I just read this and see an activist academic who does not understand corporations. Efficiency and speed is related in not always related to race, but a focus on revenues that Chinese manufacturers will outcompete with similar products. the ends justifies the means can be found internationally as well. Not everything is race. Some things are industrialism and capitalism as a practices, which can be found throughout the world.
Not everything that activists label as white is white. Not everything that is white is evil. Not everything supported by this author is diversity. Sometimes the processes describe here are poverty issues, which are confounded with race. It is unhelpful overall to instigate a philosophical framing with well known traps from the get go.
This article really caught my eye because where I work is very focused on DEI issues, recruitment, creating promotion tracks, collaboration, etc. What is confusing is at the same time some leadership were declaring that “we need to professionalize our staff.” I was confused by the notion that we weren’t professionalized and what did that word really mean? It actually offended everyone. For several years, there were strong opposing forces at work which made for a tension filled environment.
While there continues to be a concerted effort to be more diverse, equitable and inclusive, some of the organization leadership is holding on to old institutional ways of doing things. And the people who were really resisting change had the view that due to time/resource constraints we needed to work rapidly, limit collaboration, and not be as transparent as we should and could be. It was very top down and siloed in terms of communication. Ultimately, the lack of transparency, communication, and collaboration came to a head and have been rolling out HR initiatives to help with all of these issues. And some of the old guard have left which has helped to open up new possibilities.
Our organization was founded by Ivy League graduates and that was where the recruiting was being done for decades. I can see now how that is detrimental to the growth of an organization and the health and productivity of its staff. The changes I am seeing are for the better and I can say I have learned so much about infrastructure, systems and leadership that supports white dominance and how to not buy into it but instead learn how to dismantle it.
As a white guy currently operating within a municipal government context, I can only express my sympathy with respect to the ongoing effects of systemic racism together with my personal intention to operate otherwise wherever and whenever possible in my role.
What drew me to this particular article however, was the use of the term “professionalism”, a term that I’ve long had a problem with, and my hopes of seeing it deconstructed not just in terms of racial bias but in terms of its effect on the mental health of those required to enact “professional” behaviours and display “professional” demeanor in order to stay employed.
It may be that an attack on what is deemed to constitute “professional” behavior may be more successful if pressed on the basis of its inherent racial bias, and if so, I’m grateful on my own behalf as well as for any and all positive results it engenders for those systemically discriminated against in the name of professionalism
This probably comes across as insensitive to the abuses described in the above article, and perhaps it is. However I can well imagine all of the rationalizations which can be made as to why “professionalism” ought to continue to be the standard for performance, and how any systemic racism within the model can be substantially ameliorated when in fact the whole idea needs to be blown up and replaced with terms like “mutual respect”, “honesty”, “skill”, etc. etc. (although even those kinds of terms may require additional deconstruction in some cases).
I’m curious if anyone else has issues with some of Okun and Jones’s definitions. Some of them read as “white” to me (a white man): Objectivity, individualism, etc. A lot of them, however, feel more related to specific org cultures and business practices than any broad concept of American whiteness. (This article also seems to use Australian, British, and American whiteness interchangeably.) They also make some pretty sweeping generalizations about how non-white people prefer to engage in a work environment.
It concerns me to see them used so broadly as examples of how white supremacy shows up in org cultures because, in my opinion, I feel like they should not be taken at face value without some interrogation. The dominant culture in the U.S. is whiteness, and there is a dominant business culture, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that dominant business culture = whiteness. Many elements of being “professional” are non-native to a lot of white folks. In framing the dominant business culture in racial terms, I think Okun and Jones are to some extent racializing something that is not necessarily racial, and creating the assumption that the opposite of these things is necessary to advance equity. I don’t think I agree with that.
At the general impression level, I find no issue with most of the points made in this article (with the exception of Okun and Jones’ list including both a Western organizational emphasis on quantity over quality and an emphasis on perfectionism, which seems like a fundamental contradiction.)
I welcome the chance to continue looking at how white supremacy expresses itself in me individually and at the organizational level in my workplace. Where most of the challenge enters for me at the practical level is when I consider that for millennia human clans and groups have functioned, endured, or thrived in no small part through the cohesion made possible by the shared norms, customs, values, and standards that form the fabric of the group as a whole.
In attempting to enact in the workplace the recommendations made in this article, there is the thorny matter of how we forge a new medium in which to function well and fairly as a collective when also prioritizing respect for and expression of the customs and preferences of each of the individuals who make up the group. I appreciate the links shared as a way to learn more.
White supremacy is a scourge that must be eliminated. It is horrifying to witness the ways it is being fostered and hate crimes it spawns in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The term “white supremacy” has charged and specific meaning and I wonder if it is useful in the context of DEAI discussions and policies in the workplace. Many of the issues related here hinge on socioeconomic difference as well as the lack of understanding around diverse work styles, elements that also need to be part of an open discussion. There is no one way. Will a conversation foregrounded by the term “white supremacy” help foster or hinder those discussions? What is the difference between white privilege and white supremacy, as cited here?
I appreciate Ms. Gray’s summary of possible contexts of implicit bias and the questions posed prior to this list to ascertain my own reaction to systemic racism; however, I might not have gotten to this section of the essay if my motivation to get to those points were outweighed by the incendiary language of the introduction where white supremacy was redefined. Systemic bias (in the US culture—White Privilege) is a critical issue/problem to address, but to laden it with language associated with extreme elements in our culture—KKK, neo Nazis, etc. does not a good or welcoming introduction make. While there is definite overlap between systemic bias/racism and white supremacy, they do emanate from very different motivations and they are different in magnitude and egregiousness. Let’s find ways to tone down the rhetoric and use helpful categories to frame the issues/problems we are trying to address as a society.
How do values such as consideration of others and mutual respect play into this way of approaching things? The only thing in that article that was challenging for me was the idea of “timeliness” and adhering to (I hope mutually set) schedules.
If we agree on a timeline for a project, and only one of us adheres to it, isn’t that inconsiderate? It represents a lack of respect of the other person’s time as well. Is there a difference I’m missing about this?
Thank you a thought provoking article. Professionalism which in the UK divetales with being middle or upper class works tends to work against people from working class (blue collar) backgrounds where people of colour tend to be over represented. However the key difference here is that if you are white you can change your accent or any other cultural associations that not upper or middle-class. However you can’t change physical characteristics that associate you with what people may deem outside the realm of professionalism.
This definition of “professionalism” also discriminates against older workers, who having a very hard time right now, and neuro-diverse people. In addition to hurting individuals, discrimination tamps down creativity, innovation and problem solving, all of which hurts the employers and culture as a whole.
The work I’ve experienced (last 15 years) I found myself a minority (I’m white and live in the US). But I can say that what they were interested in was: 1) did the code you wrote work first time everytime; 2) did it give correct answers; 3) did it run in an acceptable amount of time. Regarding language, I heard a lot of people speaking Chinese or India, but in workgroup conversations they were all spoke English. If you hire into virtually all American jobs, you better be prepared to speak English. That’s not biased point of view. If the job was for a French company in France, probably better be prepared to speak French. That’s not bias. It’s normal and what you should expect. If you want bias, turn 60 years of age and see what the environment is like.
Some good points, some shaky ones. The points about hiring, accents, all make sense and need to be worked on.
The language point I think is nuanced, not allowing diverse languages spoken at work or heavy accents is one thing (and stupid and wrong), making all employees have a working level of English proficiency and using that as the official work language is common sense (if in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia for example). That is the official language of the US and it is rightfully expected that employees be able to communicate at a working level in the working language of whatever country you’re in. And for global companies it’s just plain common sense to have an official language (often English cuz it’s the most spoken language worldwide) plus whatever the working language is in X country. Is that a bias towards the Western English-speaking world? Sure, but the reality is English is the trade language across the globe. IMO the obligation is if someone moves to X country (say an American moving to Egypt), it’s on them to at least try to learn the local language (Arabic) and if needed learn to the point of being able to work in that language. It’s totally reasonable and fair to expect people moving to the US to try to learn English, just as it would be for Americans moving to Thailand to try to learn Thai.
As for the timeliness, yes that is an aspect of western culture, but it’s also a part of industrial culture and many Asian cultures. I’m sorry, but it’s beyond fair for a company to expect its employees to show up on time. Allowing people to show up late is #1 unfair to your other employees and #2 a stupid business decision. That said, if a westerner goes to say the Middle East and works there, it’s on them to learn and adapt to that working culture.
The common denominator is to adapt to your surroundings. Obviously an American company and say a Middle Eastern company may do things differently in some aspects. To me that’s ok, employees just need to know that and be able to adapt to those cultural norms that make those businesses succeed (like a common language & timeliness). The stuff about dress, accents, etc are all good and examples of implicit bias that we all have and need to work to overcome. While an American company can reasonably expect an employee to speak English at a working level, it’s unfair to not hire them or have bias cuz they speak it with an accent, or not hiring someone or picking them for an assignment due to a non-Western name. US is supposed to have those type of discrimination laws on the books, but clearly they don’t work as well as people hoped. How we fix that IDK, I’m all ears.
Thank you for writing this piece. There’s a lot in here that I never thought about, simply for the fact of being born white. Having spent the better part of a decade working for a billion dollar corporation, I could think of at least one different example at my old job for each bold subsection in the ‘Mapping’ portion, to which I’ve certainly been complicit in or the cause of at least one. For example, when some coworkers would speak another language with each other, I often felt left out, which I realized turned into a quiet resentment in my head. I’m not the type to speak poorly of someone, but my other coworker friends tell me (indirectly) that I missed out on being friends with some great people. Most of the reason I liked this piece was because all I knew of racial bias in the workplace was, as you put it, “workplace microaggressions and discriminatory hiring and firing practices,” so thank you for expanding on the topic. I’m freelance now, but I will do my best to consider these issues in the future in everything “professional” that I do.
While you guys are discussing this and I appreciate each and everyone’s perspective, can someone explain to me why a Kenyan MP is not allowed to wear dreadlocks in the Kenyan Parliament? The reason given is that it is not “professional” to wear dreadlocks. This is a serious battle that we need to fight but I am afraid we have a very long way to go because some of the re-education will need to be done by Black people. Sad but true.
How much as this type of organizational culture contributed to poor mental health, increased domestic violence and child abuse, and unnecessary stress in our modern population?
Great article. For those who question the author’s recommendations related to “professional standards”, I suggest looking at what constitutes professionalism in different international contexts to get an idea of how these standards are socially constructed and therefore open to change. For example, American communication style (especially New York) are considered unnecessarily blunt and even rude in the UK or much of Europe.
This is apparent to any American who has struggled to fit into an office culture overseas or vice versa.
This tells us that what we consider “professional” can change. What I like most about Gray’s article is that she is proposing that we can in fact redefine standards of professionalism not to deliver less but deliver more: new ideas, new and more effective ways of communicating, new and more productive ways of getting the most out of teams. To do so, we have to be bold, curious, and less concerned about making mistakes or competition from the smart folks we have allowed to get left behind.
I can’t believe what I just read. Expecting workers to be on time is racism!? How can society have any values whatsoever without being "racist" by these standards? After all, all values originate in some culture and are valued more in some than others.
If people want to prioritize family or free time over work, that’s fine. But you’re telling me if someone puts more effort into a certain aspect of their lives (say work) it’s unfair that they reap more rewards from that aspect of their life!?
I mostly appreciate this analysis, but find the portion on Monochronic versus Polychronic workstyles highly erroneous and don’t appreciate the advice that disagreement is resistance or doesn’t acknowledge white supremacy. As a person of a mixed background with some African heritage, I actually much prefer a monochronic approach because I prefer to focus on individual tasks and get them done sequentially, otherwise I feel as if I’m getting torn to pieces and getting nothing done. How exactly is this a cultural or racial thing? Have I somehow internalized white supremacy? If I ask others to respect my workstyle am I somehow oppressing them? This is how I’m understanding the logic of your argument and I find it insulting. Hopefully this isn’t what you mean by it, because the other parts of the analysis are helpful.
I think when it comes to time management, there is so much to uncover and alot of it depends on the job. For those who work office jobs with strict timing, sometimes the timing doesn’t work. If your kid’s school starts at 9, and work starts at 8:30 and its a 45 minute drive, are you dropping your kid to school at 7:45, to begin at 9? Should getting to work on time, mean you are a bad parent? What of you drop your kid at 8:45, and reach work at 9:30, then leave work later or work from home after hours? As long as work gets done, time in may not be an important factor.
This article reminds me that if we substitute ‘white, male, straight supremacy’ for ‘white supremacy’, most of the points made herein also apply equally to women and LGBTQIA folks in the workforce, many of whom are also very professional but excluded because of the rampant oppression by our patriarchy for their differences in race, gender, and identity. The problem is immense and may only be resolved with the passing of the old guard, to their great loss.
This is a very eye-opening article for me. I’ve always known my place of work is racist in many ways (though they are working on it and doing all the right things to try to stop it). But I learned that there are some things I am doing to contribute to it that I wasn’t even aware of! I’m a communications professional, so I’m always battling against the use of jargon, but I never realized their was an element of racism to that!
By unilaterally redefining white supremacy without an sort of consensus, opinions such as this are presented factually using a term that the general populace is familiar with as negative, therefore disingenuously shifting the focus from the argument itself being presented here and conflating it with the unquestionable consensus that white supremacism (the actual definition) is bad. Redefining it and labeling other things previously called for the creation of a new word; because such ideological arguments never gained traction in a real world situation, this tactic is now being employed across multiple definitions that very few people, regardless of race, agree with. Arguments are then made on these new definitions with the intention to confuse or quiet discourse. The people responding here taking this as factually without question are alarming. The clear goal here is not addressing white supremacy, it is tearing down Western civilization with no plans to replace it with any tangible construct. There is almost no true polychronic culture, and the ones that do exist are nomadic/are literally based around other chronometric processes that don’t conform to a 24 hour day. There has been no evidence presented that in our modern context there would be any benefits nor mitigation of the dangers associated with what is effectively a disregard for time based purely on emotion. As an example: imagine having to catch a plane on a layover ran on this polychronic mindset - people would constantly miss flights. There seems to be this overall movement to effectively bring your home life into the workplace and all the idiosyncrasies that come along with it, and then have every other person forced into culture clash (this goes beyond the black/white cultural interface). Black cultures around the world are not all the same, I’m not sure how cherry picking what you want to justify your teardown of Western civilization as something valid is being given credence.
Being punctual isn’t racist.
Being professional isn’t white.
Go start a company and exercise the practises you preach, hire whoever so long as the demographic split of your employees exactly mirrors that of your region. Then let them work as they please, be social at work, come in when they want, oh and complete work in a non-linear fashion…
Please do report back with how that works for you and exactly how far your company got…
Thank you for sharing your views on this subject. Although many of your observations are sound, some are not. However, I’m confused by the intent of your position. It seems as though your argument is flawed in that you’re position is that culture needs to conform to a different standard—however, you are picking which cultural norms should be embraced. Every business has different demands that generate the culture of that enterprise.
For example, manufacturing is going to have a very high demand for timeliness. However, academia may have a more flexible nature.
The military which has lead the way in racial equality has a premium on timeliness, and yet this has had little deterrence to integration. The stiff structure required for an effective military has genuinely been the best culture to provide equal opportunity. You see, it’s not about which culture. It’s about a clear and well-defined culture that offers a fair culture for all involved.
I think the author of this article fails to understand the old cliché, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Yes, dominant cultures do exist in this country and other countries. Those dominant cultures have flaws, inequities, and it is regrettable that those with advantages (for whatever reason) keep others “down on the farm.” This is especially regrettable when those advantages are unearned or unjustified in any fair sense.
Of course, people with open minds and progressive instincts will fight against those inequities and attempt to equalize the playing field for all. I agree with many of the commentators that the author conflates advantages, or the quest for success in business or other ventures or activities, with discriminatory racial intent. Objectively, there should be nothing wrong with timely performance or perfectionism, clear communication, etc. Eloquence is something to be appreciated and valued. In any particular culture, that eloquence has certain parameters. If one does not meet or function within those parameters, then naturally, he, she or they will be disadvantaged. Having an advantage is not the same thing as being privileged. I think the distinction is lost on the author. Tall basketball players should not feel guilty when playing with shorter players during a game. The same goes for properly dressed players. If it is the culture in basketball to wear shorts and sleeveless tank tops, then a player who dons baggy long pants and a trenchcoat because it is culturally familiar to him her or them, will likely be at a disadvantage in playing the sport. I wouldn’t fault the basketball coach and requiring the player with a trenchcoat to sit on the bench. That player will have to conform in order to play. Not every urging to conform is motivated by racism or buy the perverse need to feel superior to another. If I, as a English-speaking American war to seek employment in Japan at a corporation where Japanese is the primary language spoken, I’m sure I would be at a severe disadvantage. I’d also have to learn to slurp my soup. But that doesn’t mean the Japanese are inherently racist or intend to do me harm. I fully support, and actively engage in, efforts to eradicate racism, anti-Semitism, and other abhorrent attitudes which serve to injure my fellow human beings, but the so-called theories recounted by the author here, seem like mere speculation or wishful thinking. If the author wishes to critique or condemn capitalism, fine. But it is disingenuous to do so in the guise of attacking dominant business or cultural practices in America based on perceived racist intent. As another commentator indicated, many of the practices in the workplace that the author complains of can be found in many places outside this country, notably in China, whose culture will likely dominant the entire world in a few generations if the planet or humanity survives that long. In the meantime, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
There are a few real gems in this analysis, but they are lost in the suffocating toxic blather of Critical Race Theory. For this post I will focus on my areas of disagreement:
I am familiar with the work of Okun and Jones and think it should be rejected entirely for being irrational, unscientific, and unsupported by evidence. If you boil it down to its essence, it is restating the dangerous falsehood that being objective, punctual, results-oriented, and communicating clearly is “acting white.”
The personal and organizational behavior characteristics of time management, goal setting, objectivity, rational thought, effective communication, and focus on results are not "white" or owned by any race. Proven by trial and error over centuries, they have emerged as global success factors which persons of any geographic or cultural background may choose to adopt, reaping the rewards, or reject and suffer the consequences. Many North American, European and Asian individuals and organizations have adopted these behaviors very successfully. There are also millions of persons of color in the US and around the world who embody these and other "success" behaviors, thereby improving their lives, organizations and communities.
Further, there are also millions of white-identified people who do not practice these behaviors and fail miserably as a result. The author seems to be feeding the self-defeating and false narrative that Black people have some inherent, unchangeable characteristics or culture which prevent them from succeeding in free, competitive, capitalist societies. The great successes of immigrants from Caribbean and African backgrounds whose native, non-white cultures embrace the success values discussed above are further evidence that these values should not be smeared as race-specific. This topic is well worth vigorous research and debate - the counterexamples above effectively dismantle the main assertion of the article.
For any college or business students reading this far, and looking for actionable advice or resources to help them improve their chances for success, I recommend this best-selling book series: “Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands, the Guide to Doing Business in more than 60 countries” by Morrison and Conway. It teaches awareness of the nuances of behavior in the business and social contexts across many cultures and countries, and how to adapt to them to further business relationships and avoid inadvertently offending colleagues. Many people, including me have found this advice to produce near immediate results. I suggest disregarding Okun and Jones politicized dogma and study this instead.
From the article: "Asian Americans, for example, are the least likely group to be promoted to management positions in the United States, despite being the most highly educated demographic." As of 2020, this is no longer correct. Black women are the most highly educated demographic in the United States, and even less likely to be promoted to higher leadership positions despite being over qualified, in many ways. (The extra work that black women have to engage in to be heard, respected and seen builds qualities and characterstics that would make them better candidates for some of these high pressure jobs than white males who have to do far less to gain much more.) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-women-become-most-educated-group-us-a7063361.html
I love that the author’s 2 recommendations are "Get an expert to help you" and "Keep on getting those experts!!" (plan to pay them a lot for a long time!) This whole field of "study" is mostly bogus and designed to keep easily filling the pockets of the very clever "experts."
I would like to see examples of companies that run like this and see their financials. In the US, UK, and Australia you are free to start companies and run them however you see fit, so there ought to be many examples if this is indeed being practiced by people of color who are starting businesses.
There is so much wrong with this whole concept I don’t know where to begin. So, as has been said it’s a free country, go start a business and organize it any way you want, then see what happens. If you succeed, great, more power to you. But don’t go to people who have successful businesses and tell them how to run it because in the end you will most likely run it into the ground.
Interesting comments from all sides so no need to repeat what has already been written. What strikes me is how only one side is to blame and therefore only one is required to change. There is the oppressed and there is the oppressor. We should remember what Tchich Nhat Hahn said many years ago, ‘In true dialogue, both sides must be willing to change’.
Social mores do vary country by country, region by region, and I’m not sure it’s completely accurate to equate specific expectations with "white professionalism." In places where the mid-day heat makes it impossible to function outdoors, it is considered acceptable for workers to retreat inside and rest until the heat abates, and then to work on well past what would be considered normal work hours in more temperate places. In areas where earthquakes can destroy a community in minutes, it’s considered normal to have a pair of shoes easily available in which to be able to run down 80 stories when the elevators go off. In places where well water is undrinkable, it was once considered normal and prudent to drink beer and wine at meals.
Context is important. When standards at work in one place clash with the traditional practices of people from another place, a conversation is in order, not blanket condemnation.
COMMENTS
BY Disappointed in SSIR
ON June 5, 2019 09:03 AM
I just read this and see an activist academic who does not understand corporations. Efficiency and speed is related in not always related to race, but a focus on revenues that Chinese manufacturers will outcompete with similar products. the ends justifies the means can be found internationally as well. Not everything is race. Some things are industrialism and capitalism as a practices, which can be found throughout the world.
Not everything that activists label as white is white. Not everything that is white is evil. Not everything supported by this author is diversity. Sometimes the processes describe here are poverty issues, which are confounded with race. It is unhelpful overall to instigate a philosophical framing with well known traps from the get go.
BY Linda
ON June 6, 2019 11:53 AM
This article really caught my eye because where I work is very focused on DEI issues, recruitment, creating promotion tracks, collaboration, etc. What is confusing is at the same time some leadership were declaring that “we need to professionalize our staff.” I was confused by the notion that we weren’t professionalized and what did that word really mean? It actually offended everyone. For several years, there were strong opposing forces at work which made for a tension filled environment.
While there continues to be a concerted effort to be more diverse, equitable and inclusive, some of the organization leadership is holding on to old institutional ways of doing things. And the people who were really resisting change had the view that due to time/resource constraints we needed to work rapidly, limit collaboration, and not be as transparent as we should and could be. It was very top down and siloed in terms of communication. Ultimately, the lack of transparency, communication, and collaboration came to a head and have been rolling out HR initiatives to help with all of these issues. And some of the old guard have left which has helped to open up new possibilities.
Our organization was founded by Ivy League graduates and that was where the recruiting was being done for decades. I can see now how that is detrimental to the growth of an organization and the health and productivity of its staff. The changes I am seeing are for the better and I can say I have learned so much about infrastructure, systems and leadership that supports white dominance and how to not buy into it but instead learn how to dismantle it.
BY Ralph West
ON June 6, 2019 12:21 PM
As a white guy currently operating within a municipal government context, I can only express my sympathy with respect to the ongoing effects of systemic racism together with my personal intention to operate otherwise wherever and whenever possible in my role.
What drew me to this particular article however, was the use of the term “professionalism”, a term that I’ve long had a problem with, and my hopes of seeing it deconstructed not just in terms of racial bias but in terms of its effect on the mental health of those required to enact “professional” behaviours and display “professional” demeanor in order to stay employed.
It may be that an attack on what is deemed to constitute “professional” behavior may be more successful if pressed on the basis of its inherent racial bias, and if so, I’m grateful on my own behalf as well as for any and all positive results it engenders for those systemically discriminated against in the name of professionalism
This probably comes across as insensitive to the abuses described in the above article, and perhaps it is. However I can well imagine all of the rationalizations which can be made as to why “professionalism” ought to continue to be the standard for performance, and how any systemic racism within the model can be substantially ameliorated when in fact the whole idea needs to be blown up and replaced with terms like “mutual respect”, “honesty”, “skill”, etc. etc. (although even those kinds of terms may require additional deconstruction in some cases).
BY SWG
ON June 6, 2019 01:37 PM
I’m curious if anyone else has issues with some of Okun and Jones’s definitions. Some of them read as “white” to me (a white man): Objectivity, individualism, etc. A lot of them, however, feel more related to specific org cultures and business practices than any broad concept of American whiteness. (This article also seems to use Australian, British, and American whiteness interchangeably.) They also make some pretty sweeping generalizations about how non-white people prefer to engage in a work environment.
It concerns me to see them used so broadly as examples of how white supremacy shows up in org cultures because, in my opinion, I feel like they should not be taken at face value without some interrogation. The dominant culture in the U.S. is whiteness, and there is a dominant business culture, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that dominant business culture = whiteness. Many elements of being “professional” are non-native to a lot of white folks. In framing the dominant business culture in racial terms, I think Okun and Jones are to some extent racializing something that is not necessarily racial, and creating the assumption that the opposite of these things is necessary to advance equity. I don’t think I agree with that.
BY Julie
ON June 6, 2019 01:40 PM
At the general impression level, I find no issue with most of the points made in this article (with the exception of Okun and Jones’ list including both a Western organizational emphasis on quantity over quality and an emphasis on perfectionism, which seems like a fundamental contradiction.)
I welcome the chance to continue looking at how white supremacy expresses itself in me individually and at the organizational level in my workplace. Where most of the challenge enters for me at the practical level is when I consider that for millennia human clans and groups have functioned, endured, or thrived in no small part through the cohesion made possible by the shared norms, customs, values, and standards that form the fabric of the group as a whole.
In attempting to enact in the workplace the recommendations made in this article, there is the thorny matter of how we forge a new medium in which to function well and fairly as a collective when also prioritizing respect for and expression of the customs and preferences of each of the individuals who make up the group. I appreciate the links shared as a way to learn more.
BY Leigh
ON June 7, 2019 07:03 AM
White supremacy is a scourge that must be eliminated. It is horrifying to witness the ways it is being fostered and hate crimes it spawns in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The term “white supremacy” has charged and specific meaning and I wonder if it is useful in the context of DEAI discussions and policies in the workplace. Many of the issues related here hinge on socioeconomic difference as well as the lack of understanding around diverse work styles, elements that also need to be part of an open discussion. There is no one way. Will a conversation foregrounded by the term “white supremacy” help foster or hinder those discussions? What is the difference between white privilege and white supremacy, as cited here?
BY Matt Lucas
ON June 7, 2019 12:12 PM
I appreciate Ms. Gray’s summary of possible contexts of implicit bias and the questions posed prior to this list to ascertain my own reaction to systemic racism; however, I might not have gotten to this section of the essay if my motivation to get to those points were outweighed by the incendiary language of the introduction where white supremacy was redefined. Systemic bias (in the US culture—White Privilege) is a critical issue/problem to address, but to laden it with language associated with extreme elements in our culture—KKK, neo Nazis, etc. does not a good or welcoming introduction make. While there is definite overlap between systemic bias/racism and white supremacy, they do emanate from very different motivations and they are different in magnitude and egregiousness. Let’s find ways to tone down the rhetoric and use helpful categories to frame the issues/problems we are trying to address as a society.
BY Laurie Knowles
ON July 13, 2019 12:11 PM
How do values such as consideration of others and mutual respect play into this way of approaching things? The only thing in that article that was challenging for me was the idea of “timeliness” and adhering to (I hope mutually set) schedules.
If we agree on a timeline for a project, and only one of us adheres to it, isn’t that inconsiderate? It represents a lack of respect of the other person’s time as well. Is there a difference I’m missing about this?
BY Reg Amoah
ON August 25, 2019 04:08 AM
Thank you a thought provoking article. Professionalism which in the UK divetales with being middle or upper class works tends to work against people from working class (blue collar) backgrounds where people of colour tend to be over represented. However the key difference here is that if you are white you can change your accent or any other cultural associations that not upper or middle-class. However you can’t change physical characteristics that associate you with what people may deem outside the realm of professionalism.
BY Vicki
ON December 4, 2019 09:25 AM
This definition of “professionalism” also discriminates against older workers, who having a very hard time right now, and neuro-diverse people. In addition to hurting individuals, discrimination tamps down creativity, innovation and problem solving, all of which hurts the employers and culture as a whole.
BY c w
ON December 30, 2019 12:18 PM
The work I’ve experienced (last 15 years) I found myself a minority (I’m white and live in the US). But I can say that what they were interested in was: 1) did the code you wrote work first time everytime; 2) did it give correct answers; 3) did it run in an acceptable amount of time. Regarding language, I heard a lot of people speaking Chinese or India, but in workgroup conversations they were all spoke English. If you hire into virtually all American jobs, you better be prepared to speak English. That’s not biased point of view. If the job was for a French company in France, probably better be prepared to speak French. That’s not bias. It’s normal and what you should expect. If you want bias, turn 60 years of age and see what the environment is like.
BY Maureen
ON February 26, 2020 09:22 AM
Great piece but it’s Kenneth Jones, not Keith Jones.
BY DF
ON June 8, 2020 10:49 AM
Some good points, some shaky ones. The points about hiring, accents, all make sense and need to be worked on.
The language point I think is nuanced, not allowing diverse languages spoken at work or heavy accents is one thing (and stupid and wrong), making all employees have a working level of English proficiency and using that as the official work language is common sense (if in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia for example). That is the official language of the US and it is rightfully expected that employees be able to communicate at a working level in the working language of whatever country you’re in. And for global companies it’s just plain common sense to have an official language (often English cuz it’s the most spoken language worldwide) plus whatever the working language is in X country. Is that a bias towards the Western English-speaking world? Sure, but the reality is English is the trade language across the globe. IMO the obligation is if someone moves to X country (say an American moving to Egypt), it’s on them to at least try to learn the local language (Arabic) and if needed learn to the point of being able to work in that language. It’s totally reasonable and fair to expect people moving to the US to try to learn English, just as it would be for Americans moving to Thailand to try to learn Thai.
As for the timeliness, yes that is an aspect of western culture, but it’s also a part of industrial culture and many Asian cultures. I’m sorry, but it’s beyond fair for a company to expect its employees to show up on time. Allowing people to show up late is #1 unfair to your other employees and #2 a stupid business decision. That said, if a westerner goes to say the Middle East and works there, it’s on them to learn and adapt to that working culture.
The common denominator is to adapt to your surroundings. Obviously an American company and say a Middle Eastern company may do things differently in some aspects. To me that’s ok, employees just need to know that and be able to adapt to those cultural norms that make those businesses succeed (like a common language & timeliness). The stuff about dress, accents, etc are all good and examples of implicit bias that we all have and need to work to overcome. While an American company can reasonably expect an employee to speak English at a working level, it’s unfair to not hire them or have bias cuz they speak it with an accent, or not hiring someone or picking them for an assignment due to a non-Western name. US is supposed to have those type of discrimination laws on the books, but clearly they don’t work as well as people hoped. How we fix that IDK, I’m all ears.
BY Stephen
ON June 9, 2020 11:19 AM
Thank you for writing this piece. There’s a lot in here that I never thought about, simply for the fact of being born white. Having spent the better part of a decade working for a billion dollar corporation, I could think of at least one different example at my old job for each bold subsection in the ‘Mapping’ portion, to which I’ve certainly been complicit in or the cause of at least one. For example, when some coworkers would speak another language with each other, I often felt left out, which I realized turned into a quiet resentment in my head. I’m not the type to speak poorly of someone, but my other coworker friends tell me (indirectly) that I missed out on being friends with some great people. Most of the reason I liked this piece was because all I knew of racial bias in the workplace was, as you put it, “workplace microaggressions and discriminatory hiring and firing practices,” so thank you for expanding on the topic. I’m freelance now, but I will do my best to consider these issues in the future in everything “professional” that I do.
BY Omwoko Mumali
ON July 6, 2020 12:45 PM
While you guys are discussing this and I appreciate each and everyone’s perspective, can someone explain to me why a Kenyan MP is not allowed to wear dreadlocks in the Kenyan Parliament? The reason given is that it is not “professional” to wear dreadlocks. This is a serious battle that we need to fight but I am afraid we have a very long way to go because some of the re-education will need to be done by Black people. Sad but true.
BY BMG
ON July 9, 2020 06:07 PM
How much as this type of organizational culture contributed to poor mental health, increased domestic violence and child abuse, and unnecessary stress in our modern population?
BY AMD
ON July 17, 2020 08:42 AM
Great article. For those who question the author’s recommendations related to “professional standards”, I suggest looking at what constitutes professionalism in different international contexts to get an idea of how these standards are socially constructed and therefore open to change. For example, American communication style (especially New York) are considered unnecessarily blunt and even rude in the UK or much of Europe.
This is apparent to any American who has struggled to fit into an office culture overseas or vice versa.
This tells us that what we consider “professional” can change. What I like most about Gray’s article is that she is proposing that we can in fact redefine standards of professionalism not to deliver less but deliver more: new ideas, new and more effective ways of communicating, new and more productive ways of getting the most out of teams. To do so, we have to be bold, curious, and less concerned about making mistakes or competition from the smart folks we have allowed to get left behind.
BY Dennis
ON August 29, 2020 06:53 AM
I can’t believe what I just read. Expecting workers to be on time is racism!? How can society have any values whatsoever without being "racist" by these standards? After all, all values originate in some culture and are valued more in some than others.
If people want to prioritize family or free time over work, that’s fine. But you’re telling me if someone puts more effort into a certain aspect of their lives (say work) it’s unfair that they reap more rewards from that aspect of their life!?
BY David
ON September 3, 2020 03:55 PM
I mostly appreciate this analysis, but find the portion on Monochronic versus Polychronic workstyles highly erroneous and don’t appreciate the advice that disagreement is resistance or doesn’t acknowledge white supremacy. As a person of a mixed background with some African heritage, I actually much prefer a monochronic approach because I prefer to focus on individual tasks and get them done sequentially, otherwise I feel as if I’m getting torn to pieces and getting nothing done. How exactly is this a cultural or racial thing? Have I somehow internalized white supremacy? If I ask others to respect my workstyle am I somehow oppressing them? This is how I’m understanding the logic of your argument and I find it insulting. Hopefully this isn’t what you mean by it, because the other parts of the analysis are helpful.
BY Man
ON October 27, 2020 07:58 AM
I think when it comes to time management, there is so much to uncover and alot of it depends on the job. For those who work office jobs with strict timing, sometimes the timing doesn’t work. If your kid’s school starts at 9, and work starts at 8:30 and its a 45 minute drive, are you dropping your kid to school at 7:45, to begin at 9? Should getting to work on time, mean you are a bad parent? What of you drop your kid at 8:45, and reach work at 9:30, then leave work later or work from home after hours? As long as work gets done, time in may not be an important factor.
BY Cliff Welles
ON October 29, 2020 07:28 PM
This article reminds me that if we substitute ‘white, male, straight supremacy’ for ‘white supremacy’, most of the points made herein also apply equally to women and LGBTQIA folks in the workforce, many of whom are also very professional but excluded because of the rampant oppression by our patriarchy for their differences in race, gender, and identity. The problem is immense and may only be resolved with the passing of the old guard, to their great loss.
BY HAC
ON October 31, 2020 09:21 AM
This is a very eye-opening article for me. I’ve always known my place of work is racist in many ways (though they are working on it and doing all the right things to try to stop it). But I learned that there are some things I am doing to contribute to it that I wasn’t even aware of! I’m a communications professional, so I’m always battling against the use of jargon, but I never realized their was an element of racism to that!
BY Elijah Brown
ON January 27, 2021 12:43 AM
By unilaterally redefining white supremacy without an sort of consensus, opinions such as this are presented factually using a term that the general populace is familiar with as negative, therefore disingenuously shifting the focus from the argument itself being presented here and conflating it with the unquestionable consensus that white supremacism (the actual definition) is bad. Redefining it and labeling other things previously called for the creation of a new word; because such ideological arguments never gained traction in a real world situation, this tactic is now being employed across multiple definitions that very few people, regardless of race, agree with. Arguments are then made on these new definitions with the intention to confuse or quiet discourse. The people responding here taking this as factually without question are alarming. The clear goal here is not addressing white supremacy, it is tearing down Western civilization with no plans to replace it with any tangible construct. There is almost no true polychronic culture, and the ones that do exist are nomadic/are literally based around other chronometric processes that don’t conform to a 24 hour day. There has been no evidence presented that in our modern context there would be any benefits nor mitigation of the dangers associated with what is effectively a disregard for time based purely on emotion. As an example: imagine having to catch a plane on a layover ran on this polychronic mindset - people would constantly miss flights. There seems to be this overall movement to effectively bring your home life into the workplace and all the idiosyncrasies that come along with it, and then have every other person forced into culture clash (this goes beyond the black/white cultural interface). Black cultures around the world are not all the same, I’m not sure how cherry picking what you want to justify your teardown of Western civilization as something valid is being given credence.
BY Whitey Mcracist
ON January 30, 2021 03:06 PM
Being punctual isn’t racist.
Being professional isn’t white.
Go start a company and exercise the practises you preach, hire whoever so long as the demographic split of your employees exactly mirrors that of your region. Then let them work as they please, be social at work, come in when they want, oh and complete work in a non-linear fashion…
Please do report back with how that works for you and exactly how far your company got…
BY Wes
ON February 19, 2021 09:33 AM
Thank you for sharing your views on this subject. Although many of your observations are sound, some are not. However, I’m confused by the intent of your position. It seems as though your argument is flawed in that you’re position is that culture needs to conform to a different standard—however, you are picking which cultural norms should be embraced. Every business has different demands that generate the culture of that enterprise.
For example, manufacturing is going to have a very high demand for timeliness. However, academia may have a more flexible nature.
The military which has lead the way in racial equality has a premium on timeliness, and yet this has had little deterrence to integration. The stiff structure required for an effective military has genuinely been the best culture to provide equal opportunity. You see, it’s not about which culture. It’s about a clear and well-defined culture that offers a fair culture for all involved.
BY Daniel Alan Schwartzman
ON March 27, 2021 08:54 PM
I think the author of this article fails to understand the old cliché, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Yes, dominant cultures do exist in this country and other countries. Those dominant cultures have flaws, inequities, and it is regrettable that those with advantages (for whatever reason) keep others “down on the farm.” This is especially regrettable when those advantages are unearned or unjustified in any fair sense.
Of course, people with open minds and progressive instincts will fight against those inequities and attempt to equalize the playing field for all. I agree with many of the commentators that the author conflates advantages, or the quest for success in business or other ventures or activities, with discriminatory racial intent. Objectively, there should be nothing wrong with timely performance or perfectionism, clear communication, etc. Eloquence is something to be appreciated and valued. In any particular culture, that eloquence has certain parameters. If one does not meet or function within those parameters, then naturally, he, she or they will be disadvantaged. Having an advantage is not the same thing as being privileged. I think the distinction is lost on the author. Tall basketball players should not feel guilty when playing with shorter players during a game. The same goes for properly dressed players. If it is the culture in basketball to wear shorts and sleeveless tank tops, then a player who dons baggy long pants and a trenchcoat because it is culturally familiar to him her or them, will likely be at a disadvantage in playing the sport. I wouldn’t fault the basketball coach and requiring the player with a trenchcoat to sit on the bench. That player will have to conform in order to play. Not every urging to conform is motivated by racism or buy the perverse need to feel superior to another. If I, as a English-speaking American war to seek employment in Japan at a corporation where Japanese is the primary language spoken, I’m sure I would be at a severe disadvantage. I’d also have to learn to slurp my soup. But that doesn’t mean the Japanese are inherently racist or intend to do me harm. I fully support, and actively engage in, efforts to eradicate racism, anti-Semitism, and other abhorrent attitudes which serve to injure my fellow human beings, but the so-called theories recounted by the author here, seem like mere speculation or wishful thinking. If the author wishes to critique or condemn capitalism, fine. But it is disingenuous to do so in the guise of attacking dominant business or cultural practices in America based on perceived racist intent. As another commentator indicated, many of the practices in the workplace that the author complains of can be found in many places outside this country, notably in China, whose culture will likely dominant the entire world in a few generations if the planet or humanity survives that long. In the meantime, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
BY Withheld
ON May 6, 2021 07:01 AM
There are a few real gems in this analysis, but they are lost in the suffocating toxic blather of Critical Race Theory. For this post I will focus on my areas of disagreement:
I am familiar with the work of Okun and Jones and think it should be rejected entirely for being irrational, unscientific, and unsupported by evidence. If you boil it down to its essence, it is restating the dangerous falsehood that being objective, punctual, results-oriented, and communicating clearly is “acting white.”
The personal and organizational behavior characteristics of time management, goal setting, objectivity, rational thought, effective communication, and focus on results are not "white" or owned by any race. Proven by trial and error over centuries, they have emerged as global success factors which persons of any geographic or cultural background may choose to adopt, reaping the rewards, or reject and suffer the consequences. Many North American, European and Asian individuals and organizations have adopted these behaviors very successfully. There are also millions of persons of color in the US and around the world who embody these and other "success" behaviors, thereby improving their lives, organizations and communities.
Further, there are also millions of white-identified people who do not practice these behaviors and fail miserably as a result. The author seems to be feeding the self-defeating and false narrative that Black people have some inherent, unchangeable characteristics or culture which prevent them from succeeding in free, competitive, capitalist societies. The great successes of immigrants from Caribbean and African backgrounds whose native, non-white cultures embrace the success values discussed above are further evidence that these values should not be smeared as race-specific. This topic is well worth vigorous research and debate - the counterexamples above effectively dismantle the main assertion of the article.
For any college or business students reading this far, and looking for actionable advice or resources to help them improve their chances for success, I recommend this best-selling book series: “Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands, the Guide to Doing Business in more than 60 countries” by Morrison and Conway. It teaches awareness of the nuances of behavior in the business and social contexts across many cultures and countries, and how to adapt to them to further business relationships and avoid inadvertently offending colleagues. Many people, including me have found this advice to produce near immediate results. I suggest disregarding Okun and Jones politicized dogma and study this instead.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Kiss-Bow-Or-Shake-Hands/Terri-Morrison/Kiss-Bow-or-Shake-Hands/9781593373689
BY MLIS
ON September 10, 2021 09:49 AM
From the article: "Asian Americans, for example, are the least likely group to be promoted to management positions in the United States, despite being the most highly educated demographic." As of 2020, this is no longer correct. Black women are the most highly educated demographic in the United States, and even less likely to be promoted to higher leadership positions despite being over qualified, in many ways. (The extra work that black women have to engage in to be heard, respected and seen builds qualities and characterstics that would make them better candidates for some of these high pressure jobs than white males who have to do far less to gain much more.) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-women-become-most-educated-group-us-a7063361.html
BY Beach Hair
ON October 17, 2021 07:50 PM
I love that the author’s 2 recommendations are "Get an expert to help you" and "Keep on getting those experts!!" (plan to pay them a lot for a long time!) This whole field of "study" is mostly bogus and designed to keep easily filling the pockets of the very clever "experts."
I would like to see examples of companies that run like this and see their financials. In the US, UK, and Australia you are free to start companies and run them however you see fit, so there ought to be many examples if this is indeed being practiced by people of color who are starting businesses.
BY Russell Branca
ON October 27, 2021 07:47 PM
There is so much wrong with this whole concept I don’t know where to begin. So, as has been said it’s a free country, go start a business and organize it any way you want, then see what happens. If you succeed, great, more power to you. But don’t go to people who have successful businesses and tell them how to run it because in the end you will most likely run it into the ground.
BY Always Searching for the Truth
ON November 24, 2021 05:36 AM
Interesting comments from all sides so no need to repeat what has already been written. What strikes me is how only one side is to blame and therefore only one is required to change. There is the oppressed and there is the oppressor. We should remember what Tchich Nhat Hahn said many years ago, ‘In true dialogue, both sides must be willing to change’.
BY Laura M Shemick
ON December 14, 2021 01:04 PM
Social mores do vary country by country, region by region, and I’m not sure it’s completely accurate to equate specific expectations with "white professionalism." In places where the mid-day heat makes it impossible to function outdoors, it is considered acceptable for workers to retreat inside and rest until the heat abates, and then to work on well past what would be considered normal work hours in more temperate places. In areas where earthquakes can destroy a community in minutes, it’s considered normal to have a pair of shoes easily available in which to be able to run down 80 stories when the elevators go off. In places where well water is undrinkable, it was once considered normal and prudent to drink beer and wine at meals.
Context is important. When standards at work in one place clash with the traditional practices of people from another place, a conversation is in order, not blanket condemnation.