RSSResponse to Question #3: ‘What is it about B2B in general, and your company in particular, that causes our race problem?’
In my last post, I linked to Paul Conley’s five questions for B2B post on his blog. I think it’s an excellent series of articles, with deep, thought-provoking questions. Perhaps it is best suited for middle and upper management, but I would encourage anyone who is interested in the industry to read it.
I do, however, take exception to his third post, which focuses on diversity in B2B. Before responding, I should say (although I don’t think it should matter) that I’m a Jewish male, 25 years old, and that I have written about this subject before in an earlier post where I chastised American Business Media for holding its annual charity golf and tennis tournament at a club that, to me, stunk of disinclusion.
First, let me answer a question a friend posed to me this past weekend: Do I think I’m a racist? I say: No. Why? Because I prefer not to judge people by their race, or assumed race. When I do judge them, I judge them by other factors, including but not limited to character, intelligence, wit, personality, and personal taste. I do not judge them by race, creed, color, nationality, sexuality, sex, gender, etc.
But as someone who judges based not on color, I would say that the notion of diversity for the sake of diversity insults me. In some ways, I want to be surrounded in the workplace by the opposite: I want to be surrounded by uniformly smart, talented, hardworking, and pleasant people. I’ll throw funny in there, too, because I like funny people. I don’t care of those people are white, black, Asian, Native American, or anything else. As long as they can get the job done and make fair work companions, I’m happy.
However, there is one notion of diversity that I am wholeheartedly for, and that is diversity of ideas. One commenter on Paul’s blog pointed out that this is really the element of diversity that is important. I agree. When working in a creative industry, it’s important to have a deep creative well to draw from. I would find it insulting to assume that these creative, diverse ideas couldn’t come from a group totally made up of people just like me. I think they could. But if you were to argue that they couldn’t and that only a more diverse group of people could, I would argue that nationality, socio-economic background, gender, sex, and age all contribute more to someone’s ability to come up with diverse ideas than race. This, of course, is just my opinion.
If there are managers out there who discriminate against potential candidates because of race, they’re only doing themselves extreme disservice. To reject a candidate for any reason than that they aren’t the best candidate for the job is absurd and wasteful.
In that vein, I am adding to this post the links to the minority job sites that Paul linked. I don’t think you should post your resumes there because it’s wrong to have a non-representative newsroom, but because you want to have the best newsroom possible, and the best way to do that is to cast a wide net and get as many applicants as possible. If there are some worthy candidates that are only checking those sites, or for some reason feel more comfortable with jobs posted on those sites, then, by all means, post!
Here they are:
The Asian American Journalists Association
The South Asian Journalists Association
(I realize that the linchpin of this post is that diversity for diversity’s sake doesn’t make sense to me. If someone can explain it to me, I welcome that.)
Loading ...
Hi Jeremy,
I think you may be missing the point here.
The post you link to is one of a series that I’ve done on diversity in hiring. Included in that post are links to earlier posts. One of those links will take you to a post where I think I did a fairly good job of discussing the business reasons for pursuing a diverse workforce: http://paulconley.blogspot.com/2005/11/diverse-newsrooms-for-global-economy.html.
I didn’t feel obliged to rehash that discussion. To me, this stuff is obvious and self-evident. In my most recent post I only wanted to ask why we as an industry continue to struggle with this issue.
But in your post, you suggest that the issue is “diversity for diversity’s sake.” And you argue against it.
So let me be clear. I’m not arguing for “diversity for diversity’s sake.” I have argued — for ages now — for diversity for business reasons.
However, as long as there are people who misunderstand the advantages of diversity, it can be instructive to argue about “diversity for diversity’s sake.”
Allow me to explain. You claim not to be biased (or racist, etc.) in choosing the people you wish to associate with. But then you list humor as a criteria for inclusion. (”I’ll throw funny in there, too, because I like funny people.”) But there’s probably not a more culturally based part of personality than humor. For example, it’s probably safe to say that most of the folks in your demographic (a Jewish male, 25 years old) are amused by stereotypical Jewish, urban comedy. Odds are you think Seinfeld and Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller are funny. But that doesn’t mean that they ARE funny in some universal and objective fashion. Millions of people from other cultural backgrounds don’t like that stuff. There’s a reason why the ratings for TV shows are often divided along ethnic lines. I, for example, hate Seinfeld and that crap. I loathe the whining, the self-hate, the self-absorption, the insulting of family structure and the constant disregard for moral construct. I don’t think that crap is funny. I think it’s offensive.
But is there anyone in the B2B world who wouldn’t rightly be offended if I said I don’t like Jewish humor and I try not to hire people that I don’t find “funny.”
“Diversity for diversity’s sake” is not something I set out to defend. But I do, in fact, find it a defensible concept. And here’s why: If I spend my day with 10 people who are similar to me in skin color, religion, social class, education levels, military record, choice of hobbies, marital status and sexual preference, etc., then we will almost always agree on almost everything. We’ll seldom disagree over what to have for lunch, what to do for fun, what products we should be selling, where we should have our office and what we think is funny.
But if I spend my day with 10 people who differ from me and from each other in race, religion, etc., then each and every day will be filled with a wider variety of choices, opinions and ideas.
I prefer the later situation. And I simply don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t. It means that I will spend time interacting with people who I don’t always find funny and who eat food that I don’t enjoy. But I don’t need consensus in my life. I need variety and challenge and, well, diversity.
I think you make a valid point, Paul, about the cultural/comedy thing, and I’d like to rescind what I said about wanting to be around “funny” people. That’s very far down on the list in comparison to the other characteristics I listed as important in a coworker, and is entirely personal–and probably not important for an effective work force is my guess. If I were in charge of hiring at my company, sense of humor would not be something I would judge someone by. (Also, I don’t understand why you’d assume that I like a certain kind of comedy, and then go on to debase what it is you think I like. We can talk about that another time.)
I think our main disagreement is that I don’t think “skin color,” “religion,” “social class,” “military record,” “choice of hobbies,” “marital status,” and “sexual preference” are important when it comes to determining who will be an effective employee. You seem to think these things are relevant. I do, however, agree with you that level of education is probably very important. I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Jeremy,
I’m not sure why you’re having a difficult time understanding what I’m saying. But I assure you that I am NOT saying that “’skin color,’ ‘religion,’ ’social class,’ etc. are important when it comes to determining who will be an effective employee.” I’m not saying anything even close to that. I’m not implying it, suggesting it or hinting at it.
So let me try one more time: I believe that there are business advantages to a diverse workforce. (For that matter, I believe that there are numerous advantages to living in diverse neighborhoods, going to diverse schools and having a diverse group of people as friends.)
What I’m saying — what I’ve always said — is that skin color, religion, etc. SHOULD NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE SEEN AS A DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHO WILL BE AN EFFECTIVE EMPLOYEE. What I’m saying is that BECAUSE B2B companies FAIL to embrace diversity and FAIL to recruit from a broader pool they have created a situation where skin color, religion, etc. ARE the determining factors in who will get hired. AND I’M SAYING THAT IS A BAD THING.
Embracing diversity doesn’t mean that you believe someone’s race and background are what determines their career potential. Embracing diversity is a way to ensure that someone’s race and background DON’T determine their career potential.
Furthermore, embracing diversity is a way to ensure that your own career potential isn’t damaged. Embracing diversity is a way to ensure that you’re not blinded by your own prejudices, culture, comfort zone or history.
What I’m saying is that there is value in broadening your world and your outlook. What I’m saying is that there is value in looking beyond those places you usually look when hiring. What I’m saying is that prejudice is subtle, and sometime even invisible to those who suffer from it. What I’m saying is that bigotry — either overt or hidden or subconscious — hurts a company. What I’m saying is that there are ways to defend against this. And it is beyond me why anyone would object to that.
I guess I misunderstood you.
When you say: But I assure you that I am NOT saying that “’skin color,’ ‘religion,’ ’social class,’ etc. are important when it comes to determining who will be an effective employee.” I’m not saying anything even close to that. I’m not implying it, suggesting it or hinting at it.
I agree with you.
When you say: I believe that there are business advantages to a diverse workforce.
I’m not sure I agree with you, unless this next point is true: What I’m saying is that BECAUSE B2B companies FAIL to embrace diversity and FAIL to recruit from a broader pool they have created a situation where skin color, religion, etc. ARE the determining factors in who will get hired.
I’m not sure about this one, but it seems to make sense that a company that has only hired one kind of person (racially, etc) would not be an attractive place to work for people that are different.
If this is your main point Paul, that by being an overwhelmingly white industry (and it certainly seems to be by what I’ve seen), B2B media discourages qualified minority candidates from considering B2B media as a viable career environment, then I see what you’re saying, and think you’re probably right.
I think that diverse ideas and viewpoints is what we’re really after–can we agree on that? I just think that diverse ideas can come from anyone, regardless of whether they are a white person in a white room surrounded by other white people wearing white, or not. That’s probably where we differ.