iCountry Media

Old William of Ockham got it right way back in the fourteenth century: when there appears to be more than one explanation for a phenomenon, the simplest one is probably the right one. If you find a half-eaten ham sandwich in your refrigerator one morning, you could theorize that a wayward elf had stopped by for a snack on his way to the North Pole while you were asleep, OR you could come to the conclusion that your husband, who has been dieting for weeks with minimal results, was up feasting in the middle of the night. Your call.

Ockham's razor, as William of Ockham's method of reasoning has come to be known, is a handy little tool for cutting away at rhetoric. Like all razors, this model of logic has an exquisitely sharp edge, able to slice impractical reasoning to ribbons, laying bare the blistering realities of the unintended consequences of poorly thought out policies. When applied to race-based diversity measures, Ockham's razor reveals the absurdity of the now trendy, and quite profitable, diversity training industry—an unintended industry producing unintended consequences.

Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy, established the social engineering program we have come to know as Affirmative Action. While the intention may have been honorable, the program has not brought about the results supporters had hoped. Proponents like Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center lament that instead of a decline in race-based hate groups, there has been a rise, "In the last five years, we've seen a 30% increase in the number of hate groups..." (Drennen, 2007). Ironically, at the same time the supposed number of hate groups is growing, so is the diversity training industry, by leaps and bounds. By some estimates, organizations spend upwards of ten billion dollars a year on diversity training programs, hiring firms that specialize in race relations.

Let's break out Ockham's razor—when more than one explanation exists for an observable phenomenon, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. While we are offered multiple explanations with complicated graphs and duly annotated references by Morris Dees and others who claim that Americans are becoming more intolerant, there is a singular, simpler explanation: not only has the industry failed, diversity training companies are promoting racism through their actions, not adverting it, all the while profiting wildly from a short-sighted definition of workplace diversity.

Race-based diversity measures promote individual insecurities and racial tension in the workplace because the measure of diversity is based solely on skin color, ignoring the richness of experience the individual brings to the organization. Diversity is not defined by ethnicity alone, unless you work in the diversity training industry. Consider this: Dr. James Sidanius, a professor of psychology and African American studies at Harvard University, and his team of researchers found:

Ethnically oriented, student-based organizations such as the Afro-American Studies Association or the Latin American Student Association create more [racial] tension. Once students joined these organizations, it increased their own ethnic identification and gave students the feeling that they were being ethnically victimized by other student groups, (Nealy, 2009).

A respected black professor, John H. McWhorter, states:

Affirmative action gives blacks a deep-reaching inferiority complex that causes them to view themselves as victims. If every black student on a college campus was admitted according to the same criteria as other students, it would help erode feelings of inferiority to whites, (Institute for the Study of American Popular Culture, 2001).

Another Harvard professor concluded:

 For the past 40 years, companies have tried to increase diversity, spending millions of dollars a year on any number of programs without actually stopping to determine whether or not their efforts have been worth it. Certainly in the case of diversity training, the answer is no, (Nealy, 2009).

Instead of outsourcing diversity training, organizations would be time and money ahead if managers incorporated diversity into their organizational culture instead of applying a one-size-fits-all template provided by the diversity training industry. In-house communication directors are far more likely to be effective at incorporating organizational diversity through the agencies of achievement and teamwork than are outside "experts" who exploit racial tension for profit.

In Dance of Change, the ground-breaking work by Peter Senge and other noted experts in the field of organizational communication, Toni Gregory explains why focusing only on race is a strategy for failure:

But if you want to make organizations less prone to these problems, then the feelings of being victimized by racism, bigotry, and sexism, will distract you from the core issue. The core issue is the ability of people not only to learn to be authentic in their interactions and relationships, in the workplace and everywhere else, but to apply that learning in increasingly effective ways.

Here we see the stunningly simple truth: authenticity promotes diversity, and authenticity begins with the individual. Instead of hiring a costly diversity training firm to promote racial differences, in-house managers who have personal contact with individual employees can promote authenticity in their interactions, thereby promoting a full-faceted diversity of thought and skill while emphasizing the individual's contribution to the process. Senge illustrates both the simplicity and effectiveness of individual authenticity over superficial diversity training as he relates the story of a black manager at IBM who was convinced he was being marginalized because of his race, at least initially. When the manager began asking other employees in the organization if they felt the same way, he quickly learned that many employees, most of them non-black, felt marginalized because of a change in IBM's procurement policy that left their departments out of the loop . This experience became a catalyst for growth at IBM, helping to build authentic relationships based on the individual's contribution rather than their race.

No matter how you slice it, diversity training doesn't cut it. It's expensive and ineffective, doing more harm than good. In addition to Ockham's razor, organizations might want to adapt another bit of wisdom from the ages when considering how to implement meaningful organizational diversity, "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Promoting authenticity and individual value from within an organization is far more likely to produce workplace diversity and harmony than hiring an expensive outside "diversity" consultant with a cardboard cut-out, race-based strategy. Your call.

References

Drennen, K. (11 October 2007). CBS ˜Early Show Sees Racism Epidemic in America. Media Research Center. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2007/10/11/cbs-early-show-sees-racism-epidemic-america.

Fahnestock, J. & Secor, M. (2004). A rhetoric of argument. USA: McGraw-Hill.

 Institute for the Study of American Popular Culture, (2001) Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://www.americanpopularculture.com/archive/politics/no_

affirmative_action.htm.

Nealy, M. (10 March 2009). Do Affinity Groups Create More Racial Tension on Campus? Diverse Online. Retrieved September 23, 2009,from http://www.diverseeducation.com/

artman/publish/printer_12376.shtml.

O'Donnell, R. (27 January 2003). Racial Tension in the Workplace FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx

?q=racial+tension+in+the+workplace&d=76715905918820&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=14961966,740a9802.

Personnel Today. http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/02/20/39475/diversity-training-what-a-waste-of-time.html 20 feb 2007.

Senge et al, (1999). The dance of change: A fifth discipline fieldbook for mastering the challenges of learning organizations. USA: Doubleday.

Sykes, M. (August, 1995). The Origins of Affirmative Action. The National Organization for Women. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html.

Wudka, J. (9/24/1998). What is Ockham's Razor? Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html