Enjoyed reading this article and overall keeping up with the series! There is clearly a challenge regarding the ‘reverse’ bias of employing/enrolling people of diverse races, which does not satisfy neither a person of ‘different color’ nor the person identified as of major ‘color’.
My open question is: how can we affect and when needed turn off our perception, which subconsciously differentiates people of different races? Is there any way to possibly turn off our senses (e.g., seeing) and rooted perspectives to kind of eliminate the external factors that might negatively direct our decision making. Are there any studies that offer reasons and solutions for this challenges? Would love to see any discussion within the framework of these series.
An alternate interpretation: “This leaves people of color in a vulnerable position, wondering if they unwittingly agreed to work in a racist environment, questioning why they didn’t see through the organization’s original pitch, and bemoaning the commitment of their talent and skill to an organization that is using them as window dressing, but has no real plan for grooming them beyond the current position.”
An alternate interpretation: “This leaves people of color in a good position as they recognize this Game and are willing to play it and capitalize on the spotlight of difference, so long as they achieve their career goals.”
I could go on… Point being, how POC react to tokenism depends on a range of factors, and I question why they’re generalized to feel self-doubt because of others’ prejudices. It’s reasonable, for example, that age and career level strongly determine how POC react to tokenism. This article also assumes that POC assume good will on the part of their employers, and perhaps they don’t—but enter the organization anyway. That is another story in and of itself.
Ani - thanks for your kind words and thoughtful question! Your question is timely given that one of the proposed and popular “solutions” today to racial and other discrimination is raising consciousness and unearthing unconscious biases. I only have anecdotal evidence of a proliferation of “bias consulting and coaching” that is happening at companies to awake this consciousness (and I suppose the objective is to ideally rid biases). What I try to get at in this article, however, is that the point is not to “turn off” biases as I think that may be impossible - but it is to move us to celebrating pluralistic futures. How we do this will inevitably vary but I can think of at least one way at the moment that seems helpful, which is engaging in conversation without looking to win or be right but to simply understand another’s point of view. I have colleagues at Parsons School of Design researching and designing around this term - agonism - which is quite powerful and may be something you’d like to look into. I hope this is helpful. Thanks again for reading and participating, Ani!
Terrific thought-provoking article, making one consider whether the ultimate goal is assimilation, collaboration or “creating sustainable shifts in power” - or is it all three of these working together? If the goal is to shift power, and the inherent vice of power is to protect, insulate and enhance itself, then collaboration (with its inherent shared-partnership of ideas and solutions) will be antithetical to power. On the other hand, assimilation (or absorption of something different) might either increase or decrease power but is not necessarily antithetical to it. If that is correct, perhaps the most effective path to shifting power would be to encourage each side (powerful and less powerful) to first take the relatively easy step of assimilating with at least some portion of the other side, followed by the harder step of collaboration, and culminating with the even harder step of sustainably shifting power?
In the world of art and architecture, The Proposal, a new film by Jill Magid (a Brooklyn-based conceptual artist whose work forms intimate relationships with systems of power), involves gaining access to the archives of the great Mexican architect Luis Barragan (1902-1988). Though occasionally running amok, the film grippingly portrays Magid’s personal interactions with assimilation, collaboration - seduction, and power.
I do hope you will further develop your insights in the form of many new essays, perhaps even exploring a unified theory of the interrelated forces of assimilation, collaboration and power.
Carla - thanks so much for your message! The mapping of scenarios as you’ve done is incredibly useful. As you pointed out, this short piece highlights one scenario that has played out numerous times in front of me and others in international civil society - in organizations often filled with young, hopeful, eager, passionate people. Your point on a multitude of factors affecting reactions is important as well. I often talk about how we develop the life tools we need - to process emotions and engage with others in the ways we’d like to - over time and hence, we do not necessarily have those tools at certain points in our experiences. In the end, I do wonder if the reaction to tokenism, based on factor 1 2 or 3, ‘good’ for the POC or ‘bad’, is really the issue. For me, the issue seems to be that they are required to act/react in certain ways because there is tokenism in the first place.
Bill - Thanks so much for your kind message and I’m so happy to hear it sparked thoughts for you! Your framework of goals and their relationship, including possibly sequencing of them, is very welcome. I will certainly check out The Proposal and look for other inspiration. Three materials I am currently engaging with that I am thoroughly enjoying are: I am reading Arturo Escobar’s Designs for the Pluriverse which explores power and agency related to the design field of practice, listening to Creative Commons’ podcast on Playing Well With Others on collaboration and its challenges, and reading Francis Fukuyama’s Identity which takes a deep look at identity politics. I find your proposals and questions - especially about starting with a bit of assimilation - intriguing because I have seen this “work” in some cases. On the other hand, I continue to ask ‘assimilate to what?’ and ‘who defines the ‘norm’ to assimilate to?’. In this case of social organizations, I imagine a scenario possible where the ‘norm’ is to be fluid and plural and also co-designed.
To Nicole’s point- it is not really possible to reverse our biases, but we do need to confront the many conflicting biases we each hold. I would recommend Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt’s new book, Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think and Do. She really helps tease this topic out and offers a few practical suggestions for addressing our own bias.
Interesting that you have seen “starting with a bit of assimilation ....‘work’ in some cases”, which makes me wonder what factors prevailed when it worked and which when it didn’t? I think theory is important, but empirical evidence is crucial. And I embrace your “bit of assimilation” terminology - that nails it! And thanks for mentioning those materials you are engaging.
Let’s assume for the purpose of discussion that by “bit of assimilation” we mean the taking in and careful consideration (but not the involuntarily adoption) of a part of another’s position. Realistically, the less powerful should start the process because it is inherently motivated to increase its power by moving through assimilation to collaboration and beyond, while the more powerful is inherently motivated to resist any dilution of its already superior power. If the less powerful starts the process, then the difficult questions of the “what” and “norm” of that initiating bit of assimilation necessarily would be answered solely by the less powerful; likewise, even if the less powerful voluntarily chooses to actually adopt some bit of assimilation because it has decided that such bit is superior and would increase (or at least not decrease) its own power. The burden on the less powerful to start the process is mitigated by the conferred benefit to choose the particular initiating bit of assimilation. Still you’re right - the “what and norm” questions are crucial - the less powerful must carefully consider and wisely answer them if great progress is to be made.
If the less powerful carefully considers and wisely chooses the initiating bit of assimilation, then would good things result such as (i) the less powerful gaining some insight into the other’s position and also possibly increasing its own power by actually adopting some bit of assimilation that it has determined to be superior, (ii) the more powerful appreciating the less powerful’s efforts to understand, (iii) the barrier to debate lowering and (iv) the less powerful securing a foothold along the dynamic continuum path from assimilation to collaboration (and perhaps beyond, to shifting power)?
Thanks for sharing this perspective, Bill. I’ll share back a few quick things before we carry on this good conversation offline. First, this article is about the organization and innovation, so i’ll stick to those two lenses. When joining an organization, everyone has to “assimilate” to certain structural norms (to navigate what already exists) - in international civil society, for example, this includes needing to fundraise even when you may want to move to a different financial/sustainability model down the line. Regarding the concept of responsibility (underlying the premise of ‘who’ takes action) - I haven’t researched or experienced a model that puts the onus on the so-called “less-powerful” lead to more innovative systems. I have, however, seen models that are co-designed and malleable that create new powerful ideas.
Love this article and your practice. You allude to the fact that there are certain phrases which function as code words for a problem that is not simply about performance—“not a good fit.” What is fit but assimilation and as you point out in some of the comments, of course, some assimilation is expected at every job, but when does some assimilation turn into intolerance, judgment and amount to nothing more than bias? If we are to embrace diversity, when a manager blames or judges a diverse hire as not a good fit—red flags should flare for HR and this manager’s manager or board—but it rarely does!! When you are a diverse hire, work harder than everyone else to prove your value and then are told you are not a good fit—it’s soul-crushing!!! Especially when the manager cannot point to any deficiency of performance but only the manager’s discomfort with how you did your job—how do we turn this around? It’s especially hard to witness in philanthropy when managers learn how to say the right things, but not truly look in the mirror and ask are they deeply practicing inclusion or assimilation masking as inclusion?
Thanks so much, Teresa. The questions you’ve raised, tensions you’ve pointed to, and experiences shared are really helpful for this conversation. The need for critical reflexive practice that you talk about is so important. I also think that assimilation and forced convergence is a really important topic that we have yet to talk a close look at—that’s one of the reasons we made it a point to address it in this webinar: https://ssir.org/webinars/entry/addressing_marginalization_redirecting_strategies_of_diversity_equity_inclusion_in_the_workplace
I hope that we will all continue to look at how our institutions and structures force assimilation, and how we can collectively and individually combat those forces when it is stifling creativity and even causing harm.
Projects that are biased toward western norms of efficiency and productivity are projects that get accomplished successfully. These cultural norms are NOT tied to all western cultures (e.g., not to French, Italian, Spanish and Slavic cultures). They are tied to cultures that are efficient and productive (e.g., German, Dutch, English, Scandinavian). Chinese also can be efficient and productive. I am not as familiar with African cultures, so I cannot comment on those cultures.
This is not to say that no diversity is good or that a bit of diversity is bad. It is simply to say first, that western norms of efficiency and productivity are norms that are not totally western, and second, that these norms result in projects being accomplished successfully and efficiently.
If an organization is going to overload itself with achieving multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-generational, multi-sexual, multi-racial objectives, it will NOT do projects efficiently and productively. No organization is perfect, but would you rather have your organization work like Scandinavians or like Italians? I would pick Scandinavians. This means that folks who join the organization are responsible for fitting themselves into the organization; the organization does not remake itself to accommodate a great number of wildly diverse individuals.
COMMENTS
BY Andre Daley
ON May 21, 2019 06:55 PM
This is on point glad to see the effectiveness of this common DEI practice being questioned
BY Ani Hanesyan
ON May 21, 2019 11:06 PM
Enjoyed reading this article and overall keeping up with the series! There is clearly a challenge regarding the ‘reverse’ bias of employing/enrolling people of diverse races, which does not satisfy neither a person of ‘different color’ nor the person identified as of major ‘color’.
My open question is: how can we affect and when needed turn off our perception, which subconsciously differentiates people of different races? Is there any way to possibly turn off our senses (e.g., seeing) and rooted perspectives to kind of eliminate the external factors that might negatively direct our decision making. Are there any studies that offer reasons and solutions for this challenges? Would love to see any discussion within the framework of these series.
Thanks a lot!
BY Carla Murphy
ON May 25, 2019 04:48 AM
An alternate interpretation: “This leaves people of color in a vulnerable position, wondering if they unwittingly agreed to work in a racist environment, questioning why they didn’t see through the organization’s original pitch, and bemoaning the commitment of their talent and skill to an organization that is using them as window dressing, but has no real plan for grooming them beyond the current position.”
An alternate interpretation: “This leaves people of color in a good position as they recognize this Game and are willing to play it and capitalize on the spotlight of difference, so long as they achieve their career goals.”
I could go on… Point being, how POC react to tokenism depends on a range of factors, and I question why they’re generalized to feel self-doubt because of others’ prejudices. It’s reasonable, for example, that age and career level strongly determine how POC react to tokenism. This article also assumes that POC assume good will on the part of their employers, and perhaps they don’t—but enter the organization anyway. That is another story in and of itself.
BY Nicole
ON May 30, 2019 02:01 PM
Ani - thanks for your kind words and thoughtful question! Your question is timely given that one of the proposed and popular “solutions” today to racial and other discrimination is raising consciousness and unearthing unconscious biases. I only have anecdotal evidence of a proliferation of “bias consulting and coaching” that is happening at companies to awake this consciousness (and I suppose the objective is to ideally rid biases). What I try to get at in this article, however, is that the point is not to “turn off” biases as I think that may be impossible - but it is to move us to celebrating pluralistic futures. How we do this will inevitably vary but I can think of at least one way at the moment that seems helpful, which is engaging in conversation without looking to win or be right but to simply understand another’s point of view. I have colleagues at Parsons School of Design researching and designing around this term - agonism - which is quite powerful and may be something you’d like to look into. I hope this is helpful. Thanks again for reading and participating, Ani!
BY Bill Tisch
ON June 1, 2019 10:20 PM
Terrific thought-provoking article, making one consider whether the ultimate goal is assimilation, collaboration or “creating sustainable shifts in power” - or is it all three of these working together? If the goal is to shift power, and the inherent vice of power is to protect, insulate and enhance itself, then collaboration (with its inherent shared-partnership of ideas and solutions) will be antithetical to power. On the other hand, assimilation (or absorption of something different) might either increase or decrease power but is not necessarily antithetical to it. If that is correct, perhaps the most effective path to shifting power would be to encourage each side (powerful and less powerful) to first take the relatively easy step of assimilating with at least some portion of the other side, followed by the harder step of collaboration, and culminating with the even harder step of sustainably shifting power?
In the world of art and architecture, The Proposal, a new film by Jill Magid (a Brooklyn-based conceptual artist whose work forms intimate relationships with systems of power), involves gaining access to the archives of the great Mexican architect Luis Barragan (1902-1988). Though occasionally running amok, the film grippingly portrays Magid’s personal interactions with assimilation, collaboration - seduction, and power.
I do hope you will further develop your insights in the form of many new essays, perhaps even exploring a unified theory of the interrelated forces of assimilation, collaboration and power.
BY Nicole
ON June 5, 2019 11:21 PM
Carla - thanks so much for your message! The mapping of scenarios as you’ve done is incredibly useful. As you pointed out, this short piece highlights one scenario that has played out numerous times in front of me and others in international civil society - in organizations often filled with young, hopeful, eager, passionate people. Your point on a multitude of factors affecting reactions is important as well. I often talk about how we develop the life tools we need - to process emotions and engage with others in the ways we’d like to - over time and hence, we do not necessarily have those tools at certain points in our experiences. In the end, I do wonder if the reaction to tokenism, based on factor 1 2 or 3, ‘good’ for the POC or ‘bad’, is really the issue. For me, the issue seems to be that they are required to act/react in certain ways because there is tokenism in the first place.
BY Nicole Anand
ON June 5, 2019 11:35 PM
Bill - Thanks so much for your kind message and I’m so happy to hear it sparked thoughts for you! Your framework of goals and their relationship, including possibly sequencing of them, is very welcome. I will certainly check out The Proposal and look for other inspiration. Three materials I am currently engaging with that I am thoroughly enjoying are: I am reading Arturo Escobar’s Designs for the Pluriverse which explores power and agency related to the design field of practice, listening to Creative Commons’ podcast on Playing Well With Others on collaboration and its challenges, and reading Francis Fukuyama’s Identity which takes a deep look at identity politics. I find your proposals and questions - especially about starting with a bit of assimilation - intriguing because I have seen this “work” in some cases. On the other hand, I continue to ask ‘assimilate to what?’ and ‘who defines the ‘norm’ to assimilate to?’. In this case of social organizations, I imagine a scenario possible where the ‘norm’ is to be fluid and plural and also co-designed.
BY Christine Newman
ON June 6, 2019 09:24 AM
To Nicole’s point- it is not really possible to reverse our biases, but we do need to confront the many conflicting biases we each hold. I would recommend Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt’s new book, Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think and Do. She really helps tease this topic out and offers a few practical suggestions for addressing our own bias.
BY Bill Tisch
ON June 9, 2019 09:56 PM
Interesting that you have seen “starting with a bit of assimilation ....‘work’ in some cases”, which makes me wonder what factors prevailed when it worked and which when it didn’t? I think theory is important, but empirical evidence is crucial. And I embrace your “bit of assimilation” terminology - that nails it! And thanks for mentioning those materials you are engaging.
Let’s assume for the purpose of discussion that by “bit of assimilation” we mean the taking in and careful consideration (but not the involuntarily adoption) of a part of another’s position. Realistically, the less powerful should start the process because it is inherently motivated to increase its power by moving through assimilation to collaboration and beyond, while the more powerful is inherently motivated to resist any dilution of its already superior power. If the less powerful starts the process, then the difficult questions of the “what” and “norm” of that initiating bit of assimilation necessarily would be answered solely by the less powerful; likewise, even if the less powerful voluntarily chooses to actually adopt some bit of assimilation because it has decided that such bit is superior and would increase (or at least not decrease) its own power. The burden on the less powerful to start the process is mitigated by the conferred benefit to choose the particular initiating bit of assimilation. Still you’re right - the “what and norm” questions are crucial - the less powerful must carefully consider and wisely answer them if great progress is to be made.
If the less powerful carefully considers and wisely chooses the initiating bit of assimilation, then would good things result such as (i) the less powerful gaining some insight into the other’s position and also possibly increasing its own power by actually adopting some bit of assimilation that it has determined to be superior, (ii) the more powerful appreciating the less powerful’s efforts to understand, (iii) the barrier to debate lowering and (iv) the less powerful securing a foothold along the dynamic continuum path from assimilation to collaboration (and perhaps beyond, to shifting power)?
BY Nicole
ON June 10, 2019 06:33 PM
Thanks for sharing this perspective, Bill. I’ll share back a few quick things before we carry on this good conversation offline. First, this article is about the organization and innovation, so i’ll stick to those two lenses. When joining an organization, everyone has to “assimilate” to certain structural norms (to navigate what already exists) - in international civil society, for example, this includes needing to fundraise even when you may want to move to a different financial/sustainability model down the line. Regarding the concept of responsibility (underlying the premise of ‘who’ takes action) - I haven’t researched or experienced a model that puts the onus on the so-called “less-powerful” lead to more innovative systems. I have, however, seen models that are co-designed and malleable that create new powerful ideas.
BY Nicole
ON June 10, 2019 06:36 PM
Thanks Christine. You make a strong point - being open to learning about one’s biases and then being cognizant of them is incredibly important.
BY Theresa Fay-Bustillos
ON August 29, 2019 11:32 AM
Love this article and your practice. You allude to the fact that there are certain phrases which function as code words for a problem that is not simply about performance—“not a good fit.” What is fit but assimilation and as you point out in some of the comments, of course, some assimilation is expected at every job, but when does some assimilation turn into intolerance, judgment and amount to nothing more than bias? If we are to embrace diversity, when a manager blames or judges a diverse hire as not a good fit—red flags should flare for HR and this manager’s manager or board—but it rarely does!! When you are a diverse hire, work harder than everyone else to prove your value and then are told you are not a good fit—it’s soul-crushing!!! Especially when the manager cannot point to any deficiency of performance but only the manager’s discomfort with how you did your job—how do we turn this around? It’s especially hard to witness in philanthropy when managers learn how to say the right things, but not truly look in the mirror and ask are they deeply practicing inclusion or assimilation masking as inclusion?
BY Nicole
ON September 27, 2019 09:44 AM
Thanks so much, Teresa. The questions you’ve raised, tensions you’ve pointed to, and experiences shared are really helpful for this conversation. The need for critical reflexive practice that you talk about is so important. I also think that assimilation and forced convergence is a really important topic that we have yet to talk a close look at—that’s one of the reasons we made it a point to address it in this webinar: https://ssir.org/webinars/entry/addressing_marginalization_redirecting_strategies_of_diversity_equity_inclusion_in_the_workplace
I hope that we will all continue to look at how our institutions and structures force assimilation, and how we can collectively and individually combat those forces when it is stifling creativity and even causing harm.
BY Michael McCabe
ON June 29, 2020 11:17 AM
Projects that are biased toward western norms of efficiency and productivity are projects that get accomplished successfully. These cultural norms are NOT tied to all western cultures (e.g., not to French, Italian, Spanish and Slavic cultures). They are tied to cultures that are efficient and productive (e.g., German, Dutch, English, Scandinavian). Chinese also can be efficient and productive. I am not as familiar with African cultures, so I cannot comment on those cultures.
This is not to say that no diversity is good or that a bit of diversity is bad. It is simply to say first, that western norms of efficiency and productivity are norms that are not totally western, and second, that these norms result in projects being accomplished successfully and efficiently.
If an organization is going to overload itself with achieving multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-generational, multi-sexual, multi-racial objectives, it will NOT do projects efficiently and productively. No organization is perfect, but would you rather have your organization work like Scandinavians or like Italians? I would pick Scandinavians. This means that folks who join the organization are responsible for fitting themselves into the organization; the organization does not remake itself to accommodate a great number of wildly diverse individuals.