The Wave

Welcome to "The Wave"

Here you'll find occasional expert commentary on all things related to workforce change, respect, diversity and leadership by Gregg Ward, CMC - consultant, author, trainer and commentator.

Cain's Sexual Harassment Issues

As you may have heard, the media has been reporting on allegations of sexual harassment against Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain while he was the head of the lobbying group The National Restaurant Association.  I have no intention of weighing in on the politics here; but I can provide some expert commentary on sexual harassment as it relates to business leaders, which Cain was at the time.

On the one hand, Cain is right to claim that the guys at the top (and they are almost always guys) are big, rich targets for employees to aim at when making formal complaints about sexual harassment.  Typically, an employee who is having "performance issues" and worried that their employer may be about to terminate them, will launch a pre-emptive strike at their employer via a formal sexual harassment claim, often at the most senior person.  This will often force the employer to put the performance issues on hold while they investigate the complaints as required by law.  And even if the investigation proves no harassment actually occured, most organizations would prefer to avoid going to court and the bad press, and opt instead to just pay off the employee and separate the relationship after they've signed a non-disclosure agreement.

On the other hand, its just not credible that Cain never heard about the harassment complaints against him as he claimed yesterday (today he admitted he was actually accused). Any proper investigation of harassment allegations includes interviewing the targets of the harassment, any witnesses to the incidents in question, and the alleged perpetrator of the harassment.  So, it's very likely the National Restaurant Association did a proper investigation and that included talking to Herman Cain.

Another incredulity: while it's remotely possible that he wasn't told the outcome of the NRA's investigations or about the terms of its settlements with the two women, as the organization's leader and the man at the center of the accusations, it was probably on his mind. So, he would probably have asked and been told.

Now, if the NRA employees had no "performance issues," then its important that we acknowlege that it took a lot of courage for them to come forward with their claims.  Employees don't just claim harassment for the fun of it: investigations can take a long time, the people who make such claims tend to become pariahs, and there's never any guarantee that good things will result for anyone (except the attorneys, who stand to make a good amount of money).

I have no access to any of the specific facts in this case, but my experience tells me that it's likely that both of the incidents mentioned in the media turned out to be classic "he said/she said" situations where no smoking gun could be found. But in my experience, if claims are made by more than one employee, there's probably some amount of truth buried in there somewhere. Rather than risk a scandal, or tarnish Cain and/or the organization, it appears the NRA offered the two women who complained a 5-figure settlement, had them sign an NDA and allowed them to move on.  At this point, only the NRA's investigators really know if illegal harassment occured.  The public may never know.

As for how this will impact Cain's campaign for President, that's for political pundits to comment on, I'm steering clear.

Driving While Brown?

Imagine for a moment that your boss asks you to fly to Phoenix on business; perhaps to meet with a prospective client or vendor.  Frugal employee that you are, you rent a less expensive, slightly older car and head out from Sky Harbor airport.  You pull off the freeway onto Van Buren and suddenly the red and blue lights of a Phoenix Police Department patrol car are flashing in your rearview mirror.  Wondering if you made an illegal turn without knowing or if a brake light is out, you dutifully pull over.  The officer walks up to your car and asks for your license, registration and… proof of immigration status.  “Proof of what?!” you ask, incredulously.

 

As of last Friday, when the Governor of Arizona signed SB 1070 into law, this imaginary situation is much closer to becoming reality.  The new law requires police officers in Arizona to determine whether people are in the state legally and makes it a misdemeanor to be without proper immigration paperwork. It also requires police officers, if they form a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's status. Basically, this law was created to compel cops in the state to go after illegal immigrants whom many Arizonians link to high crime rates in border areas and the increasing drain on the state’s financial resources.

 

Even though there’s language in the law against “racial profiling,” let me tell you as someone who used to train police officers, here’s how a typical cop interprets the words “reasonable suspicion”: “It means that I can stop anyone who looks like they might be an illegal.” And who “looks” like an illegal in Arizona?...anyone with brown skin.  So, how can a cop – even a good cop who takes the job seriously (and there are lots of them in Arizona, everywhere in fact) - NOT racially profile in the course of enforcing this law?  They can’t, obviously.

 

So, let’s be clear, as of now if you are any shade of brown skin, you could be stopped by the cops in Arizona simply because they suspect you “look” like an illegal. This is the new “driving while black,” except of course it’s “driving while brown.” We’re back to the good ole’ days of Jim Crow laws – now applied to Latinos, or heck, anyone who isn’t obviously, glaringly white.

 

And if for some reason you can’t prove you have a legal right to be in the country (we all carry our birth certificates and passports with us all the time don’t we? Not!), Arizona cops could arrest you, lock you up and start deportation proceedings – all because you “look” like an illegal.  How is your boss going to react when you call from the local Phoenix lockup saying “I can’t prove my immigration status, you’ve got to help me!”  They may help you; but they’ll never send you back there again and they may decide doing business in Arizona is just too difficult, thus depriving the state of badly needed revenues.

 

On top of this, there’s the practicality of the law – do we really want cops stopping every single person they suspect is an illegal?  It would be a nightmarish waste of time and resources. By the way, it’s already happened, even before the Governor signed the law. This is going to be a goldmine for lawyers suing already cash-strapped Arizona local police departments and cities on behalf of thousands of people who are citizens and/or legal residents.

 

Folks, no one is denying that this country has some serious problems with illegal immigration. But there’s a little document called The Constitution of the United States with a 4^th Amendment that protects us all from “unreasonable search and seizure.”  Stopping someone because they “look” like an illegal is unreasonable and simply unconstitutional.

 

Do we want to solve our illegal immigration problems by challenging the citizenship of everyone with brown skin?  Some people do – but that’s un-American, and we all know it.  It’s also bad for business. The truth is, we are a nation of immigrants: legal AND illegal.  Very few of us are descendants of the founding fathers.  Now, where’d I put my birth certificate?

The Problem with CNN's Latino/Black/er...Others-In-America Series

CNN has just finished airing “Latino in America” the second of two major documentary/news reports on life as a “minority” in the US.  While I can easily acknowledge the intrinsic value of educating people about these large groupings, both series have had some unintended negative consequences.

The first is the myth of homogeneity – in other words, that when we speak about “Latinos” for example, the public jumps to the general assumption (which was briefly pointed out in the documentary) that all Latinos are of direct Spanish (meaning from the country of Spain) descent. 

Now, it is true that a large majority of Hispanics (separate from Latinos) have some Spanish ancestry, the reality is most Latinos are not of direct non–Latin American Spanish descent. In fact, many are not primarily of Spanish descent; and some are not of Spanish descent at all. If you think about it for just a second, you’ll realize that there are Latinos in America who have European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish), as well as Middle Eastern (Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.) not to mention Black, Native American, and Asian ancestries.

This brings us to the second myth – that the vast majority of Latino/Hispanic/Mexican-Americans are either first generation, or second or third generation descendants of illegal immigrants.  CNN’s own Lou Dobbs fuels this misconception with his fiery, inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric (and he’s married to a Latina and has hired illegals to work his horse farm!).

Facts: In 2007 the US Census Bureau estimated (conservatively) that the number of residents who are immigrants (legal and illegal) was 37.9 million.  Of those, the Census estimates one third or 12.6 million are illegal immigrants (from all nations, not just Mexico or Central or South America).  But, it acknowledges the numbers of illegals may be much higher because they tend not to report themselves to census takers. Fair enough: but it’s this “not really knowing” that leads to news commentators like Dobbs claiming that we’re awash in “illegals” gobbling up all of our precious resources and jobs.

But turn that last figure around for a moment – it means that two thirds, or 25 million immigrants are “legal” – in other words lawfully here in the US!  And that’s not counting all of those who are second and third generation descendants of other “legal” immigrants. Now, of course, we could have a debate about whether or not American immigration laws are too liberal, but that’s a different topic, entirely.

My point is, when we start throwing labels around like “Latinos” and “Blacks” it’s human nature for our minds to immediately jump to the easy generalizations – often untrue – about these particular groups.  This is because most of us cannot instantly embrace the vast complexity of these hugely diverse communities: doing that requires having a lot of data easily on hand, and we’re just not wired for that.  And besides, CNN is trying to drive eyeballs to their programming – they have to make their show titles short and to the point, basically taking commercial advantage of our very human and unfortunate tendency to generalize about other groups of people.

At the end of the day, or programming, it seems to me a little "cultural competence" is called for. Essentially, if we’re to have a civil and productive public discourse on “differences” in this country then we first need to acknowledge that Latinos and Blacks and Whites and Asians and on and on… are simply catchall names for incredibly diverse and complex groupings of people; and secondly that we are – like it or not – a nation of immigrants, most of whom came here legally.

Besides, if anyone has a real right to complain about all of the immigrants taking up their precious resources and jobs, it's Native Americans.

Crossing Invisible Lines

Ten years ago, when I first moved to San   Diego and was looking for a home, a new acquaintance advised me to restrict my search to “north of Interstate 8.” A total newcomer, I innocently asked why. Looking around before replying, he leaned forward and whispered, “Because ‘the 8’ is an invisible line. Most whites live north of ‘the 8,’ ” he said guiltily, “everyone else lives south of it.”

To be honest, I was so stunned I didn’t know how to react. Having lived in New York City Boston, and Cincinnati, I was well aware that there are parts of most big cities where, depending on your race, you’re welcome, or not. I’d even heard about “red-lining” - an onerous practice used by some banks and mortgage lenders who took a red pen to a city map to mark off those areas in which they would not make a home loan to a person of color. So I was no stranger to invisible lines.

But when I arrived in San Diego, I assumed that open discrimination was an East Coast illness; that America’s finest city, filled with entrepreneurs, teeming with active duty and retired military personnel of every race and ethnicity, from all over the country and from every socio-economic background, was more welcoming of diversity. I believed there would be fewer invisible lines dividing the races. Looking back ten years later, I realize how naïve I was.

“What Straight, White Guys Don’t Get About Diversity & Why”

This article recently appeared in the May 2006 Issue of "Diversity Works!" Magazine...

In my work as a diversity consultant, coach and trainer, I often hear women and people of color quietly talking with each other about their white, male colleagues and bosses, saying “Most straight, white guys in the corporate world just don’t get it about diversity.” And although I’d like nothing better than to refute them, to defend my straight, white brethren, I’m afraid I have to agree: when it comes to diversity, we just don’t get it. So, at the risk of falling into the trap of generalizing about an amazingly large and diverse group of white guys, I have to ask: what is it about diversity that we don’t get and why don’t we get it?

The first thing we don’t get is that diversity is about lot more than just race and gender conflicts. We hear the word “diversity” and we automatically think racism, bigotry and discrimination against women and people of color. We don’t think about all the other issues underneath the diversity umbrella.

We do this because we white guys are a uniquely visual lot (no, I don’t have studies to support this, just 46 years of straight, white male experience). We focus on the surface diversity issues – race and gender – because they’re easy to see, not much time or thought required. We also do it because the media does it too; bombarding us 24/7 with stories about race and gender conflicts, with the word diversity in the headline. Stories about diversity conflicts drive ratings; you know, “if it bleeds, it leads.” And nothing bleeds like a black man being beaten by white cops, or women workers being the target of crude, sexual advances.  So, like Homer Simpson, the quintessential straight, white guy, we take what we see at face value. We don’t have the time or inclination to look beneath the surface - doh!

London Bombings May Increase Workplace Violence

When times are tough, often as not, people get tough on each other.

 The recent attacks in London, and the revelation that the suicide bombers were U.K. citizens, have once again raised the unpleasant possibility that both sides of the Atlantic may experience an increase in racial intolerance and bias-related incidents and violence towards Arabs, Muslims or anyone else perceived to sympathize with the terrorists’ aims.

 It's more than likely that some of these incidents may occur in the workplace; which nobody wants to see.  Hey, I'm not saying "be nice to terrorists!"  I'm saying that some innocent people could get hurt because other people can't control themselves.

 Here's why: In 2003, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), released a study showing a dramatic 1,600% increase in the number of U.S. bias-related incidents from the year 2000, (before the 9/11 attacks), to 2001.

 The FBI reported the same thing:  in 2,000 only 28 hate incidents towards Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims such as Sikhs (who often wear turbans and long beards), leaping up exponentially to 481 in 2001.

 These included physical assaults, vandalism of Muslim-owned stores and shops, and cross-burnings on mosque and Muslim school front lawns. In one case a California Muslim suffered a broken jaw and other facial injuries after an attack by a group of more than 20 people. Police say teenagers using baseball bats, golf clubs and beer bottles attacked the man while yelling “white power.”

Since these are just the incidents that were reported to the authorities; it stands to reason that many more incidents occurred but went unreported. And, although it appears that no one organization or government agency is tracking workplace violence relating to diversity issues, since so many Americans spend most of their waking hours at work, some incidents must have occurred in the workplace.

So, what can you do about it?

When A Good Manager Goes Bad

Recently I got a call from a C.O.O.  on the  east coast who'd bought my book  and wanted an objective ear and advice on solving a problem with one of their back office managers, named Fred.

After a year and a half in management, it seemed Fred had become comfortable enough to give his candid opinion to a number of his subordinates on all sorts of politically charged issues - from the war in Iraq, to illegal immigration, to the upcoming fight over whoever the President was going to nominate for the Supreme Court.

Apparently, he was quite passionate about how he felt about these things and used language and comparisons that most of us might find  objectionable if not downright inappropriate for the workplace - words like "towel-head" for Arabs;  "wet-back" for Mexicans and something unprintable for Jews - you get the drift.

Knowing that its rare for this kind of behavior to simply spring up overnight, I asked if they'd heard anything about it before Fred became a manager.  "Absolutely not," replied my client, "he always got glowing evaluations.  That's why we promoted him.  We only started hearing about this stuff after he wrote up four of his workers for poor performance."
"Eureka!" I cried, (not really, but it would be cool to say that some day and get away with it) I'm was beginning to see what's  up here."

"Let me guess," I said...

"It's not race and gender conflicts..."

...I'm worried about at my company,"  said the head of HR on the phone last week.  "It's the subtle  conflicts that are driving me nuts.  You won't believe how petty some people can be!"

Actually, I do believe it, because I've heard it over and over again during the last 15 years I've been doing this work.  Like the one about the secretary who deliberately and repeatedly spelled her boss' name incorrectly because she felt he didn't treat her "like a grownup" (Now, I wonder why he would do that?).  Or the software engineer who "keyed" (deliberately scratched) his colleague's new car because they couldn't agree on specific solution to a fault in some code they were writing together.

Let's face it, most workplaces are filled with nasty little remarks, gestures and behaviors that are designed to very subtly insult, offend or undermine other people.  Diversity experts call them "micro-inequities," (some of my more cynical clients have dubbed them "micro-disses" or micro-disrespects).  Although flying below the typical HR person's "diversity radar," micro-inequities can wreak havoc within a team; sometimes even leading to bigger headaches and even dismissal.  Unfortunately, micro-inequities often go unremarked, not to mention unchecked.   Why?