By David R. Barclay

Affirmative Action and Managing Diversity

David R. Barclay, former corporate vice president of work force diversity for Hughes Aircraft Company, has been actively involved in equal employment opportunity, affirmative action, and human relations programs for three decades. As corporate vice president and member of the company's policy board, Barclay served as the corporate advocate and chief officer for the development of programs for an integrated, diverse work force. The following comments are reprinted by permission from The Diversity Factor, Fall 1993. As readers will see, his prescient insights still are applicable.

Is "Workforce Diversity" just another fad that will disappear in several years? Or is it truly an issue the American business community will seriously address? Will affirmative action survive?

Will the increasing conflict between affirmative action and diversity divert attention away from the real problems still confronting this country?

The answers to these questions are not as clear as some may suggest. The real issue is not whether "diversity" or "affirmative action" will survive; it is how we capitalize on the strength of both programs. To understand this point, we need to explore the historical background of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity (AA/EEO) and diversity.

THE DEBATE

For decades, this country has been embroiled in controversy over the need for affirmative action programs to ensure equal employment opportunities for people of color and white women. As the debate rages on, opponents have become increasingly vocal.

The national uproar that followed the introduction of the 1990 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts clearly demonstrated how deep-seated this issue is with the American public. President Bush, like many others, continually mischaracterized the legislation as a "quota" bill, even though it contained specific language prohibiting the use of quotas. The President's veto of the 1990 act sent a clear signal that civil rights and race relations were not a high-priority item for his administration. The ultimate passage of the 1991 act has not lessened the resolve of those who still oppose affirmative action. Unfortunately, although the current administration has signaled a different approach through its initial cabinet-level appointments, it has not articulated a vision or specific programs to enhance a civil rights agenda.

In addition, the list of vocal opponents has increased over the last few years. Academicians, industry representatives, and some diversity consultants have joined the ranks of those stating we no longer need affirmative action. Some have described it as a relic serving no useful purpose. Racism and sexism, they contended, have disappeared.

Some of these opponents are themselves members of minority communities:

* Roosevelt Thomas, a popular diversity consultant, in a Harvard Business Review article, "From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity," stated, "American businesses are now filled with progressive people -- many of them minorities and women themselves -- whose prejudices, where they still exist, are much too deeply suppressed to interfere with recruitment."

* San Jose State University professor Shelby Steele, in "The Content of Our Character," noted, "After 20 years of implementation, affirmative action has shown itself to be more bad than good and Blacks now stand to lose more from it than they gain."

* Economist Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at Hoover Institution, referring to affirmative action, recently said, "We now have a situation where everybody is worse off than if such policies did not exist. Blacks have fewer jobs, whites have more resentment, the company has to settle for its second choice of location, and the society has more internal strife."

THE CASE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 

Is there a need for affirmative action? In spite of the naysayers, my answer is clearly and unequivocally "YES!"

For many of us who work in both equal employment opportunity and diversity programs, it is impossible to agree with the statements made by Thomas, Sowell, and Steele. In spite of all claims to the contrary, this society still struggles with the "isms" -- racism, sexism, and all the rest. There is still a reluctance to admit the deep-rooted nature of discrimination, prejudice, racism, and sexism that continue to pervade our society. Until we can admit this reality, developing a solution becomes very difficult.

We cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore these problems, hoping they will resolve themselves and disappear. One must wonder if our historical patterns of exclusion and differential treatment are so deeply ingrained in the fabric of our society that they will hinder us from capitalizing on the strength of our growing diversity.

Problems of this magnitude cannot and will not be resolved by catchy phrases and simplistic dreams and visions. We must do more than just state, "I support equal opportunity." The problems are far too complex. Barriers will not come down with simple pronouncements or a one-time cultural awareness training program that suggests that everything is now okay.

I must ask, "What has changed in our society that leads anyone to believe that racism and sexism have diminished to the point we no longer need affirmative action? What signs are there that we no longer need measurements and accountability?"

I frequently hear the new breed of diversity consultants -- even those who have themselves profited from affirmative action -- suggesting, "We don't need these numbers -- these 'quotas' -- any longer." Yet evidence to the contrary is all around us. Hate crimes statistics, public opinion/perception polls, glass ceiling issues, and complaint and litigation activity certainly do not provide any comforting feelings that we are solving our race relations problems.

We only need to look at our history to understand that equal rights have never been provided voluntarily. As unpopular and discouraging as it may be, we must recognize that progress has only been achieved through enforcement mechanisms, including legislation, regulatory requirements, and judicial review. This is true of all segments of our society, including education, employment, housing, public accommodations, voting rights, and, to some degree, our criminal justice system.

One attempt to correct the past practices of exclusion was the design and implementation of affirmative action programs. However, affirmative action was never expected to solve ALL our problems. Nor was Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to be a cure-all. Both Title VII and affirmative action were mechanisms aimed at combating employment discrimination.

But how often have we heard this country's preoccupation with 'quotas' and the continuing misrepresentations of being required to "lower standards," provide "preferential treatment," and "hire and promote unqualified personnel"? I would ask, "In what regulation or court order does it state that an employer must lower standards, hire and promote unqualified employees, or use quotas?".

In spite of this continuing backlash, progress HAS been made. During the last 25 years, substantial numbers of minorities and women have entered the work force and are slowly moving up the corporate ladder. People of color and white women at all levels -- not just the highly educated or "fast-trackers" -- have made these gains. 

Affirmative action has focused attention on employment discrimination; it has identified "under-utilizations" and "no utilizations"; and it has created a systematic approach for corrective action. It has created a process for change. Although affirmative action has not solved all our problems, it HAS worked.

Some people believe they have been stigmatized by this wicked term, "affirmative action." They may very well have been stigmatized and stereotyped, but it was not because of affirmative action.

Those who are concerned with the "stigma" should not believe that they were the FIRST person of color or white woman who was qualified for the position! They were not the FIRST to merit such positions, though they may have been the first to receive them. Such reasoning reflects naiveté and a failure to understand that many who came before were well qualified by anyone's standards but were denied opportunities solely because of their race or gender.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND DIVERSITY

While I stress the historical and current importance of affirmative action, I also recognize the importance of the emerging issue of diversity. But the question is not one of "affirmative action or diversity." The question is how to integrate the two programs into one coordinated approach and capitalize on the strength of both efforts.

The June 1987 Hudson Institute report "Workforce 2000" identified many of the changing demographics that would impact the future market. These included:

1) The U.S. population and work force will grow more slowly than at any time since the 1920s; 

2) The average age of the population and the work force will rise, and the pool of young workers entering the labor market will shrink;

3) More women will enter the work force;

4) Minorities will become a larger percentage of new entrants into the labor force; and 

5) The percentage of the population and the work force represented by immigrants will be the largest since the First World War.

These findings, plus our concern that we would experience shortages of engineers and scientists and require a higher level of skills and education for new jobs, focused the national attention on these changing demographics. Simultaneously, there was a perception that our education system was unable to produce graduates who would be prepared to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing world of work.

Out of these early discussions came the birth of a new industry, "Valuing and Managing Diversity." Diversity consultants began to provide "awareness" training, focused on examining the cultural, racial, and gender factors affecting the work environment. The methodology was similar to the "T-groups" and "sensitivity training" used 25 years ago, and was aimed at changing attitudes. But my experience over the years indicates that little change in attitude has in fact occurred.

It is clear that much more than a training program is required to meet our long-range goals. We must aim for changes in behaviors, not just attitudes. We must focus on examining and modifying processes and institutionalizing those changes.

There is also a growing concern that the diversity initiative will lose steam because many of the findings of the Hudson Institute report are being challenged. The current major changes in the world economy could not be predicted when the report was issued; it may be that because of these changes, some of the original predictions were overstated.

At the same time the increasing numbers of people of color and white women are entering the work force, there is an increasing number of white males with higher skills, educations, job seniority, and experience who are joining the ranks of the unemployed. Large corporate entities are flattening their organizations, resulting in fewer promotional opportunities for everyone. Further, national trends indicate that the lion's share of future employment opportunities will occur in small companies and in start-up ventures.

Historically, these employers have been unresponsive to the traditional EEO and affirmative actions efforts. All of these trends represent potential barriers to diversity efforts and limitations on attempts to break the glass ceiling.

As more attention is directed toward diversity training, there is also the potential of increasing conflict between diversity efforts and EEO/affirmative action. In some companies, the two programs are being separated organizationally, placing them in direct competition for decreasing resources. In a few instances, EEO/affirmative action programs are being de-emphasized or even replaced by the voluntary efforts of diversity training. This is a short-sighted and counterproductive approach. The elimination of affirmative action is clearly not the solution to the overall problem. Without the enforcement power of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity legislation, we will quickly lose the gains of the past 25 years.

THE NEW CHALLENGES

Both AA/EEO and diversity initiatives are required to meet the rapid changes we are facing in the last decade of this century. Whatever the limitations may be to the original Hudson Institute estimate, it is nonetheless clear that changing demographics will require different and improved management skills. The new work force is already radically different from the old: There are more Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, Native-Americans, white women, and employees with disabilities. Our population is aging, and older workers are choosing -- or being forced -- to remain in the work force longer.

As the work force changes, there are increasing pressures to accommodate different cultural values and a different work ethic. Employees want more responsibility and authority -- and more opportunities to participate in the decision-making process. They are pressing for the chance to apply their individual skills and creativity and to do work that is more comprehensive and holistic.

The new issues are complex and will impact the total work force. Employers, while confronting financial pressures and the need to downsize, will simultaneously have to focus more attention on child care, employee network groups, alternative work schedules, elder care, work/life concerns, dispute-resolution procedures, career development, and redefining "upward mobility." Employees are demanding a work environment that is fair and responsive to all employees and their concerns.

All of these issues require employers to face the most difficult challenge of all: changing the culture of the organization. Many are asking, "Why should we change? Our company is successful. Change is only disruptive; it creates anxieties and fear among employees."

But change is inevitable. Given the new reality of a more competitive and international marketplace -- a more diverse customer base -- the historical model of a homogeneous culture of white men, particularly in the management ranks, is no longer valid. The characteristics of the old homogeneous culture included cronyism and the "Old-Boy Network," excluding anyone who was "different." It required assimilation -- the expectation that those who were "different" from the white-male norm would try to look and act as much as possible like white men. The old culture relied on subjective selection procedures that generally resulted in hiring and promoting people who were just like those doing the hiring and promoting.

Attempts to retain a homogeneous culture will adversely affect the ability of employers to be competitive. Unless the corporation can nurture diversity at all levels, it won't be able to adapt in a timely manner to market changes. The homogeneous organization finds it difficult to communicate to those who are different. Without the ability to adapt, to communicate, and to understand the changing marketplace, strategic decisions will be made in a vacuum.

A diverse work force will enhance an employer's creativity and problem-solving ability. It will increase its flexibility to meet new challenges, and it will provide a competitive advantage in meeting business objectives.


FACING THE FUTURE

Where do we go from here? The steps required for implementation of an effective diversity program are not unlike the steps needed to implement an effective affirmative action program. What must be made abundantly clear is that diversity is NOT a replacement for affirmative action; it is an extension. Every diversity program must have objectives, goals, measurement tools, and accountability -- the very same essential elements of an affirmative action plan.

Diversity must become a "core value" of the competitive organization, and it should focus management efforts on improving and creating processes as well as results. Diversity must become a fundamental management philosophy which is integrated into the company's overall operating plans and strategies.

Diversity initiatives will never be successful, however, unless we can frame the issue to focus on bottom-line results. We must move beyond the rhetoric of the past, which suggested that the primary impetus was "social responsibility," and state clearly and emphatically that the utilization of all segments of our population is a business and economic imperative.

If we are to overcome the historical patterns of prejudice and discrimination that still exist toady, we must use every tool available. This is not the time to eliminate programs or processes that have worked! It is not the time to put our hopes only on an effort that has a foundation in volunteerism. We cannot simply wait for "the right thing" to be done. There must be accountability to measure progress in our diversity efforts just as there is accountability to measure progress in achieving production, financial, new business acquisition, and profit goals.

"Valuing and Managing Diversity" programs must not be subverted to take us back to the days when we pretended that the passage of time would inevitably lead to the end of discrimination. Martin Luther King made the point succinctly: "We must purge ourselves from the tranquilizing drug of gradualism."

To capitalize on the strength of a diverse work force, we must bring to bear all the resources we have, including affirmative action. The question is still open: "Will this society find the will and the ways to provide opportunities for all of its people?" It is clear that both diversity initiatives and affirmative action programs are essential tools for achieving our goal of creating a society that truly provides equal opportunity.

REFERENCES

Johnston, William B. and Arnold H. Packer. Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute, June, 1987.
Sowell, Thomas. "Commentary." Rocky Mountain News, July 14, 1993.
Steele, Shelby. "Affirmative Action: The High Price of Preferences." Los Angeles Times, September 30, 1990.
Thomas, R. Roosevelt Jr. "From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity." Harvard Business Review, March–April, 1990.


12/20/99