Category Archives: diversity

Hiring Those with Autism Is Best Help You Can Give

This coming Wednesday, April 1, marks the beginning of National Autism Awareness Month 2015. (And no, this post has absolutely 181426919 -- autism awarenessnothing to do with the fun side of April 1. This post is absolutely serious.)

The following day, April 2, is World Autism Awareness Day, in case you need double impetus to give this more than just a passing thought — kind, indifferent or otherwise.

This United Nations site announces the 2015 theme for the World Autism Awareness Day as “Employment: The Autism Advantage.” It cites a surprising (to me) statistic, that more than 80 percent of adults with autism are unemployed.

Which is a shame for employers (maybe even shame on employers), considering this that follows from the U.N.:

“Research suggests that employers are missing out on abilities that people on the autism spectrum have in greater abundance than ‘neurotypical’ [a.k.a., neurologically typical] workers do — such as heightened abilities in pattern recognition and logical reasoning, as well as a greater attention to detail.”

We’ve certainly found similar evidence of special gifts employees with autism can bring to the workplace in features and news stories we’ve published in the near and not-so-near past. This 2013 feature, “Diversity of Thought,” quotes Marcia Scheiner, president and founder of the New York-based Asperger Syndrome Training and Employment Partnership, which helps college graduates with autism obtain professional positions.

As she puts it, individuals with autism can demonstrate excellent skills in a variety of areas when given a chance; many are incredibly loyal, tend not to leave their jobs, are detail-oriented and can be tremendously focused, which often leads to high productivity.

This feature, from 2010, “Aspies in the Workplace,” also highlights the gifts autistic workers can bring and the business sense it makes to hire them, as well as the adjustments employers can easily implement to ensure they’re comfortable and allowing those gifts to shine.

More recently, this piece by Mark McGraw from early last year provides proof of the therapeutic value employment brings to those with autism, and some very specific ways employers, and HR, can ensure the “win-win” for all. Clear communication and lots of structure, all three stories indicate, are key.

I’ve heard from experts — and from my oldest son, who teaches autistic high schoolers at a special school outside Philadelphia — that all too often, federal and state funding and services for autistic kids dry up, or at least substantially shrink, once they turn 21. It’s called “Aging Out,” as this piece in the New Jersey Monthly eloquently explains.

Those are the teens my son is teaching, the ones who will — in a few short years — be far more on their own than they are now, just trying to survive in a grueling, grown-up world. Many have great parental support, but parents don’t live forever and money for therapy, services and education doesn’t grow on trees.

For them, getting the chance to prove their value in a work environment that augments that chance has to be the biggest boost imaginable. Such a step toward security would surely quiet their parents’ nightmares as well.

Add to that the boost to the employer — not just in terms of work ethic and productivity, but reputation too — and the goal of turning that 80-percent unemployment figure on its ear becomes a big, beautiful no-brainer.

Twitter It!

Krawcheck Calls for Greater Diversity

Sallie Krawcheck

Sallie Krawcheck

The second day of SHRM’s Employment Law & Legislative Conference featured a morning talk by Sallie Krawcheck, a former high-profile Wall Street executive who’s now the chair of Ellevate, a New York-based mentoring network for women (formerly known as 85 Broads).

In describing her experiences as one of the few female leaders in an industry that continues to be dominated by white males, Krawcheck paid tribute to HR. “The first young man I had to fire threatened to kill me,” she said. “He said he would hunt me down in a dark alley. The second young man I had to fire insisted that I was doing so because I was actually in love with him. He suggested that I put him up in a love nest. So, I have a great deal of respect for what you in HR have to deal with.”

She also offered her own take on what led to the financial meltdown of 2008: “I don’t think it was greed so much as groupthink,” she said. “And what breaks groupthink? Diversity of thought.”

Krawcheck called on HR to “keep us honest, give us training on this, encourage us to have those courageous conversations where we say, ‘Dave, you interrupted Susie five times during her presentation, but you didn’t interrupt Bill once during his.’ ”

Companies today suffer from a surplus of mentoring opportunities for women but a deficit of sponsoring programs, she said, in which executives actively advocate for women in their careers. “Some companies are actually replacing their mentoring programs with sponsoring programs.”

Companies can demonstrate their commitment to diversity by making it a key developmental milestone, said Krawcheck. “Here’s a thought: Give responsibility for diversity to a high-potential white guy.”

Later on that day, a breakout session featured two board members from the National Labor Relations Board, who sought to explain the Board’s reasoning on controversial matters such as so-called “ambush elections” rule regarding union-certification elections.

“I’m told the best part of the new rule starts on page 500, where [Harry] Johnson and I write our dissent,” said Philip Miscimarra, who is — along with Johnson — one of the two Republican appointees to the five-member Board.

He and Johnson disagreed with the new elections rule on a number of different issues, particularly its dramatic compression of the time allowed between when a union files a certification petition and the election. “The [National Labor Relations Act] is silent with respect to timing,” said Miscimarra. “How fast is too fast, or how slow is too slow — it is silent on those issues.” He noted that both houses of Congress have passed a “resolution of disapproval” of the new rule — a resolution that could potentially nullify the rule should a Republican win the next presidential election and sign the resolution into law.

One of the most contentious issues the Board continues to wrestle with, said Miscimarra, is the extent to which companies have the right to restrict concerted activities by employees that could be considered as “disrespectful, discourteous or insubordinate.”

“Employers have been surprised to learn that rules they have in place for a good reason — rules that require employees to show courtesy and respect — are unlawful under our statute,” he said.  “I do hope the Board can do a better job of devising a standard in this area that people will find helpful.”

 

Twitter It!

Diversity, Leadership and Performance: i4cp Report

In HRE’s most-recent annual “What Keeps HR Executives Up at Night” survey, HR leaders ranked attracting and retaining diverse talent sixth on their list of top concerns, just below driving culture change and aligning people practices to business.

185905158Of course, it’s hardly a surprise attracting and retaining diverse talent would be a significant concern, considering the obvious benefits of employing a diverse workforce. But that said, there’s also little question employers have a lot more work to do on this front.

The link between diversity and business performance was one of many topics address during the i4cp 2015 Conference, held this week at the Fairmont Princess in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In his opening remarks, Kevin Oakes, CEO of i4cp, referenced a recent research report produced by the institute titled Diversity & Inclusion Practices that Promote Market Performance.

The research found high-performance organizations shared the following characteristics as far as D&I is concerned, including:

  • They make D&I part of the organization’s DNA;
  • They ground their D&I efforts in metrics, thereby spurring greater leadership buy-in;
  • They place greater emphasis on inclusion;
  • They have leaders who “seek awareness of differences” and “take action to establish relationships” that bridge gaps and build an understanding of differences.

Later in the morning, a panel featuring diversity leaders from CVS Health, W.W. Grainger and Lincoln Financial participated on a panel titled “Business Impact Diversity & Inclusion.”

Jacqui Roberson, senior director of inclusion and diversity for Grainger, noted that far too many organizations still operate in silos. In order for D&I initiatives to succeed, she said, employers need to get people to “cross over the lines.”

David Green, vice president of diversity at CVS Health, noted that having a CEO who gets it certainly doesn’t hurt.  Referring to CVS Health’s recent decision to remove tobacco from its store shelves, Green recalled how, soon after the decision was announced, his CEO came to him and said, “ ‘Just so you know, we need to make sure we’re thinking about what this means in helping [employees] quit tobacco. We need to be focused on multicultural communities, youth communities and lower-income communities.’ … I didn’t have to go knocking on his door to say, ‘What do you think about all those diverse communities.’ ”

At CVS Health, Green said, diversity operates as a separate function, but works closely with HR to ensure shared goals are in place and each group knows what the other is doing.

Altimeter Group Founder and Principal Analyst Charlene Li also explored some  key themes from her new book (released Tuesday, the day of her talk) during a session titled “The Engaged Leader: A Strategy for Digital Transformation.” (Her book shares the same title as the session.)

Technologies are changing the nature of relationships, Li said. Yet many leaders, she added, continue to be stuck in the old ways of doing things.

If organizations are going to thrive in the new digital era, she said, that’s going to need to change.

“Technologies come and go,” she said, “but leadership is [always going to be around] and something you need to have a long-term strategy about.”

In her talk, Li shared several examples involving companies that are using technologies to strengthen the link between leaders and employees.

One story she told involved the introduction of a new burger at restaurant chain Red Robin.  Soon after the launch, she said, leaders at Red Robin learned through the company’s internal social network that the burger wasn’t very good. Employees were saying on the site that “people were complaining about it” and “the burger was falling apart,” she said.

Listening to that feedback, Li said, the organization quickly realized it had a problem and leaders went back to employees for more details. “They then took [that feedback] back to corporate headquarters, cooked up a new recipe and brought it back to the restaurants in 30 days.”

To put this in context, Li said, “it usually takes 12 to 18 months to change a recipe and get it back to the restaurants, but they did it [in this case] in 30 days!”

As a result, she said, Red Robin didn’t just change the recipe. By recognizing the value these employees were delivering to the organization, she said, “they were able to change [the company’s] relationship with those employees.”

Value—or more precisely the “lack of it”—was one of the reasons behind Sears Holdings Corp.’s decision to begin to seriously revamp its performance-management system last year.

During a session titled “The Rise of the Crowd: How Social Platforms Can Drive Performance and Democratize Performance Management,” two Sears Holdings Corp. HR leaders detailed the retailer’s efforts to transform the way it does performance management.

Aimed at salaried workers, the new initiative is based on the work of Neuroleadership Institute Director David Rock and others.

“The old process was cumbersome and annual reviews were happening three or four months after the year had ended—so by the time we were having the conversation, things were stale,” recalled Phil Menzel, vice president of HR for SHC.

In contrast, Menzel said, the new system is much more agile and responsive.

Using a tool developed internally called GameOn, associates every quarter now sit down to identify up to five objectives for themselves.

The new system also features an online feedback tool called Soundboard, which is accessible to associates. “People can go on the tool and request feedback from anyone in the company or provide feedback,” said Chris Mason, head of strategic talent solutions at SHC. “It gives people something they can take action on right away.”

The final part of the new process is a quarterly “check-in” component aimed at facilitating a more meaningful dialogue between associates and managers.

Martin noted that associates now have to prepare as much for the check-ins (which includes a one-page worksheet) as their managers.

Though still very much a work in progress, the new system has already shown some good traction, according to Menzel and Mason.

Introduced last August, the Soundboard tool already has 10,000 active users and has resulted in 40,000 pieces of feedback. “When we surveyed people, 75 percent said they took the information and actually made a change in [their] behavior,” Mason said.

The new system officially launched in February.

Twitter It!

A ‘Window’ into Transforming GM’s Culture

There have been no shortage of books over the years devoted to the glass ceiling, a phenomenon that is still very much evident today in organizations, both big and small. But few, if any, have attempted to explore the issue through the story of one single leader.

cq5dam.web.1280.1280In Road to Power: How GM’s Mary Barra Shattered the Glass Ceiling, a book being released today by Bloomberg Press, Laura Colby, a reporter for Bloomberg News, has found a worthy subject in General Motors’ CEO, Mary Barra. What makes her story of particular interest to those of us in HR is the fact that, for a short but very trying period of time (when GM was in the process of navigating through bankruptcy), Barra led the HR function at GM.

As head of HR, Colby reports in Road to Power, Barra held a significant amount of power in shaping the company’s future management. “Thousands of people were leaving the company. Barra’s job was to maintain morale among the most promising ones—the high achievers—so that they wouldn’t bolt at a time when they could get bigger salaries elsewhere.”

Early in her tenure as HR chief, Colby writes, Barra went on the road, “visiting the company’s locations across the country. She’d hold brown-bag lunches at plants and offices to answer employee questions. She also had a series of more formal meetings with invited representatives from different sections of the company, so-called diagonal slices. With more than a dozen plants closing and thousands of workers laid off, she needed to underline the message that the company wanted those who remained to do their jobs well and to be accountable for the results.”

Colby describes in the book some of the more formidable challenges Barra faced at the time. But as the author reminds us on at least a few occasions, sometimes it’s the small stuff that can be particularly telling about an organization’s culture.

A great example can be found in the chapter titled “The Volt: Shocked into Action” (keep in mind this is an excerpt from an advanced copy of the book). It specifically touches on GM’s dress code …

“One of the most iconic things Barra did to get the message across that times were changing was to relax the company’s dress code. It ran to about 10 pages when she joined HR, including descriptions of proper attire for everyone from assembly line workers to office staff to executives. “It was probably the most interesting change and the biggest learning that I had into a culture,” Barra said at the Fortune women’s forum. She whittled the code down into two words. We said, ‘Dress appropriately.’ That was it.”

Rather than liberating employees, the change left some of them terrified. Barra said she’d have managers e-mailing or calling her and asking for written details of the policy.

“So I’d take them through, and say, ‘What do you do?’ And they’d say, ‘I manage 20 people and a $10 million budget.’ ” And I’d say, ‘I can trust you to manage 20 people and $10 million but I can’t trust you to dress appropriately, to figure that out?’ ”

True, the future of GM hardly hinged on what folks wore—or didn’t wear—to work. But as Colby quotes the subject of the book saying at the Fortune conference, Barra considered the dress-code experience a “window into the change we needed to make.”

And for those of us reading about it some years later, it serves as a valuable reminder that many of the policies and practices we put in place as HR leaders, even the ones that don’t fall into the category of make-or-break—along with the behaviors we demonstrate—send powerful signals about our organization’s culture and priorities.

Twitter It!

Considering the Stigma of Affirmative Action

Two recent studies out of the University of Michigan raise some troubling questions about just how far we’ve come as a diverse 468250323 -- diversity hiringnation, with equal access to all in life, school and work.

The most recent, published on the Phys.Org site just this past Monday, contains the unsettling finding that, although a credential from an elite university results in more employer responses for all applicants, black candidates from these prestigious universities do only as well in getting the job as white candidates from less-selective universities.

When our editorial team discussed this study at its Tuesday news meeting, “unsettling” wasn’t the word most used. “Sad” was the term of choice.

“These racial differences,” says the study’s author, S. Michael Gaddis, “suggest that a bachelor’s degree, even one from an elite institution, cannot fully counteract the importance of race in the labor market. Thus, both discrimination and differences in human capital contribute to racial economic inequality.”

One can’t help but wonder if some of those hiring managers and recruiters studied by Gaddis weren’t jaded by assumptions that such a collegiate star — at least on paper — was the recipient of favorable treatment and maybe easier hurdles to jump, thanks to affirmative action.

Which brings me to the other, earlier U-M research that essentially confirms — by carefully examining — the stereotypes many do, indeed, have about co-workers who advance through affirmative action and diversity initiatives.

Researchers David Mayer of the U-M’s Ross School of Business, Lisa Leslie of New York University’s Stern School of Business and David Kravitz of George Mason University’s School of Business examined research showing affirmative-action recipients being viewed as less competent and competing for company resources. Based on that, they say, they’re seen as less likeable by their colleagues, which can lead to negative assessments of their performance.

“People have all kinds of assumptions about what affirmative action means,” says Mayer. “A lot of people assume it’s about hiring people less qualified [than leading candidates] because they are a member of a protected group … .”

In Leslie’s words:

“Diversity initiatives are effective, but also produce unintended consequences that can limit the career success of the very groups of employees they are intended to benefit. Implementing an affirmative-action plan without taking steps to avoid unintended consequence is unlikely to be an effective solution.”

So what should employers do with all this? Researchers from the earlier study say none of the drawbacks mean companies should get rid of affirmative-action programs. Instead, they say, such programs should be implemented more effectively and positive outcomes, such as having high-level minority role models in business organizations, should be studied.

But how do we alter those silent, destructive mind-sets that very well could be impacting resume assessments where ethnicities are known? Those mind-sets that whisper “easier ride”?

Hard to say.

Twitter It!

John and the Thick Glass Ceiling

According to a new piece on the New York TimesTheUpshot section, fewer large companies are run by women than by men named John.

If that seems like an unlikely thing to consider, that nugget of information was dug up from what the Times calls its Glass Ceiling Index, explained thusly:

Among chief executives of S.&P. 1500 firms, for each woman, there are four men named John, Robert, William or James. We’re calling this ratio the Glass Ceiling Index, and an index value above one means that Jims, Bobs, Jacks and Bills — combined — outnumber the total number of women, including every women’s name, from Abby to Zara. Thus we score chief executive officers of large firms as having an index score of 4.0.

The GCI is inspired by a recent Ernst & Young report, which computed analogous numbers for board directors, according to the piece. That report yielded an index score of 1.03 for directors, meaning that for every one woman, there were 1.03 Jameses, Roberts, Johns and Williams — combined — serving on the boards of S.&P. 1500 companies.

While the methodology behind the figures is certainly interesting and unique, the NYT piece notes that it also points to the sad truth “that in many important decision-making areas of American life, women remain vastly outnumbered.”

Twitter It!

Rethinking a Few of the Millennial Myths

At the risk of exceeding our quota for stories about millennials (both our Jan./Feb. and upcoming April issues explore different aspects of this workforce demographic), here’s some new research coming out of IBM yesterday that’s worth a closer look.

485373695Not surprisingly, the study titled “Myths, Exaggerations and Uncomfortable Truths” identified the difference between millennials and older employers when it comes to things like digital proficiency. But on issues such as career goals, employee engagement, preferred leadership styles and recognition, the study shows that Gen Yers share many of the same attitudes as their Gen X and baby boomer counterparts.

More precisely, the IBM research took aim at the following five myths:

Myth 1: Millennials’ career goals and expectations are different from their elders (i.e., unrealistic).

Rather, millennials want financial security and a diverse workplace just as much as their older colleagues.

Myth 2: Millennials need endless praise and think everyone should get a trophy.

For Gen Yers, the idea of a perfect boss isn’t someone who pats them on the back, but someone who is ethical and fair, and shares information. Thirty-five percent of boomers and millennials listed this as the top quality they seek in a boss. (Someone who asks for their input is last on their list of priorities.)

Myth 3: Millennials are digital addicts with no boundaries between work and play.

Not really. The research reveals that they are less likely than older generations to use their personal social-media accounts for business purposes. Twenty-seven percent of millennials said they never do so—compared to only 7 percent of baby boomers.

Myth 4: Millennials can’t make a decision without crowdsourcing.

Millennials value others’ input, but the research suggests they are no more likely to seek advice when making work decisions than Gen Xers. (Even though they think gaining consensus is important, more than 50 percent of Gen Yers believe that their leaders are most qualified to make business decisions.)

Myth 5: Millennials are more likely to jump ship if a job doesn’t fulfill their passions.

The IBM research suggests that millennials change jobs for the same reasons other generations do and are no more likely than older colleagues to leave a job to follow their passions. In fact, millennials, Gen Xers and baby boomers are all two times more likely to leave a job to enter the “fast lane”—i.e., to make more money and work in a more innovative environment—than for any other reason, including saving the world.

In light of these findings, IBM’s advice to employers is to stop relying on generational stereotypes when planning and serving their workforce. Instead, they should be pursuing more robust, nuanced talent strategies and analytics to better understand employees as individuals to make the most of their skills.

Considering the source, it’s no surprise IBM might offer up such advice. But that said, there’s no denying that placing entire generations in single buckets is never a good practice and treading carefully as you formulate strategies like this usually is a sound idea. (As most of us know only too well, there’s often another study lurking just around the corner that could turn the latest one on its head.)

Twitter It!

Watching a Big Move to Help Women in Tech

A recent announcement by Facebook and LinkedIn that the two entities are joining forces to boost the dwindling numbers of women 462444481 -- women in techstudying technology and working in the field is certainly worth watching.

Short on a lot of details about the collaboration, the announcement still got an amazing amount of press because of the two parties involved — led, in part, by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg.

Sandberg has been a prominent advocate for women in the workplace, ever since her 2011 book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead came out. (Here is one of many pieces we’ve posted about her book and her premise that women need help fighting the barriers — some within themselves — that keep them from achieving leadership positions. Here is one other, primarily about her book and the “Lean In” support circles it aimed to spark in workplaces nationwide.)

As the first post quotes her from her book:

“We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in. [The result is that] men still run the world.”

Whether Sandberg and the people she’s working with think this inability to effect their own progress is a primary reason behind women’s dwindling numbers in technology studies and jobs isn’t real clear. Nor is it clear how much money each company is committing to this effort, or just how it will function. (The announcement simply says Sandberg and LinkedIn CEO Jeffrey Weiner will be “launching mentoring and support programs at colleges to get more women involved in studying technology in general, but also as future employees for their companies.”)

What is clear, though, is the fact that the talent pool is shrinking. According to the announcement, the percentage of people enrolled in undergraduate computer-science programs who are women peaked at 35 percent in 1985 and is now down to about 17 percent.

Clearly, something needs to be done. Will be interesting to see just what this initiative is and what it can do.

Twitter It!

Facing ‘Double Jeopardy’ in STEM

One hundred percent is normally associated with a perfect score in something, but a new academic study on race and gender in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) is now casting that figure in a very imperfect light.

University of California Hastings School of Law Professor Joan C. Williams and the Center for WorkLife Law just released the report titled Double Jeopardy? Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science, which demonstrates how subtle—and not-so-subtle—bias shapes the daily work lives of women in STEM, and how women’s experience of gender bias is shaped by race.

“This is the first time someone has asked women whether they have encountered in actual workplaces the specific types of gender bias documented in social psychologists’ labs,” said Williams.

Given the amount of attention recently paid to the lack of gender diversity in the tech space,  it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that women working in STEM fields have experienced some form of bias or discrimination in the workplace.

But perhaps the most startling result of the research was this: 100 percent of the women interviewed reported some sort of gender bias.

“But studies of gender bias generally focus on the experiences of white women, leaving unanswered the major question of whether the same patterns of bias extend to women of color,” Williams said. “This report finds that women of color experience pervasive gender bias—but in ways that often differ from the ways white women experience it.”

In essence, women of color working in the STEM fields find themselves in “double jeopardy” when it comes to dealing with bias in the workplace.

Significant findings of the report include:

  1. 100% of the women interviewed reported gender bias.
  2. Black women are more likely (77%) than other women (66%) to report having to prove themselves over and over again.
  3. The stereotype that Asians are good at science appears to help Asian-American women with students—but not with colleagues.
  4. Asian-Americans reported both more pressure than other groups of women to adhere to traditionally feminine roles and more pushback if they don’t.
  5. Latinas who behave assertively risk being seen as “angry” or “too emotional,” even when they report they weren’t angry; they just weren’t deferential.
  6. Latinas report being pressured by colleagues to do admin support work for their male colleagues, such as organizing meetings and filling out forms.
  7. Both Latinas and Black women report regularly being mistaken as janitors.

From the looks of the findings, there’s definitely a great deal of work to be done before the STEM playing field evens out. But the report introduces a new approach to organizational change to interrupt gender bias, called Metrics-Based Bias Interrupters, developed by Professor Williams last year.

Bias Interrupters uses a four-step iterative process: 1) survey women to find out whether they think gender bias is playing out in basic business systems (recruiting, assignments, evaluations, etc.); 2) develop objective metrics to test whether women’s perceptions are accurate; 3) implement “Bias Interrupters” to interrupt bias in real time; 4) see whether the relevant metric improves and, if it doesn’t, strengthen or modify the intervention.

Here’s hoping these “bias interrupters” can put a dent in that imperfect 100-percent score the next time research is done on the topic.

Twitter It!

Favoritism is No Friend of Diversity

469735239  -- workplace diversityI thought Martin Luther King Day might be a good time to reflect on the forces that make workplaces less diverse than they can and should be. Many are well-known and well-documented, including discriminatory hiring and promoting practices, lack of disability accommodations, insensitivity to gender-identity issues, unequal pay … the list goes on.

But as this recent piece in the Kansas City Star points out, it’s not just about tangible practices and accommodations — or lack thereof. It can be far more subtle and hard to pinpoint, writer Michelle T. Johnson says, when your diversity culprit is favoritism. As she writes:

“What does favoritism even look like? Favoritism is usually about choice. In some workplaces, the work and the people who do it don’t have much variance in how the work is done and who does it. However, in other workplaces, work decisions are made frequently — assignments, shifts, territories, days off. With most decisions come subjective judgments. Every industry and workplace is so different, yet everyone can probably relate to some area of the job that bosses influence [subjectively] at least weekly.”

Her advice to all managers and HR leaders is to always be examining “why you make the personnel decisions you do.” She continues:

“People are quick to defend their decisions, saying they base them on the best person to do the job. But over time, what conditions have you created to allow, for example, one person to inevitably do the job better than another? And if that has happened, what is the reason? Is it that the person reminds you of yourself or has similar interests, or because the person has a personality you find easier to get along with?”

Favoritism can be just that simple, she says. Some people make you spontaneously smile when they walk through the door. Others make you instinctively come up with an exit plan out of a conversation. “Know who those people are and go from there,” she says.

Granted, not all employers can be as proactive as Intel was in its recent announcement that Andrew McIlvaine blogged about earlier this month. Specifically, CEO Brian Krzanich shared in his keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas his company’s plans to spend $300 million dollars over the next five years to improve the gender and racial diversity of its U.S. employee base, and of Silicon Valley at large.

Though he made the announcement, the real powerhouse behind this initiative is Intel President Renée James, as this Fortune piece suggests. Since taking over the presidency in 2013, it says, James “has pushed to review a decade’s worth of diversity data and commissioned a new hiring program that incentivized managers to hire more women and minorities.”

Whichever end of the initiative spectrum you and your organization currently find yourselves on — boldly spending and going where few have gone, like Intel, or simply taking the kind of inward look at your management and personnel choices suggested by Johnson — there’s no better time than now to start thwarting your business’ inequality and no better day to get started than this one.

 

Twitter It!