|
|
||
|
|
|
 New Models of Diversity - Fall 1998 Problem: The issue of diversity has been a very volatile topic for American business. Often even raising the topic can trigger strong feelings of anger, guilt and pain. Diversity trainings have often added fuel to this fire by encouraging people to "let out" their unexpressed feelings toward each other. When these feelings are expressed with great animosity and blame, they often create even stronger feelings of resentment and victimization in the people involved. And so things get worse rather than better. The current paradigm or theoretical model used for diversity is a highly politicized, moral one: it tends to encourage people to demonize others and make negative moral judgments about them. So some people are viewed as right or wrong, good or evil, and racist/sexist or victims. It creates an attitude of "us vs. them" which makes it harder to create any kind of solution or sense of reconciliation. The model is rooted in blame and if often scapegoats the white male, even though particular white men may be innocent of any wrongdoing. But because the model tends to blame them for who they are and makes them inherently wrong, it creates resistance, resentment and even a sense of victimization in them. Solution: I have begun to use two alternative models for diversity that don't create this kind of inherent conflict. They allow us to approach the topic in a more neutral and effective manner. The two models are etiquette and conflict resolution. Etiquette asks the question: How should a concerned person treat someone who is different from them? It assumes that we may not always know the rules for appropriate behavior in social situations, but it doesn't judge or blame us for our ignorance. Etiquette assumes we want to do the right thing with each other; we just need to know what that is. There is no etiquette book that has spelled out all the unspoken rules and values of the many diverse cultures in today's workplace. So we need to create the rules ourselves. We have to discover the new rules of working together by acknowledging our collective ignorance and teaching each other. Conflict resolution focuses on how to resolve the problems that arise between people in the workplace. It doesn't focus on the "negative" motivations of the people involved. Rather, it assumes good will on both sides and strives to find a win-win solution. Unlike the etiquette model, there are a number of good books such as Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury. William Ury's sequel, Getting Past No, emphasizes the need for active listening skills and learning how to see the other person's point of view. Both paradigms are learning models. Etiquette encourages forgiveness and compassion. Conflict resolution teaches active listening, empathy and negotiating skills. Neither model polarizes or demonizes people. Example: A male manager at a financial institution was being described by his all-women staff as "anti-women." I was brought in to mediate between the two sides. I taught them the conflict resolution skill of active listening (e.g., asking lots of open-ended questions and paraphrasing the essence of what the person is saying.) The women discovered that the manager just had a different conversational style than they did, e.g. he didn't look them in the eye during conversations because he liked to do more than one thing at once. He was willing to change his style and pay more attention to them. The women stopped blaming/demonizing him. Results: The number of complaints dropped from two per week to virtually none. The women's morale also improved. Summary: We really need to be thinking about diversity issues in new ways. We are much more likely to solve them if we approach them from a model that views the other person as an ally rather than an adversary or enemy. ters. |
|
. |
||
|
|
Home
|
Services
|
Training
|
Coaching
|
Clients
|
Results |
|
. |
|