6 ms·

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 mana

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.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    You disagree with me but then you reiterate my rhetorical point.
    - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
      If you equate judging people on their actions rather than making sweeping judgements about them to being selfish, then your problems extend far beyond selfishness.
  - codezero 6y ago
    If you eat when you are hungry you are selfish.
    - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
      Ironically your trite answer exposes the substance-free nature of this argument. If eating when you are hungry makes you selfish, then what is your anti-selfishness re-education supposed to accomplish? Are you going to stop eating? Defining "selfishness" in such an absurd, all-encompassing manner renders the term itself meaningless. This sort of mania reminds me very much of the idea of "original sin" put forth by the Catholic Church. You can spend your life repenting, but you can never wipe away the stain on your soul! Reasonable people can skip this sort of faith-based nonsense by avoiding church but its becoming more and more difficult for reasonable people to avoid this kind of nonsense at it seeps into the workplace and every other facet of society.
bhawks 6y ago
From the article: > Sometimes they even implant new stereotypes (for instance, if participants didn’t previously have particular stereotypes for Vietnamese people, or much knowledge about them overall, but were introduced to common stereotypes about this group through training intended to dispel said stereotypes). Have you considered being more aware might have made you behave in a more bias or stereotype assuming way? The question should be are these programs achieving the goal of making an inclusive workplace or not?
- codezero 6y ago
  Yes, I've considered that. And it's great to be able to be open about it and talk. If you are unaware of a subject, it's much more difficult to speak about it. I think a lot of the problems with diversity training, and reasons it may not work - are that it's not actually bought into by those participating - and by bought into, I don't mean believing everything you hear - I mean participating, active listening, asking questions, being open to the idea that one is wrong, and that you can improve and help make your workplace one which feels good to be part of. It took me 20 years in my career, and most of the bad workplaces I had were a result of careless / unempathetic leadership. Once I actually had that, and saw that they were better at running a business than those without deep empathy and thoughtful reflection, I am not going back. I'll never work for someone who isn't at least open to the ideas of transparency, open communication, and psychological safety, while at the same time, driving a business forward - these are not contradictions. Last: The training can't make the workplace better - the people must. If they are unwilling to listen, or behave differently based on signals they are now trained on, or at least know why they are continuing their current behavior (an option) - it won't work, these things fall apart when there isn't widespread participation.
  - bhawks 6y ago
    Diversity training and leadership environments seem like 2 separate discussions. Many types of leaders will do diversity training for their organization for various reasons. I too prefer leaders of organizations who have the values you are espousing. Based on the article I do wonder if the approach of the training can make people more or less willing to create an inclusive environment. The way you approach someone to do something is definitely a factor in whether they will do it. If training approaches like these are making folks more likely to be biased, I think that is cause for introspection.
sokoloff 6y ago
One of my objections to most of the HR training I’ve been to is the pacing. Some tech training videos are a little slow-paced, but nearly every HR training I’ve been to has felt like 30-45 minutes of content crammed into 4 hours.
- codezero 6y ago
  Agree. This is a huge thing in general relating to pedagogy and how people learn and internalize things. You need multiple approaches to be successful.
gizmo686 6y ago
Empircally, diversity training does not work (at least according to this article). If you are pro diversity, you should therefore be against the current iteration of diversity training; and instead advocate redirect that effort into either experimenting with new approaches, or following other approaches that might work.
- codezero 6y ago
  Thanks for your advice.
- vinceroni 6y ago
  Aren't these two distinct things? The fact that one could be pro-diversity, while science says the way diversity training is being done so far is not effective, is not incompatible. It might mean that the way diversity training is being delivered and its content need to change, but not that pro-diversity "is wrong". Imagine flight had not been invented yet. You wouldn't say that the Marquis de Bacqueville [1] attempt is the proof that flight is a bad idea or wrong. We continually improve and strive to find better ways to achieve goals we define as desirable. You might disagree with the latter, but this is a different point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Boyvin_de_Bonnetot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Boyvin_de_B...
throw_m239339 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. Because they are based on a racist ideology, "'critical' race theory" and they are more akin to soviet style struggle sessions than any sort of actual training. In fact what is practiced in US would be probably illegal in a number of European countries. Furthermore it's lower level employees that are subject to these "indoctrination" sessions, not higher ups that often treat low level employees like shit, no matter the race or sex. So on one side, you are for victimizing low level employees, on the other, controversial management techniques that totally lack of any human empathy are never questioned.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > Because they are based on a racist ideology, "'critical' race theory" and they are more akin to soviet style struggle sessions than any sort of actual training. In fact what is practiced in US would be probably illegal in a number of European countries. It might not be legal in the U.S. either, at least some of the stuff that's going on. TBD.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  What do you believe critical race theory is? I don't see any relationship between it and struggle sessions. What trainings are you talking about? (my experience is that the extent of these trainings are that everyone must take the same thing, yes including the C-suite)
- codezero 6y ago
  How many diversity trainings have you participated in, and what is your feedback about how they could have been improved?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yodelshady 6y ago
How about a null-ish hypothesis: most people I know are opposed to mandatory company-wide training in general. Health and safety training, for example. And I can talk to people who were around before that was a things, and count the number of limbs. It's not entirely unjustified. Mandatory company-wide training probably is irrelevant to your specific role. It's also usually delivered by the lowest bidder, which is the strongest possible true signal I could receive. It's often not even attended by leadership - the people whose role is setting the culture! I get a long (charged by-the-hour?) lecture from HopefulSlogan Consultants about ethics and integrity? I think the same thing as I would walking past the slogans on Enron's lobby walls. The top is almost certainly corrupt.

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.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  You disagree with me but then you reiterate my rhetorical point.
  - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
    If you equate judging people on their actions rather than making sweeping judgements about them to being selfish, then your problems extend far beyond selfishness.
- codezero 6y ago
  If you eat when you are hungry you are selfish.
  - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
    Ironically your trite answer exposes the substance-free nature of this argument. If eating when you are hungry makes you selfish, then what is your anti-selfishness re-education supposed to accomplish? Are you going to stop eating? Defining "selfishness" in such an absurd, all-encompassing manner renders the term itself meaningless. This sort of mania reminds me very much of the idea of "original sin" put forth by the Catholic Church. You can spend your life repenting, but you can never wipe away the stain on your soul! Reasonable people can skip this sort of faith-based nonsense by avoiding church but its becoming more and more difficult for reasonable people to avoid this kind of nonsense at it seeps into the workplace and every other facet of society.

bhawks 6y ago

From the article: > Sometimes they even implant new stereotypes (for instance, if participants didn’t previously have particular stereotypes for Vietnamese people, or much knowledge about them overall, but were introduced to common stereotypes about this group through training intended to dispel said stereotypes). Have you considered being more aware might have made you behave in a more bias or stereotype assuming way? The question should be are these programs achieving the goal of making an inclusive workplace or not?

codezero 6y ago
Yes, I've considered that. And it's great to be able to be open about it and talk. If you are unaware of a subject, it's much more difficult to speak about it. I think a lot of the problems with diversity training, and reasons it may not work - are that it's not actually bought into by those participating - and by bought into, I don't mean believing everything you hear - I mean participating, active listening, asking questions, being open to the idea that one is wrong, and that you can improve and help make your workplace one which feels good to be part of. It took me 20 years in my career, and most of the bad workplaces I had were a result of careless / unempathetic leadership. Once I actually had that, and saw that they were better at running a business than those without deep empathy and thoughtful reflection, I am not going back. I'll never work for someone who isn't at least open to the ideas of transparency, open communication, and psychological safety, while at the same time, driving a business forward - these are not contradictions. Last: The training can't make the workplace better - the people must. If they are unwilling to listen, or behave differently based on signals they are now trained on, or at least know why they are continuing their current behavior (an option) - it won't work, these things fall apart when there isn't widespread participation.
- bhawks 6y ago
  Diversity training and leadership environments seem like 2 separate discussions. Many types of leaders will do diversity training for their organization for various reasons. I too prefer leaders of organizations who have the values you are espousing. Based on the article I do wonder if the approach of the training can make people more or less willing to create an inclusive environment. The way you approach someone to do something is definitely a factor in whether they will do it. If training approaches like these are making folks more likely to be biased, I think that is cause for introspection.

sokoloff 6y ago

One of my objections to most of the HR training I’ve been to is the pacing. Some tech training videos are a little slow-paced, but nearly every HR training I’ve been to has felt like 30-45 minutes of content crammed into 4 hours.

codezero 6y ago
Agree. This is a huge thing in general relating to pedagogy and how people learn and internalize things. You need multiple approaches to be successful.

gizmo686 6y ago

Empircally, diversity training does not work (at least according to this article). If you are pro diversity, you should therefore be against the current iteration of diversity training; and instead advocate redirect that effort into either experimenting with new approaches, or following other approaches that might work.

codezero 6y ago
Thanks for your advice.
vinceroni 6y ago
Aren't these two distinct things? The fact that one could be pro-diversity, while science says the way diversity training is being done so far is not effective, is not incompatible. It might mean that the way diversity training is being delivered and its content need to change, but not that pro-diversity "is wrong". Imagine flight had not been invented yet. You wouldn't say that the Marquis de Bacqueville [1] attempt is the proof that flight is a bad idea or wrong. We continually improve and strive to find better ways to achieve goals we define as desirable. You might disagree with the latter, but this is a different point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Boyvin_de_Bonnetot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Boyvin_de_B...

throw_m239339 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. Because they are based on a racist ideology, "'critical' race theory" and they are more akin to soviet style struggle sessions than any sort of actual training. In fact what is practiced in US would be probably illegal in a number of European countries. Furthermore it's lower level employees that are subject to these "indoctrination" sessions, not higher ups that often treat low level employees like shit, no matter the race or sex. So on one side, you are for victimizing low level employees, on the other, controversial management techniques that totally lack of any human empathy are never questioned.

rayiner 6y ago
> Because they are based on a racist ideology, "'critical' race theory" and they are more akin to soviet style struggle sessions than any sort of actual training. In fact what is practiced in US would be probably illegal in a number of European countries. It might not be legal in the U.S. either, at least some of the stuff that's going on. TBD.
joshuamorton 6y ago
What do you believe critical race theory is? I don't see any relationship between it and struggle sessions. What trainings are you talking about? (my experience is that the extent of these trainings are that everyone must take the same thing, yes including the C-suite)
codezero 6y ago
How many diversity trainings have you participated in, and what is your feedback about how they could have been improved?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

yodelshady 6y ago

How about a null-ish hypothesis: most people I know are opposed to mandatory company-wide training in general. Health and safety training, for example. And I can talk to people who were around before that was a things, and count the number of limbs. It's not entirely unjustified. Mandatory company-wide training probably is irrelevant to your specific role. It's also usually delivered by the lowest bidder, which is the strongest possible true signal I could receive. It's often not even attended by leadership - the people whose role is setting the culture! I get a long (charged by-the-hour?) lecture from HopefulSlogan Consultants about ethics and integrity? I think the same thing as I would walking past the slogans on Enron's lobby walls. The top is almost certainly corrupt.