Act 1: What is Diversity?
Scene 2: Building Bridges
In my previous article, “Counting Bodies”, I talked about
the important, yet limited, role of access and data collection in
diversification efforts. Many
organizations have begun to understand that access, the numbers, is only one
part of the equation; so the question becomes, what’s next? If recruitment is not the answer, if having
the “right” ratios and proportions is not the answer; then what is? Well,
there is no singular formula or one-size fits all solution. No one wants to hear that right? We are a solutions-driven,
results-oriented, blah, blah, blah… kind of society—but there is a problem with
this kind of approach. Anytime you are dealing with a complex problem
with multiple causes, there is not going to be a single solution. This means that the initiatives that produce
results tend to be far more comprehensive, address multiple dimensions (socio-political,
cultural, economic…), and continue to evolve as their understanding of the
issues continue to evolve.
Since not all White women, Black gay men, Mexican lesbians,
people in wheelchairs, transgender White men, immigrants, Filipino men etc. share
the same issues (though we all tend to get lumped into the “under-represented”
category), we cannot expect that a single solution will suffice. So, if there is no “solution”, if I am not
going to provide you with the “10 steps to a diverse workforce” or “The secret
to achieving equity in your organization”, why am I even writing this stupid article,
right? As I stated in the first article, diversity and equity are complex
issues. When dealing with any complex
issue it is paramount that we take some time to understand and engage with that
complexity. Think about any big issue,
like poverty or hunger; if we do not understand the causes of poverty or why it
persists how can we possibly hope to end it?
This is why progress in areas like these requires a commitment to
process, and we need to embrace the fact that there are no singular approaches
or simple answers.
As I said earlier, many organizations and companies have
already come to understand that the simple presence of different kinds of
bodies does not necessarily get them to their desired end. Maybe HR managed to recruit more White and
Asian women to their tech company, only to find that these women are not moving
up through the ranks into leadership positions.
These women might also be
expressing dissatisfaction with the company, leading to turnover rates that are
higher than their male counterparts. In
an attempt to address this new issue the company might begin to think of ways
to better integrate women. The question then
becomes, how do we better prepare women to succeed in this company? One of the most popular techniques that arise
at this stage is what I am calling diversity as “building bridges”, in which
organizations create special training programs, mentoring programs, etc… to
help acculturate the under-represented group into the organization or company. In essence, the square peg is taught how to
act round, or how to cram themselves into the prevailing cultural norms of said
organization.
These programs and initiatives function as additive
structures within the organization meant to “bridge” the gulf between the
institutional culture and a particular group’s perceived deficiencies. And yes, these gaps in culture are often
perceived as being deficiencies on the side of those who are
under-represented. These “bridges” are
most often single-lane highways, meaning that there is no exchange of ideas,
all knowledge and information flows in one-direction only. This is because the organization most often
begins from the premise that the company/organization/institution “works”. The company is fine; it’s the women who are
the problem that must be fixed. However,
I would submit that if a company/organization/institution only attracts and
supports a very limited range of life experiences, cultural perspectives, and
voices then it is not functioning to its fullest and greatest capacity. Something in that organization/company/institution
is not working.
I do understand that these additive structures, no matter
how artificial and at times patronizing, do serve a function and have played a
critical role to date. I, myself, have
certainly created, implemented, and facilitated such programs in my work. The difference is that I understand that
these “bridges” are not a permanent solution.
In structuring these kinds of programs I also try to make sure that
there is two-way traffic. In other
words, I start from the understanding that the organization needs to do a
better job accommodating square pegs and triangular pegs and oval pegs, etc… in
addition to the round ones. In other
words, the organization also has a lot to learn.
Even with their limitations, if done properly, these
programs are certainly an important step in the diversification process for
several reasons:
- They represent an increased and more sustained commitment to diversity on the part of the company or organization.
- They usually mean that there are individuals, or a powerful individual, within the organization who have more than a passing interest in diversity.
- Because they often arise out of some kind of internal surveying process and/or as a response to prevailing trends; they require some self-reflection on the part of the company or organization.
- They open up a space for dialogue and provide the necessary space for critical engagement of the status-quo, which also opens up valuable opportunities for innovation.
- They provide much needed support for under-represented staff and leadership.
- They often result in the company/ organization’s broader engagement within the community and to outreach to previously ignored communities where there are under-utilized resources and talents.
- They can improve retention and success rates for under-represented populations within the organization and ultimately help to foster a better organizational culture.
Though “bridging” can serve an important function, it is limited
because these programs and initiatives are additive structures. This means that they are constructed on top
of prevailing cultural norms such that they cannot actually address any of the
underlying issues that under-gird the original lack of diversity within the
company or organization. If the culture of an organization is racist, simply
hiring more people of color and training them on how to navigate the racism in
the organization is not going to solve the problem. Shifting organizational culture is such a
difficult, painful, and slow process, that it often appears quicker and easier
to acculturate “others” into that prevailing culture. So we provide “them” with mentors who
understand how to navigate the company, and we provide “them” with special
classes or workshops or trainings… BUT, and this is a big but, we can do all of
this without ever challenging or changing racist, sexist, ablest, homophobic…
structures within the organization.
Unless and until those structures are themselves explicitly addressed so
that they can eventually be dismantled, the issue will remain. This is why bridge programs, which should be
temporary, often become permanent structures within organizations. Think about it, if this “worked” wouldn't an
organization eventually be able to do away with these programs? Usually the opposite happens and theses
programs only become more entrenched over time.
Higher education is a perfect example of this. What I have seen in institutions of higher
education is that bridging programs tend to multiply and grow larger and more
expansive over time.
Think about it this way.
Imagine that you are a transportation expert called in to help a city
that is dealing with overcrowded roads that result in frequent traffic
jams. Well, you say, since the roads are
jammed that means we need bigger roads, and so you start to add more lanes to
certain highways and expand roads in areas with the greatest congestion. This helps a bit and traffic starts to move a
little faster but it does not actually solve the problem. So what do you do? You cannot just keep expanding the roads. What you ultimately come to realize is that
the number of lanes is not the core issue.
In fact, there are a number of issues that are contributing to the
traffic problems, issues that span multiple agencies. More people are commuting further distances
because of high housing costs in the area.
On top of that, the public transportation system is too limited and
inefficient. Also, neighborhoods are not
pedestrian friendly, meaning that people cannot just walk to grocery stores or
other local businesses. All of these
factors mean that more people are finding it necessary to drive most of the
time. So, unless and until people are
provided with other alternatives, they will continue to drive a lot and the
roads will continue to be congested.
This is essentially what has occurred within higher education,
only most institutions just keep building more bridges. When this happens you wind up with a complicated
and, often inefficient, network of bridges on top of bridges, intersecting with
bridges, colliding with bridges, replicating bridges... Some of these bridges are new and some are
rickety and falling apart. Some are long
and some are short. Some are dismantled only to have a new and only slightly
improved (sometimes a slightly worse) version put up in nearly the same
place. Some bridges span the length of
the institution and some are bridges to nowhere… But under this highly evolved network
of structures, the institution itself remains largely unchanged. Because of this, the experiences of students,
staff, leadership, and faculty from under-represented groups also remain
largely unchanged. There is only added
confusion and more mazes to navigate.
While “bridges” certainly have a role to play as a company or organization is looking to become more diverse and equitable, they should not be mistaken for a long-term solution.
