INDIVIDUAL CHOICES

ENTRY POINT

PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

THE PURPOSE

• EXAMINE THE INDIVIDUAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT DIVERSITY PRESENTS

• AT THE ENTRY POINT, PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

• FROM MANY PERSPECTIVES

• WITH AN EYE ON:– CURRENT SKILLS TO DEAL WITH THEM– OTHER COMPETENCIES NEEDED

I.ENTRY POINT

• YOU ARE NEW

• BRING YOUR MULTIPLE IDENTITIES TO THE FIRM

• THE FIRM ALREADY HAS MULTIPLE IDENTITIES

• NEED TO QUICKLY FIND OUT– THE HISTORY OF EACH GROUP– ARE THEY MAJORITY– ARE THEY MINORITY– HOW POWERFUL ARE THEY– THEIR PREVALENT CULTURE AND IDEAS

A. IF YOU ARE MINORTY

• CHECK AGAINST TOKENISM… EASY STREOTYPING

• NEED TO BELONG TO A SUPPORT NETWORK

• NEED TO FIND (PERHAPS SET UP) A MENTORING GROUP

• *NOT NECESSARILY FROM THE SAME MINORITY GROUP

• NUMERICAL PREVALENCE MAY MAKE IT HARD TO FIND SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

B. IF YOU ARE MAJORITY

• WILL GET EARLY OVERT ACCEPTANCE

• BUT “ DO I HOLD THEIR VALUES”

• “THE FIRM” EFFECT

• IF I DO NOT;– SHOULD I DISCLOSE EARLY ON– SHOULD I HOLD OFF FOR LATER– HAVE MORE ROOM TO MANEUVER

POWER AND STATUS

• CRITICAL TO UNDERSTANDING CHOICES AT ENTRY POINT

• MINORITY BUT BELONG TO HIGH POWER GROUP• MAJORITY BUT BELONG TO LOW POWER GROUP• NEED TO EXPLORE THE FIRM CULTURE,

PERCEPTIONS, VALUES AND UNCHECKED ASSUMPTIONS

• CHECK YOUR OWN VALUES, JUDGEMENTS, BEHAVIORAL TENDENCIES

• VERIFY YOUR FIRST IMPRESSIONS• CHECK THEM AGAINST OBJECTIVE DATA

REACTIONS OF OTHERS

• ARE THEY BECAUSE– I AM NEW

– I BELONG TO MAJORITY GROUP

– I BELONG TO MINORITY GROUP

– HIGH OR LOW POWER GROUP

– OR A COMBINATION (WHICH?)

HOW MUCH TO REVEAL MY DIFFERENCES

• OTHERS MAY GET DEFENSIVE, THREATENED, FEEL BETRAYED, QUESTION YOUR “FIT”

• YOU RISK– BEING PAINTED IN A CORNER– COMPROMISED IDENTITY– BEING “OUTCASTED” SOCIALLY– BEING EXCLUDED FROM DECISION CIRCLES– BEING EXCLUDED FROM SUPPORT AND MENTORING

NETWORKS

II. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

• CRUCIAL FOR THE CAREERS OF THE MANAGER AND THE WORKER

• ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH JUDGEMENTS BASED ON PERFORMANCE AND SKA AND IDENTITY IS KEY

• OTHERWISE DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE WILL BE COMPROMISED FOR EVERYONE

A. CHECK AND VERIFY ASSUMPTIONS

• CUSTOMARY GENERALIZATIONS

• USUALLY UNSPOKEN AND UNQUESTIONED

• MAJORITY GROUP’S BEHAVIORAL TENDENCIES AND GENERALIZATIONS SET AS

– UNIVERSALLY DESIRABLE BY EVERY GROUP

– ORGANIZATIONALLY EFFECTIVE

– STANDARDS IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

B. CONCIOUS EXCLUSION

• FROM POWER AND RESOURCES

• ILLEGAL AND OFTEN CONSIDERED IMMORAL

• MAY BE OVERT (NOT TOO OFTEN)

• OFTEN COVERT BUT POWERFUL

• MAY NOT ALWAYS BE DELIBERATE

C:TARGETED EXCLUSION

• CREATES BIG TIME PROBLEMS IN:– FEEDBACK PROCESS– DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES– JOB ROTATION– VISIBILITY– TRAINING– USUALLY ILLEGAL

• RESPONSES:– MONITOR AND RECORD EXPERIENCES– REPORT TO SAFE THIRD PARTIES

ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

• SUPPORT THE TARGET

• PROVIDE AN SAFE AND EQUITABLE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR EVERYONE

• EDUCATE THE SOURCES OF BIASED BEHAVIOR

• DISCIPLE THE SOURCES OF BIASED BEHAVIOR IF TRAINING DOES NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE

• STAKES ARE HIGH

ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR

• WE SUCCEED, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE SKAs

• WE FAIL, BECAUSE OF EXTERNAL FACTORS

• THEY SUCCED, BECAUSE OF EXTERNAL FACTORS

• THEY FAIL, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SKAs

D:MAJORITY PROVIDING PERFORMANCE GUIDANCE FOR

MINORITY• MAY NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES

IN MOTIVATIONS, RESPONSE TO POWER AND AUTHORITY AND COMMUNICATION STYLES

• MAY FEEL CONFLICTING PRESSURES FROM– ABOVE– OTHER DIRECT REPORTS– INSTITUTIONAL VALUE SYSTEM

E. MAJORITY REPORTING TO A MEMBER OF A MINORITY

• MAY CREATE :– TENSION– DISCOMFORT– QUESTIONS OF SKA AND COMPETENCE– ACCEPTANCE OF AUTHORITY– MUDDIED COMMUNICATION– LOW LEVEL OF TRUST– SABOTAGE

• NEED TO BE CAREFULLY MANAGED WITH AN EYE ON – LEGALITY– DESIRABILITY, MORALITY– EFFECTIVENESS AT ALL LEVELS

III. INDIVIDUAL CONFLICTS

• ARE ALL ABOUT DIFFERENCES• ARE NOT ALWAYS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE• CAN BE EXTREMELY DYSFUNCTIONAL IF NOT

MANAGED RIGHT• MAY BE ABOUT DIFFERENCES IN

– VALUES– EXPERIENCES– PERCEPTIONS– CULTURE– RACE, GENDER AND ETHNICITY– A COMBINATION

1. INTENT VS. PERCEPTION

• “I DID NOT MEAN IT THAT WAY”• CREDIBILITY: DO WE BELIEVE THE GOOD

INTENTIONS• “I CAN NOT CONTROL PERCEPTIONS” “ I AM NOT

ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR PERCEPTIONS”• “I DID NOT MEAN TO OFFEND”• WHAT CAN BE LEARNED? NOT, WHO IS TO BLAME• WHAT ARE MY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE

OFFENDER’S INTENT? WHAT EVIDENCE DO I HAVE• IGNORANCE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE• DIFFERENTIAL COSTS FOR LOW AND HIGH POWER

GROUPS

2.POWER AND ACCESS

• CONFLICT ABOUT LIMITING ACCESS

• ORGANIZATIONAL POWER OVER RESOURCES AND CAREER

• BACKED UP BY SOCIAL AND EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES THAT EXCLUDES SOME GROUPS

• THEY CAN NOT CLAIM IGNORANCE

• ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEM, NEEDS ORGANIZATIONAL SOLUTIONS

3. EQUITY AND FAIRNESS

• CONFLICTS OVER “WHAT IS FAIR”

• IF EVERYONE TREATED THE SAME, IS IT FAIR

• HOW DOES THIS ADDRESS THE PAST INEQUITIES?

• IS THERE AN INHERENT BIAS ALREADY OPERATING

• IF YES, WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE ON DECISIONS?

4.BYSTANDERS AND THIRD PARTIES

• IF WE ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED, DO WE HAVE ANY OBLIGATION? How do we decide?

• HOW DO DIVERSITY CONFLICTS IMPACT ME EVEN IF I AM NOT THE TARGET?

• IF I GET INVOLVED, DO I HELP OR HURT THE SITUATION (DO DUE DILIGENCE )

5.FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

• IS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS NOT TO COMPELL OTHERS TO COMPLY WITH THEM

• THE PURPOSE IS DIALOGE AND LEARNING AND NOT HARRASSING OR SILENCING OTHERS.

• CAN AND SHOULD SEPARATE PERSONAL VALUES FROM WORKPLACE ISSUES