” and “behavioral compliance,” much has changed – but still not enough. Our consciousness has appropriately broadened to now encourage the Valuing of not only human Oneness and individual Diversity, but also our interpersonal Equity, full Inclusion, personal feeling of Belonging, and any unique Accessibility.

Setting the Scene

In the beginning, for each of us, is self. As infants, our egocentrism helps us stay alive. We focus only on self and getting our own needs met. As children, we expand our boundaries to include a slightly broader sense of self interest that includes not only self, but family. Over time, we expand our boundaries beyond family, to a circle of friends and the immediate community. Generally speaking, we continue as adults to feel safest and most comfortable with people like ourselves at those three levels. Our comfort zone of relationship may be within our socioeconomic class or our culture, language, race, age, gender, ethnicity, or any of the special groups we might join – like a class studying a certain subject or a functional group at work, for example.

The point is that we’re constantly organizing ourselves around a group of individuals with whom at least in the workplace we have something, if not most things, in common. In fact, identifying those things we have in common with others is a natural, healthy stage of personal development. It helps us form our own identity and, more so, to establish the sense of self we need if we are to recognize and include others in our world. Imagine a time before there were mirrors when it was only through others that we learned to understand who we were and to learn that what we saw to be true about others confirmed what was true about ourselves. Then imagine a time when we lived in small, closed communities and felt a need to be cautious about outsiders until we were able to establish a sense of safety with them.

The origins of our discrimination need not be objects of shame or blame. To be “discriminating” in the positive sense is what allows us to sort through sources of information to learn the roots of our attitudes and prejudices and, ideally, decide in each new situation confronting us whether the circumstances require us to protect ourselves. There are many situations in which the circumstances do indeed require us to discriminate between who’s safe and who’s not or what behavior is appropriate and what’s not. It’s important to understand that context, or situational specificity, is a factor we must always consider – that what’s safe, irrelevant, or even positive in one situation may not be in another.

When each of our various groups of immigrants arrived in North America, even though they had chosen to leave behind oppressive religious, economic, or political situations in order to seek freedom, independence, and the right to self-expression in one form or another, they found themselves among a group of such diverse people that a first pressing need was to look for commonalities. The most obvious way to go about it was to find areas of similarity with the dominant culture that greeted their arrival.

Historically, it might have been any group, but in the North American case the dominant culture was English and Northern European. For each new wave of immigrants, this continued to be the case, so that the common denominator soon became the English language and English and Northern European customs. The same process would likely have gone on had the original wave of immigrants been Asian or African or Latin.

Because of this fact of our history, the intention to have full and free expression and individuation, which is the written and unwritten value behind our customs and laws, was often subverted in favor of an unwritten and unacknowledged requisite to become as similar as possible to those already here–to blend into this new culture. And so, anything that made them stand out as different was put aside, in some cases rather abruptly. Many families, for example, chose to stop speaking their native language even in their own home and to abandon the customary dress and behavior of their native culture so as to appear, if not become, what they perceived as American, and to do so as quickly as possible.

The Importance of Recognizing and Honoring Differences

In spite of all other differences, one of the things that most of these newcomers did have in common is that they all chose to come here. Obviously, this free choice does not apply to the early influx of African Americans, who did not elect to come here, nor to Native Americans who were already here. All other newcomers to America, however, had clearly chosen to venture into new territory, whether to seek relief from something oppressive in their homelands or to reach out for something this new country promised. And so there’s something about the personality, and, ultimately, the gene pool of these immigrants to North America that is held in common.

Combined with the common language immigrants quickly acquired and, of course, the basic human similarities we all share, this need to accommodate to the dominant culture had the effect of discouraging the expression of even superficial behavioral differences and diverse cultural styles. In those early times, the discomfort of being different was the greater problem to be solved.

Interestingly, many people today reject diversity training with the argument that people are more similar than dissimilar and so we should not waste time focusing on our differences. I like to point out in response that it is precisely the comfort of knowing that we are mostly similar that should enable us to look at our differences without fear that we will lose anything, either our own identity or the bonds we share with others as human beings. Faced with this argument, what I must stress in reply is that it is not our similarities that cause our problems, like it or not, it is our differences. Sometimes the difference is the result of a false perception that can be corrected, and sometimes it is quite real, but in any case it is our differences that cause problems.

If employees or managers want to improve their ability to function in the workplace or marketplace, then they must start by uncovering the differences—in attitude, in style, in ways of being and doing— that triggered the decision to seek improvement in the first place. If differences among individuals keep a manager from finding the right employee, from noticing equal competence, from communicating in an interview, from trusting an applicant enough to hire, from understanding enough to train, from valuing enough to promote, or from seeing differences as benefits, then it’s clearly the case that a greater knowledge of differences is needed in order to break through the barriers thought to be caused by the presence of differences.

The Illusion of Some Attempts to “Value Differences”

Even when the need for greater knowledge of differences is confronted and understood, many continue to defend against actually valuing those differences. Instead, they make the point that even though we are different when we come to this country from our place of origin, in time we become increasingly similar and, the longer we stay, the more effectively we melt into the general population. Therefore, the logic goes, why not just wait until people complete their melting process, and, in the meantime, hire those who have already assimilated?

Here, I like to call upon the analogy of the floating iceberg whose tip breaking the water’s surface, as we all know, belies the often enormous breadth of its base, hidden beneath the water. As icebergs increase in number and/or drift into close proximity to each other, they are likely to clash at their bases, even though, from our vantage point at the water’s surface, there is no visible contact. In the context of the workplace, a similar dynamic often occurs; that is, because we speak a common language and dress and act in common ways, we seem to work together “above the table” without any apparent friction. And then, having learned to act in a conflict-free mode, at least superficially, we believe that we have learned all we need to know about accommodating each other’s differences and recognizing and rewarding our similarities so that the task at hand can be accomplished. Below the surface, however, our behaviors—manners, communication style, listening attitudes, and so forth—represent the deeper and broader base of the iceberg, the contours of which are determined by our conditioning, our history, and the values rooted in our different cultures.

The effect is that, while we appear to be communicating without apparent friction above the table, all too often we are suppressing feelings of mistrust, dislike, and irritation in varying degrees beneath the behavior we show on the surface. We really do not see our coworkers or colleagues in their fullest expression, nor are we seen in ours. Yet to be successful, all professional interactions, just like personal interactions, depend upon reciprocal recognition of competence, feelings of trust, open communication, and a shared sense of our end goals. Obviously, when we cover or deny our ignorance of or discomfort with another person’s style and manner, the professional interaction is compromised and the results of our working together are negatively affected.

Attempts to Avoid the Appearance of “Discriminating”

In other words, it is possible to reach a level of comfort doing things with people who are different, but to break through to a higher level demands more and carries with it greater rewards. Actually, this type of behavior, this appearance of getting along despite differences, has been institutionalized in America’s workplaces and in our interpersonal relationships. The “rules” are both written and tacit. Most of us have been taught to react to differences among people in one of two acceptable ways, so that our behavior won’t be labeled as “discriminatory.”

First, when we see differences, we’re taught to presume that they are false, that what we are seeing—about most white males or about black females or about those with physical disabilities, or any number of other characteristics that mark us as different—are, in fact, not so. Regardless of whether what we see or experience or believe is at least partially true, or most often true, or statistically accurate, and that acting upon our perceptions or knowledge might be appropriate, we are admonished to mistrust our judgments and/or to presume our position to be false. Real differences are lumped in the category, then, as misconstrued differences and are denied.

Second, because not all differences can be denied (such as obvious gender differences, some obvious differences of skin color and racial characteristics, and obvious differences in accents and language facility), a second-level category had to be devised so that we could maintain our nondiscriminatory policies and “liberal-minded” attitudes and behavior. Any real, undeniable differences we might encounter between us and others, in our personal, professional, or organizational life, must be considered “irrelevant.” If we are to do this well, we are told, we must consider them to be 100 percent irrelevant to whatever the task at hand.

The various categories of “real” differences we are asked to regard as 100 percent irrelevant to the task at hand, if we are to be applauded as nondiscriminatory, are: race, age, gender, physical ability, religion, and, in some states, sexual orientation. In the context of the workplace, that means that employers are not allowed to consider these differences in hiring, promoting, or firing, all factors having to do with evaluating whether the person is the most appropriate person for the job.

In my view, both of these intentionally limiting practices have the negative effect of reinforcing rather than breaking barriers caused by discomfort with difference. It is true that when we act affirmatively and work to ensure equal employment opportunity, we do successfully avoid discriminating arbitrarily and prejudicially against those unlike ourselves; but, at the same time, we fail to develop a positive “discriminating” ability, one that is capable of fully “seeing” human beings in all their diversity. And we fail to achieve real equal opportunity in the workplace when our actions, however well intended, are rooted in denial and ignorance instead of acceptance and appreciation of individual variability. Right now, if you examine them carefully, most of our antidiscrimination efforts perpetuate denial and ignorance which, in turn, perpetuates more denial and ignorance.

The Myth of “Equal Opportunity”

Some breakthroughs do result when we act affirmatively and when we work to ensure equal opportunity, for it is possible, certainly, to gradually become more familiar with people different from ourselves and to eventually reduce whatever discomfort we once felt. But all too often, affirmative action and equal opportunity practices—when driven, as most are, by denial and ignorance—promotes situations in which one group gives “equal opportunity” to the other (especially the dominant groups to the less dominant) to act in ways that make “us” feel comfortable. Or, to put it more bluntly, equal opportunity all too often means entering into competition with one another to see who wins the race to become bicultural enough that everyone has the illusion of feeling comfortable with differences. It is an exhausting and depleting race for anyone to have to run, to deny (as if false) and to ignore (as if irrelevant) one’s own cultural and ethnographic identity. Yet for decades we have been asking people to leave their differences at the door and to apply their energy not to the task at hand but to the task of becoming bicultural.

Looking at our history of dealing with diversity actually helps us see how we are evolving, all of us at different stages. We started out, for example, from a strongly egocentric position. We then moved to ethnocentrism before coming to a prolonged period of acting “affirmatively” and ensuring “equal opportunity,” only to discover, with the rapidly changing demographics of recent years, that we need to shift our course and affirm our differences, accept our differences, and, ultimately, value those differences.

What Is Diversity Really About?

I believe diversity should be defined in the broadest possible way. Not only does diversity include differences in age, race, gender, gender identity, physical ability, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic class, education, region of origin, language, and so forth but also differences in life experience, position in the family, personality, job function, rank within a hierarchy, and other such characteristics that go into forming an individual’s perspective. Within an organization, diversity encompasses every individual difference that affects a task or relationship. Diversity also has an impact on the products and services developed by its workforce as well as on personal, interpersonal, and organizational activities.

Clearly, there is a benefit and a risk inherent in defining diversity so broadly. The benefit is that it is accurate, that it is all-inclusive, that each person is recognized as part of the diversity that needs to be valued. That’s healthy. To limit the definition of diversity, as even much of the diversity movement itself did a few years ago, to differences of gender, race, and constitutionally protected differences, is to ignore much of the diversity that we each bring. Furthermore, such a limited view serves to maintain polarized tensions around the discussion of differences, as we have seen so often between black and white, men and women, straight and gay, politically “right” and “left,” North and South, Jew and gentile.

Every difference was immediately polarized in such a way that one side was made right and the other wrong. Alternatively, when we realize our individual diversity—I am white, and I am male, and I am heterosexual, and I am whatever, and so are you whatever your identities are—then we can begin to realize that each of us is a rich mixture of aspects of self and differences between us.

The risk to be aware of in defining diversity so broadly is the inclination some have to take refuge in its broad scope—that is, to avoid really looking at our own -isms, our own discomfort with differences in age, race, gender, and so on. When we use its far-reaching scope to hide our biases and prejudices, then we aren’t moved to do the important work we need to do in uncovering our own racism, or sexism, or classism, or heterosexism, or whatever discomfort with difference gets in the way of truly seeing and valuing another person’s competence and uniqueness. It is important to pay attention to whether or not we are pretending to honor all differences as a cover for not confronting the particular differences that cause us the greatest personal discomfort.

---

This is the end of Part 1, completing the “Where From?” portion of Valuing Diversity: Where From? … Where To?

To continue, please access Part 2 for the “Where To?” portion, which covers these topics:

• Why Value Diversity?
• Who Should Value Diversity?
• Where Should Diversity Be Valued?
• When Should We Begin Valuing Diversity?
• How Do We Begin?
• Conclusion

---

Adapted by the author, Lewis Griggs, from Chapter 1 of his book Valuing Diversity, published by McGraw Hill.