The audience disagreed as to whether this situation constituted a "crisis." I say, if there is a crisis, multiculturalism is not a cause, but a symptom.

There are a couple of terms to define. The dictionary may read differently, but the way these terms are used in the workplace is what matters here.

• "Diversity" is an indicator of differences between members of a community. Although when we hear the term we think of race first, that's because of how the term is used in context more than any other factor. A population can also be diverse in gender, age, geographic origin, economic status, sexual orientation, health, education, work experience, life experience, religion, personality and temperament.
• "Multiculturalism" is the study of the subset of diversity that includes cultural measures: race, gender, origin and religion primarily. Again, when we hear the term in context we think of race first, but that's not what the term means.
• "Tolerance" is one's ability to get along with others despite the knowledge that those others are different, and sometimes profoundly so.

Here are a few important points regarding controversial meetings in general:

• Most people won't speak up. This will be true of any controversial subject. People will keep their opinions to themselves if they think
  • there's someone present they don't want to make angry (e.g. the boss)
  • they think their opinion is not valued or otherwise won't change anything worth changing
  • they don't like conflict or confrontation -- and they expect it to result from whatever they say
• Because most people won't speak up, we can't assume that the loudest people speak for the majority -- or for anyone else. It's easy to fall into the rhetorical trap of believing others follow a spoken point of view simply because it's spoken, or believing others follow the point of view of someone who says they do.
• Controversy is not a good reason to keep dialogue out of the workplace. Positive change may only be brought about through friction.
• If you expect a meeting to be controversial, make sure the participants are as comfortable as possible. Especially if attendance is required. If you're serious about minimizing grumbling:
  • no distractions -- eliminate laptops, cell phones, beepers, etc.
  • comfortable seats
  • decent refreshments -- not just coffee (which not everyone drinks) and donuts (which not everyone eats)
  • clean environment
  It's amazing how seldom we consider these simple adjustments for required meetings we would otherwise only see we neither need nor want.

• Some consultants come with an agenda of their own. I've been in the same room with one whose mission was to beat up on everyone, especially European-American males. When dealing with controversy, feelings are going to be hurt anyway -- why should we seek it out?
• Some programs make a pretense of combining multiculturalism with quality initiatives. It is possible to make that link, but I'm afraid most diversity consultants can't because they don't understand quality. And it's not a good idea to stand in front of an audience and pretend to understand something you don't. The audience can always tell.
• It takes too long. People who told me this said they could have "gotten enough out of it" in anywhere from a day-and-a-half to half-an-hour, instead of the three days they endured.
• We were dragged into it. Mandatory programs tend to engender skepticism even in the most enthusiastic engineers. It's essential that the audience know up front what's in it for them. You probably already understand that these complaints have to some extent engendered resentment of everyone toward management, and have led to some suspecting others of being responsible for intruding on their time. On the other hand, people I talked to often exhibited the following behaviours:
  • Training drags us away from "real work." I'm sorry: I don't buy that. Our ability to recognize, understand and relate to customers and colleagues IS "real work." Not only is this critical, but sometimes we have to relearn it.
  • Very few of those I talked to and listened to during the training were willing to take personal responsibility for the problems pursuant to the non-diverse workplace. "Hey, I just work here, I never screwed anyone myself, why should I have to go through this?" My response, which admittedly generates little enthusiasm: "because we are products of a racist system and as such have benefited from it." I'm not just talking about white males, either: racism is part of American history and has shaped all aspects of society today.
  • A lot of humor. This probably has as much to do with affinity and "shared suffering" as it does with anything else.
  We sometimes think our individual missions involve some narrowly-defined piece of responsibility that we refer to as "technical work" (or, in some cases, as "real work"). As a result, when anyone questions the way things are done institutionally, inevitably they are regarded with suspicion and disdain:
  • I don't see anyone else complaining!
  • Why can't we all just get along?
  • Don't you have enough to do?
  • This discussion has outlived its usefulness.
  These statements look very familiar to me, having been a Usenet participant for years. An engineer's mission is often to "sell technology" to the world. What you think of now as "real work" is only a piece of that mission. Knowing and understanding your customers is another, major piece.

Exercises

During introductions, participants learned that

• Most (race/gender notwithstanding) felt they came from sheltered backgrounds. "We're all just like ants in the sand, scuffling for our existence," said one.
• Most people (again) feel they're not directly responsible for the crisis referred to above. "Is it our job to fix the problems of society?" It is our job to the extent that those problems touch us, and we should therefore be aware of them. (We may not be aware.) Our job security and satisfaction are purchased from society and are therefore carried on the backs of others.
• Most didn't believe there was a crisis, but were instead afraid of reverse discrimination. More afraid of this than of the status quo. Can you demonstrate it with other than anecdotal evidence?

Traditional ways of managing conflict and making decisions that work in monocultural settings may not work in a multicultural organization.

When it's suggested that a diverse workplace is at all times better than one that's not (and this suggestion is always made), the concept generates heat and little light. Japan and Germany appear to do well with "non-diverse" industrial workplaces. (Of course, their workplaces reflect their populations in general. Do ours?)

When it's suggested that it's important to avoid prejudging or stereotyping (and this suggestion is always made), the audience will sometimes counter with valid criticisms of course materials (when provided in advance) for the same reasons.

I have participated in an exercise where easel sheets are put on the wall, each labeled with a classification (e.g. "women" or "seniors" or some race), and we had to pick the one we felt we belonged the most to and stand in front of it. I felt no particular affinity to the groups I was actually qualified to join -- that is, to either "men" or "Caucasians." Why? Because my being male and my being white were the only characteristics I shared with the others, and I felt those characteristics to be too weak to assume affinity.

• Once you have some "critical mass" of population within a single people group, the diversity within it becomes plain. Which explained my lack of affinity toward whites and men. But taking this to what I thought was a logical conclusion, there really can be no correct racial or gender stereotype.
• White male anger (or something like it) appeared to come out during this exercise. The easel sheets in our class showed that the white men were more angered by perceived impositions placed on them than by actual group stereotyping. The men in another class had left their sheet blank, showing that nothing said about them really upset them. :-)

1. When you __________ (describe undesired behaviour)
2. It makes me feel like __________ (describe emotion)
3. I would like it if you would __________ (describe desired behaviour)

On the subject of "managing diversity" -- we were told that this function falls to all of us. We are also told that "the ideas come from the top" (e.g. management), and we are basically to execute them. But we really have nothing to govern except our own behaviour, and even that only in the context of how it relates to others. Even then, possibly only in a functional or other type of small group. So are we really "empowered" to do even this? And are we suggesting that there is a single "right way" to govern? When a company takes this approach, it will foster opposition.

Managing diversity basically means using management practices that "value diversity" and emphasize participation by all. "Valuing diversity" basically means looking at the differences between people as strength rather than weakness. If a training program offers little in the way of concrete examples of valuing diversity outside the context of hiring, firing and promotion, the audience will question the company commitment to such ideals.

It is possible to make the link between diversity and quality. In the movie "Soul of the Game," Jackie Robinson (played by Blair Underwood) asked Branch Rickey (Edward Herrmann) why he wanted the Dodgers to be the first major league team in the modern era to have a black player. His response: "I'm a baseball man. I want to win the pennant." That is the link. We can't do business effectively in the world if we don't want to win, and we don't want to win if we don't work with the best people and practices -- wherever they're found. A manager in my training session suggested

We are going in this direction [valuing diversity], and we need you to help show us how to get there. You will also benefit -- you will understand your co-workers and yourself better if you take an active role in this process.

You should note:

• Only results will separate progressive workplace practices from "just another training class."
• "Valuing diversity" is not a behavior that can be programmed, in a workplace or anywhere else. (Martin Luther King once said "I can't make a man love me, but I can make him stop beating me.") One desirable and achievable goal would be that members of the workplace see what they have in common (and what they contribute in common) first, and what differentiates them last (if at all).
• There is no data that suggests that diversity in any area other than skills, applicable work experience and personality has anything to do with making an organization better in meeting its business goals, unless your business goals are to be more racially, gender or disability diverse. This is, of course, a sword that cuts both ways -- this argument is often used by managers who assume the "best candidate" for a given job is a white male. There's no data to suggest that either. :-)
• Thomas' book (recommended below) suggests that we have enough to do in most cases dealing with the diversity we have without actively seeking more. If we're no good with what we have we'll be worse when we have more.

References

Florman, S. The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. St. Martin's Press, 1996. ISBN 0-31214-104-1 -- Also check out your engineering society's latest salary/placement survey.
Green, M., et. al. The Consumer Bible. Workman Publishing, 1998. ISBN 0-76111-227-8
Peters, T. The Pursuit of WOW!. Vintage Books, 1994. ISBN 0-67975-555-1
Tannen, D. You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. Ballantine Books, 1991. ISBN 0-34537-205-0
Thomas, R. Beyond Race and Gender. AMACOM, 1992. ISBN 0-81447-807-7
Wallis, J. The Soul of Politics. Harvest Books, 1995. ISBN 0-15600-328-7
West, C. Race Matters. Vintage Books, 1994. ISBN 0-67974-986-1

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Do you practice "inclusion?" If workers aren't "empowered" to make real changes in the workplace, to attack even the most daunting problems, then you don't. You'll see this even in training: if the problems crying out for worker solutions are moved by the consultants to a "parking lot" so the training can keep going, that's a sign that inclusion isn't coming anytime soon.
2. Do you look at workplace communication? You may be pleasantly surprised to find internationals in your organization open to being asked to repeat or clarify what they say. When they take ownership of problems of communication as speakers and listeners, that is a display of trust. If, on the other hand, nobody takes ownership of such problems, your workplace will stumble along for a while yet.
3. Do you practice "empowerment?" Your concerns are secondary to those of the organization. But if we aren't told what the organization's concerns are, we never know when our concerns become important.
4. Should we consider demographics based on the scientific and engineering population instead of the population in general? We may fail to sell technology to the world if we don't plant seeds of future growth in the underrepresented parts of the population at-large. But if your management says that "target goals" and "quotas" are not the same thing, you have reason to be suspicious.
5. Is your community "diverse?" We can't all live just anywhere in most communities that we want to. We won't all be likely to pay the same rates if we do. If we say we're diverse, then assume that minorities want to live only with other minorities, what should we conclude?
6. How does your workplace treat women? Women will earn less in the workplace and pay more in the marketplace. Training must address this.