11 ms·

Diversity-Related Training Meta-analysis

• throwaway93832 6y ago
  But dont share this with your company, you'll be fired. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ1JeII0eGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ1JeII0eGo
  • gumby 6y ago
    For those who don't want to click: this is about Damore. His message/article did not address efficacy of such training which is the topic of this post.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • dang 6y ago
    "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• causality0 6y ago
  Members of the majority group are told to listen to, and validate, the perspectives of people from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups — even as they are instructed to submit their own feelings and perspectives to intense scrutiny. A common effect I've observed is that diversity training often seems to trigger defensive behavior. People of the majority group perceive that the organization cares much more about the feelings of the minority group than their own, and so members of the minority group become dangerous. For example, you might be willing to tell Steve his new hairstyle looks stupid, but wouldn't say the same thing to Shanice. The response to this change in perception is defensive disengagement. The majority begins restricting their interactions with the minority. They don't make idle conversation with them. They avoid joining projects with them. They don't become friends with them after-hours. Now, the opposite certainly exists. I've been in companies that were a pure good ol' boys club that would say the most outrageously racist things standing five feet away from a coworker of that race. As far as my experiences have gone, though, the middle ground is dead. There're very few companies where you can just treat all your coworkers like people.
  • axaxs 6y ago
    I can relate, somewhat. One particular training video we were required to watch, not on diversity but microagressions, left me with the takeaway "say nothing to anyone, ever."
    • gdyuytgh 6y ago
      Ha, this is like the corporate version of "don't talk to the police." I've been in awkward situations where a pretty female colleague was annoyed by my dry professional attitude despite her making obvious signs, so she approached me and said point blank that I should take her somewhere on a weekend. The awkward part was that I had to maneuver from that situation out, because you know, the risk profile of that weekend trip would be strongly not in my favor in the long run.
      • paulryanrogers 6y ago
        While certainly a problem you may find little sympathy from the legions of less hansom, tall, and or muscular men. Most of them have to hustle quite a bit to get any attention from any potential love interest.
        • brippalcharrid 6y ago
          I think the point is that if your career (and life) were to be unexpectedly destroyed months or years down the line as a result of this (even if you were acting both in the spirit and within the letter of company regulations at the time), you would be in a strictly worse position than if it had never happened.
          • paulryanrogers 6y ago
            Good point. And my comment didn't add much but it's too late for me to delete it.
      • AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
• humanrebar 6y ago
  I'm a little offput by diversity training that, to me at least, essentially challenges folks on a spiritual and moral level. I think everyone should challenge themselves spiritually and morally, but I think the power imbalances inherent in work and academic training contexts make that kind of content patronizing or even inappropriate. I could see it being counterproductive in many cases. It's probably true that employees, faculty, and some kinds of student leadership should be aware of ethical and legal obligations when it comes to diversity, though. So I think it would be hard to argue against all categories of diversity content. It's just many (most?) recent forms of anti-racism content crosses the line from "meet these expectations about professional conduct" and into "proactively improve yourself as a person". I don't think it's appropriate for superiors to mandate the latter. A spiritual advisor, counselor, mentor, or mental health professional? Absolutely. To be fair, I do think it's appropriate for employees to face consequences of their own racist behavior. Even, in many cases, when that behavior is unintended.
  • itsdrewmiller 6y ago
    It's just many (most?) recent forms of anti-racism content crosses the line from "meet these expectations about professional conduct" and into "proactively improve yourself as a person". I don't think it's appropriate for superiors to mandate the latter. Can you give an example of what kind of content you think is common that is crossing this line?
    • humanrebar 6y ago
      Content that advocates for a particular moral framework. For example that outcomes matter more than intent. This is an area of philosophy that has been under continual discussion for thousands of years. In addition, curriculum that has participants take some sort of personal inventory. Also having them go through some sort of confessional process. Again, these are all healthy things to do. In the right context.
    • rayiner 6y ago
      See my link above about faculty and staff at a university Zoom meeting going around in a circle and each saying they are "a racist" and a "gatekeeper of white supremacy." There are ways to talk about implicit bias and systemic racism, but the confessional format crosses the line from providing information to something else. I go to church to be told I am a sinner and how to find redemption. Just give me the information and let me fit that into my value framework.
• jdkee 6y ago
  Dividing people based on immutable characteristics, fomenting resentments based on these characteristics and establishing a hierarchy of victimhood is un-American.
• codezero 6y ago
  I've done a number of diversity & inclusion trainings and I'm always confused by the opposition to them. Being more aware is generally useful. As a hiring manager, it's been helpful for me to be thoughtful about asking things like, "how did you get here, car, train?" - as this implies socioeconomic status, and if you reflect on why you asked that, what you wanted to know about it, and how it affected your thinking in general, and were honest, there's a chance it might have affected your opinion of the person in a way that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. This opinion could be either good or bad, and isn't necessarily dependent on whether the person you're interviewing is from a marginalized class. I still have bias, everyone does, these trainings do not aim to eliminate bias, they aim to inform people that it exists, and to offer them tools to be thoughtful about those biases, and to challenge folks to question the biases that potentially harm others, even if unintentionally.
  • itsdrewmiller 6y ago
    I think it's important to be open to the possibility that these trainings are in fact counterproductive, even if it is hard to intuit why that might be the case.
    • codezero 6y ago
      It's benefitted me in many ways, both professionally and personally to be open to the idea that I could be wrong - and I don't feel like anyone has ever forced me to believe that. I'm open to the science here, so will keep an ear to the ground.
  • humanrebar 6y ago
    Everyone struggles with being selfish. It's good to be aware of our own self-interested impulses and work towards counteracting them. So why not have mandatory training at work that teaches us that we're all selfish at some level and that we need to address that character flaw?
    • StanislavPetrov 6y ago
      >Everyone struggles with being selfish. Sorry but that's just a completely baseless assertion. Not everyone is selfish, nor is it a struggle for everyone to not be selfish. Assuming that others think as you think is what we call in poker, "first level thinking". The same concept can be extended to those who obsess over "diversity" and insist, "everyone is racist". Its flatly wrong, and frankly, idiotic to make such an assertion. Saddling everyone with the insecurities and deficiencies carried by a few is counterproductive and wrong. Your employer has every right to be concerned with your behavior at work, and take any sort of punitive or corrective measures that your misbehavior may merit. Your employer should have no role making sweeping judgements about your beliefs or personality traits that have not been manifested in the workplace, much less mandating Soviet-style re-education which hinges on their baseless (and flawed) assumptions about human nature.
• IanDrake 6y ago
  Diversity based on visual appearance is the new, socially acceptable way to be racist. You cannot defend identity politics or critical race theory without making wildly racist statements, that are somehow OK because you mean well.
• flippinburgers 6y ago
  I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. I understand the desire to attempt to put people in another persons "shoes", but I find that this makes a broad assumption that the minority members "shoes" are in the worst state. That is, not being able to voice opinions while also being criticized is the worst state. It is a terrible generalization. I would only feel comfortable with this training if listening was the only requirement and reflecting and sharing opinions was encouraged for all. If you have seen some of the videos of the older white woman (whose name escapes me) that used to give the blue eyed/brown eyed experiment her approach strikes me as being abusive. I understand what she is attempting to teach, but I deeply dislike her delivery. I feel that she is trying to scar (not scare, scar) people into compliance.
  • throw_m239339 6y ago
    > I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. They are not only abusive but based on a racist ideology, since these "training" sessions are often racially segregated therefore imply that some races are inherently racist. It builds up resentment and division, which is exactly what corporations want, employees at odd with each others so they won't question actual abusive management techniques designed by the higher ups. This is cunning.
    • brippalcharrid 6y ago
      I read earlier this year that Whole Foods were calculating the risk of unionisation across their stores and that they believed that this correlated with factors within a store including lower levels of ethnic diversity. https://archive.is/zqIGa https://archive.is/zqIGa Whether, with all other things taken into account, this remains a factor, and whether there is causation, I don't know, but they did see fit to mention it specifically as a "Store Risk".
      • raxxorrax 6y ago
        Much more realistic perspective. I don't think increased ethnic diversity must play a role in inhibiting formation of unions, but it can be. If I would need to implement a divide and conquer approach to any group, I certainly would start with benefiting certain members above others. Conflict is almost guaranteed this way. Oldest trick in the book. Some diversity proponents try to mandate solidarity will indeed undermine efforts for workers rights. That approach might even be more subtle.
• DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  I wonder if corporate D&I initiatives would be more successful if they allowed for genuine debate. When no debate or challenging of the initiative's assumptions is allowed, I suspect that: - Intelligent employees become cynical, and assume a hidden agenda. - The opportunity to change the minds of employees with reasoned doubts/objections to D&I claims is squandered. In fact, it raises (reasonable, imho) suspicions that the D&I proponents know that some of their stated positions are weak, and don't want them subjected to scrutiny. - Proponents of D&I may remain sheltered from valid counterpoints. So they lose an opportunity to refine their positions based on productive discussion. This is based on my experience working in corporate environments for a few decades. And IME, the problem is definitely more pronounced at large companies than small ones.
  • nullc 6y ago
    Some employees may hold materially prejudiced/discriminatory views. It isn't the companies role to morally educate people/employees in general nor may it be possible for it to do so, and any attempt to do so might itself be morally and legally fraught. ("Accept our position on right vs wrong or lose your job" can become awfully close to "become $religion or get fired"). Rather, the companies obligation is to provide a safe environment for workers and customers and to uphold basic standards for non-discriminatory professional conduct in the at-work activities of its employees and the orginization as a whole. It doesn't matter if people think some harmful stuff, so long as they leave that thinking outside of the office and conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. Inviting debate might help set some people's moral thinking straight, but it has the much larger risk of inviting into the office stuff that doesn't belong there, invoking avoidable bad conduct, and turning the company into dystopian thought police. We very much shouldn't want corporate HR forcibly imposing their concept of right and wrong onto people outside of the extremely narrow confines of work interactions: A millennia of debate by philosophers and religious leaders world wide have failed to settle innumerable moral questions. FooCorp HR-- which has almost every ethical incentive set in the wrong direction (e.g. maximize profits for FooCorp), and wields more power over people's lives than all but the most abusive cults-- simply isn't qualified or appropriate for the task of controlling people's personal moral compasses.
• annexrichmond 6y ago
  > In wake of George Floyd’s murder To be fair, murder has not been established. Journalists typically say "the death of George Floyd"
• sunkenvicar 6y ago
  Mandatory diversity training divides and weakens the country. For their revolution to succeed Communists need everyone - especially Party members - walking on eggshells. That way a politically incorrect look or word is enough to justify cancellation.
• lgleason 6y ago
  The problem with the mandatory diversity training is that it does very little to win hearts and minds. Refuse to go, dare to say anything that isn't 100% in support of it etc. and you will be targeted to be purged from the organization and possibly publicly tarred and feathered. Sure, some people, who tend to respond better to negative re-enforcement will be convinced to change their ways using that technique. That said, an arguably larger number of people will respond better to the carrot. Thus, they won't be convinced via the negative re-enforcement, but do not want to lose their job, be put on a secret whisper network "do not hire" list etc.. So, they pretend to play along and then find groups of people where they can let their hair down. It is not un-like the secret clubs that would break off from super conservative church groups to do some drinking (which usually ended up as binge drinking), speak easy's during prohibition, underground sex clubs etc.. Many of those groups experienced a litany of un-intended consequences from rigid views about alcohol, sex etc.. Un-surprisingly, the same appears to be happening with diversity efforts as well.
• charliebrownau 6y ago
  Every single time the Global LEFT attempts to get Equal OUTCOME it fails because Male and Females ARE DIFFERENT Diferences between Jews, Asians, White and Blacks EXIST The only way Left wing Zionism, Marxism and Commisism can be reached is lowing everyone down to the lowest common doninator Real differences between * IQ * Agression * Phsyical * exist between Male and Female * and different races Once you allow your Hobby Group Business platform to have admins, ceo, management that are Global LESTIST they will turn your group into a poltical activist outlet to use power and funnel resources (Look up DIVERSITY CIRCLE) What the Global LEFT refuse to admit is its all a scam to push for their goal which is Agenda 21 2020-2030 , Global single goverment, no freedom no nations, no borders, run by Zionist Jews in ISRAEL
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]