Diversity in the Workplace

Tuesday, February 22, 2011
When I was in the Navy, one of the things I grew to love about my service was the incredible diversity inherent in the military as a whole. During the course of my career, I worked and lived with individuals from every state in the Union, every religion, every ethnic group. Whether the Navy approved or not, I also served with every sexual orientation.

And I loved it. It wasn't always easy - I was a privileged white girl with a thoroughly middle class background. I'd not been exposed to diverse cultures, and I made some pretty boneheaded mistakes. But I learned, and my exposure to other types of people has made me a better person and a better employee.

While understanding that the military is a unique immersive experience, I sometimes wonder why civilian corporations don't do a better job of encouraging diversity in their workforce. It seems like my industry (not just my company - my entire industry) is just one big white guy's club. Don't these companies understand how much value there is in finding and hiring a diverse, qualified work force? Don't they see how much talent they're missing out on simply by indulging in hiring practices that dictate they hire only people "just like them?"

I don't get it. Maybe because I'm not a white guy.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

2 comments:

Eric said...

Ah, but see: the military didn't understand that, either--it was forced upon them, and with great controversy. And as you know (and allude to in the post), some diversity is still being fought over in the Armed Services: DADT repeal was a long, vicious battle that is still being resisted in some quarters (::koff::MarineCorps::koff::) and there are still arguments over the "combat role" of women in the services notwithstanding the fact that the way modern wars are fought makes the subject very nearly moot (women are quite likely to end up seeing action whether or not they're labeled as "combatants").

You're right that there's value in a diverse workforce. But I'm not sure the military has ever figured that out without being explicitly ordered to diversify by the President and/or Congress.

Which, perhaps ironically, also serves as a weird backdoor answer to your question: government may be forced to diversify agencies because of Constitutional mandates that may not apply to private employers. Federal anti-discrimination legislation passed since 1964, permitted by an expansive SCOTUS interpretation of the Commerce Clause, complicates the general proposition that employers may hire and fire who they want or act like rat bastards to employees, but it's fairly established that even where individuals can be rank bigots, the United States government and state governments are prohibited from discrimination by the Constitution.

Since a corporation may not be required to think about who it's employing, it may not bother to do so, so biases in hiring may simply be the result of latent prejudices and inertia. It just doesn't occur to someone to hire a person who's different, and anyway they got along so well in the interview with this other candidate who was just like them.

Which, y'know, is part of why Federal equal opportunity legislation became necessary in the first place.

Janiece said...

Eric, one of the things that tickles me (admittedly, in a perverse kind of way) about the military's status as a trendsetter in this regard is the fact that they did have it forced down their throat. And now it's a justifiable point of pride.

What I don't get is why private corporations don't take the lessons the military learned by force to heart. They may be no one forcing the lessons down the throats of the private sector, but it just seems so damn stupid for them not to learn the easy way.

And I think you're right (for the most part) about the lack of diversity being a consequence of mental laziness and comfort zones rather than malice. People hire people who're "like them," and it requires an act of will to expand your mental horizons.