Think of it as the
psychosocial version of the global warming movement, or political correctness
with a tie and a slide show, but sensitivity training, those programs that
businesses use to make sure their employees have a nice, homogenous mindset
about race and gender, sexuality, religion, disability and just about all the
other things that could divide people who have to work together, is a growing
industry in its own right. The goals of these programs are nice: examine your
prejudices, look at your behavior, acknowledge the humanity of those different
from you and learn to get along. There is nothing wrong with any of these
things. In fact, everyone should examine their ideas and behavior, accept what
is true and throw away what isn’t. Oh wait, isn’t that called growing up? I
guess growing up isn’t what it used to be. Now we have to pay thousands of
dollars to accomplish what our fathers used to do for free with a stern warning
and slap upside the head.
Acknowledge Your Problem!
There is a communications
company in California,
we’ll leave the name out for legal reasons, that offers sensitivity training.
Here is what they have to say about their service:
In today’s multicultural workplace, a lack of
diversity awareness or cultural sensitivity can generate serious ramifications
for an organization. Individuals who transgress in these areas or who are
accused of sexual harassment become a potential source of serious liability for
a company. Many of the executives, managers, and other employees we work with
are basically good-willed persons who through lack of experience or training
engage in behaviors that often result in negative and seriously damaging
consequences.
We have developed a full day and follow-up training
program that is specifically customized for such individuals. The many aspects
of diversity (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.) and the principles for
avoiding harassment behavior of any kind are thoroughly discussed. The training
program is based on proven principles of change rather than simple conformity
to expected behavioral norms. The one-on-one coaching sessions are specifically
targeted to the individual’s personal development and are based on
communication strategies that are frank, respectful, and caring.
So this company educates
people so they won’t say stupid things, that’s fine, but how do they do it? I
mean, what are these “proven principles of change?” By the way, they don’t tell
you how much it costs, but you can guess. If you look at other sensitivity
coaches and providers, you hear a lot about the approach, or skill-building
and, of course, that they have a proven process.
According to Dr. Gerald
Atkinson in his 1999 article “What is 'Sensitivity Training?'” The process is
really a number of “techniques perfected by behavioral scientists to change our
core beliefs aimed at sowing confusion in the minds of those who would oppose
such change. This confusion is created by presenting logical
contradictions as equally plausible, valid, and actionable. Those without
a strong belief system, be it empirical, scientific, religious, or logical are
especially susceptible to the urgings of those who seek change. Those who
have strong enough belief systems that enable them to challenge, refute, and
oppose this change are coerced by small-group encounter techniques to conform
to the 'majority' view as determined and sown by a 'facilitator' and supported
by the core group of 'believers' plus the newly recruited 'sheep' who join the
'majority' group for fear of confrontation. If the challenger does not
conform to the group pressure to adopt the 'consensus' view, he is further
isolated from the group and/or discarded. He is never allowed to
participate fully in the process thereafter.”
In other words, sensitivity
training is a process of browbeating an acceptable attitude out of you or
eliminating you altogether. Consider this example from the U.S. Navy that
opens Atkinson’s article:
An example comes from a young naval officer who was
subjected to it during its initial implementation in the U.S. military
during the mid-1970s, after the Navy had experienced race riots on many of its
ships, including the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk toward the end of the
Vietnam War. The young naval aviator was ordered to attend a training session
at the Naval Air
Test Center
at Patuxent River, MD along with about a dozen other naval
officers.
The two 'facilitators' who led this small-group encounter session were a young
Hispanic enlisted woman and a black chief petty officer (CPO). Their goal
was to apprise the all-white naval officer attendees of their insensitivity to
the plight of disadvantaged minorities in the U.S. Navy - and to examine their
attitudes and 'behavior' toward minorities and women and change them if
warranted.
After a short introduction, the CPO exclaimed 'All of you are racists!'
The astounded attendees were draped in a silence that was deafening. After
looking at each other in disbelief, someone overcame his shock to ask,
'Why?' The CPO shot back, 'Because you are white!' All of the
attendees, save one, looked at the ceiling, or at the floor, or at each other
in embarrassment and/or forced-guilt resulting from this unexpected, outlandish
frontal assault. The one stood and in a steady, firm voice said, 'Excuse
me, but I object to being called a racist. I do not and have never
discriminated against anyone on the basis of race, color, national origin, or
sex. In fact, my ancestors are from the North and several of them fought
in the Union Army during the Civil War to free the slaves.'
Instead of retreating at this rational and forthright reply, the CPO told the
young Lieutenant that he was not cooperating, was being disruptive of the
class, and should immediately leave the room. The officer asked the CPO
to come out into the hallway. Once there, the Lieutenant reminded the CPO
that he was an enlisted man in the U.S. Navy and in his Navy enlisted
men did not give orders to officers nor treat them with disrespect. The
CPO insisted that he was bound by the 'sensitivity training' syllabus to
conduct the class as he had and that under this set of orders was required to
remove the recalcitrant naval officer from the class. At this standoff,
the young LT decided to leave rather than cause further disruption of a
'required' training session.
Today, the tactics used are
more subtle, you are unlikely to have someone yell at you that you are a
racist, but they amount to the same three stage process of change. The first
step is called Unfreezing, when your original mindset is broken down. The
second step is Change, when a new mindset is introduced. The third step is
called Freezing, when that new mindset crystallizes and takes hold of the
subject. The CPO in the example above was engaged in Unfreezing, and this is
where trainers get the most resistance. Sometimes, people just know that they
aren’t racist, or sexist or any other –ist
you might be able to come up with. Come to think of it, most of us already know
that.
Now that I’m Insulted and Uncomfortable, is this Going
to Help?
The short answer is “NO!” There
is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that this is bunk—the John
Rocker case springs to mind—but there have also been some solid studies as
well. For example, in their study, “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing
the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies,” which was
published in the August, 2006, edition of the American Sociological Review; researchers Alexandra Kalev (Univ. of Califorina,
Berkeley), Frank Dobbin (Harvard
Univ.) and Erin Kelly (Univ. of Minnesota) concluded that:
Practices that target managerial bias through
feedback (diversity evaluations) and education (diversity training) show
virtually no effect in the aggregate. They show modest positive effects when
responsibility structures are also in place and among federal contractors. But
they sometimes show negative effects otherwise. Research to date from HR
experts and psychologists suggests that interactive training workshops, of the
kind we examine, often generate backlash.
So these programs, which
don’t help, can actually do more harm than good! Of course, with
“responsibility structures” such as diversity being part of an employee’s
evaluation or tasking employees with specific diversity and sensitivity
education and enforcement duties—or you work for a federal contractor—things
improve a little. Otherwise, they don’t. This means that the $5000 your company
spent on that day-long sensitivity training seminar they forced you to sit
through; the one that made you wonder if you are a bad person to go to the
other end of the train platform that night the scary-looking “gangsta” types
showed up or if you are a bad person for thinking that this whole sensitivity
training seminar is a load of crap; accomplished precisely nothing (except
giving you a twinge of guilt over that pesky fight-or-flight reaction).
Running for Cover: The Rationale behind Sensitivity
Training
People say stupid things. A
long time ago, these stupid things would result in a fight, or some company
discipline. True, sometimes nothing at all would happen and that was
frustrating, sometimes so frustrating that the case would end up in court, and
that created new problems. Employers had to diversify their workforce, but as
the number of discrimination suits increased, they often saw women and
minorities as lawsuits with legs, rather than the best person for the job. They
needed a way to mitigate this and the solution they were sold was sensitivity
training.
By adopting these programs,
often at thousands of dollars a shot, companies could demonstrate in court that
they are mindful of the issues and needs of their minority and female
employees. “Yes, Your Honor, Johnson did go through our sensitivity program and
he passed it, too. We in the Executive Suite can’t believe he groped poor Miss
Smith like that and I fired him as soon as I heard about it!” Johnson gets
thrown under the bus, he probably deserved it, and whatever poor Miss Smith
actually gets out of the company will likely be less than she’s asking for. To
sum up: Johnson went to sensitivity training and then got his grope and
possibly a reasonable severance, Miss Smith got some cash, Miss Smith’s lawyer
got some cash, the sensitivity trainer got some cash and the company got the
bills and maybe a little PR lift by demonstrating to all and sundry that they
don’t tolerate this kind of bad behavior.
That’s an awful lot of money
going through an awful lot of hands because Johnson couldn’t behave himself.
Shouldn’t that sensitivity training have headed this off? Of course not,
Johnson’s lusts are not to be checked by some sensitivity trainer’s annual
PowerPoint presentation. It wouldn’t work on the fictional Johnson any more
than it would work on me or you or Ted Bundy, yet it is used as a legal
insurance policy to mitigate any possible damages arising from a harassment or
discrimination suit. Is there a better way, something that works?
The Bottom Line
Of course there is, and it
is neither difficult nor expensive! You can’t change the way your employees think
with handouts and a video presentation, except for the worse, but there is a
way you can keep these particular seas reasonably calm. It is called policy
consistency, socialization and personal responsibility.
- Make sure you
have a policy that prohibits discrimination, harassment and their related
behaviors in the workplace and enforce it equally across the board. This has to
come from the top down and it must be unquestionable. Also, put a good investigative
process in place to verify the truth of any accusations and whether the action
in question actually is a real offense.
- Create an
atmosphere where coworkers can socialize and get to know each other as people.
This is really the only legitimate way to open someone up to a person who is
different. Small businesses often act more like families than anything else, so
take advantage of that. After all, friends and family tend to correct each
other’s errors rather than run to file a complaint in court.
- Make it the
responsibility of each and every employee to watch out for trouble. Teach them
what to look for and how to handle things. You would expect them to report a
theft, right? Why not this? If everyone feels as if they are part of the
solution, they are far less likely to want to be the problem.
These are not foolproof
answers, there are none, and they certainly don’t have the cache, stale cookies
and neat PowerPoint slides of the typical sensitivity training seminar. No,
these suggestions are based on the concept of proper policy administration, the
development of mutual respect between people and the empowerment of employees
to deal with the problem. These are things that may carry more weight in court
than a 1-day seminar. In some places these will work, in others not so much.
That is to be expected since each company and each group is different. One more
thing: document everything—the policy, the procedures, your programs and
initiatives, allegations, investigations, and anything else that seems pertinent.
If it’s not written down, it doesn’t exist, and if it doesn’t exist then it
can’t be used in court and so it can’t defend you.
