Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

•  
  hamlinrs01/24/08 Report as spam
  1

  Racism in the office

  Disagreeing with the black employees' demand to fire the offending employee, but understanding their position, I would honor their right to protest, reschedule the mandatory tolerance meeting, and take the interim time to sit down with the black employees to come to an agreement.

•  
  kianders01/24/08 Report as spam
  2

  Who said they were black?

  ?

•  
  tthornton01/25/08 Report as spam
  3

  Agreed...

  Why do we always assume the conflict is black vs. white? It could very well have been Asian (Indian) vs. white in my workplace!

•  
  Lady Socrates01/25/08 Report as spam
  4

  Who says they're not Black?

  You're correct, of course, that the story didn't identify the minority. However, while the reply's assumption that the minority was Black could indicate a prejudice, it could also be a positive indicator. If the personal experience of the author of the reply has been with racial tensions involving Blacks, his assumption may be indicate the importance that he, personally, places in this kind of ethical dilemma. He may have internalized the scenario and related it to his personal experience.
  
  Just as the details lacking in any short scenario require us to "fill in the blanks" with our imagination, if I assume that the writer imagining them as Black is a negative/positive thing that assumption, itself, may be either a positive or negative indicator.
  
  But, like you, that might be one of the first questions I'd be tempted to ask, so I'm glad that you did. Coming from someone else, it strikes me as confrontive and not conducive to productive dialogue and it's so darned much easier to see a possible problem in someone else's words and actions than in my own. You've given me the opportunity to hear myself and think about how others might be affected by words that I didn't happen to say - this time. Thank you!

•  
  kianders01/24/08 Report as spam
  5

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  Fire the guy who sent the email, then fire the troublemakers who refused the mandatory training.

•  
  rgilmour01/25/08 Report as spam
  6

  Maybe the first firing was over the top?

  In the first instance perhaps the employee sending the joke should have been warned rather than fired?
  
  There are too many people shouting about "political correctness gone mad". The person sending the joke now feels that they have been unfarily dealt with which will not really support the wider issues of racism. By making it clear to them their behaviour is inappropriate they can change. This will make them a better employee and save an expensive round of rehiring.
  
  The next action is to challenge the message sent round by sending out an anti racist joke:
  Q: Why didn't the racist cross the road?
  A: He was afraid of the other side.
  
  This make sit clear that racism is wrong to the wider community.

•  
  Carina_K01/25/08 Report as spam
  7

  He wasn't fired...

  He was only suspended.

•  
  tecamper01/25/08 Report as spam
  8

  2 options are available

  I agree that mandatory is mandatory. But I also agree that the employees who felt compelled to take off the day of the training should ALL be talked to together and then if they wanted to have a 1:1 afterwards, that can be done. Keeping open and transparent communication is important and not every situation can be provided a cookie-cutter solution.
  
  T. Elois Camper
  Strategic Transformation Partners, LLC

•  
  ingoodcompany01/25/08 Report as spam
  9

  Discipline is an individual matter...

  Respectfully, the employees who conducted the sick-out must be addressed and disciplined individually.
  
  First, any response to them as a group likely risks validatation of treatment of a given race as a class in the organization. Very dangerous footing from a legal standpoint.
  
  Second, all disciplinary action taken against an employee should be treated independent of the actions of others to the extent possible. That is not to say that discipline shouldn't be consistentently and fairly applied across the entire employee base. But no employee should be disciplined in front of other employees, but should be done privately and confidentially, and based on each employee's individual actions. Employees should also be instructed not to discuss their disciplinary action with other employees. They may choose to do so anyway; but that warning reinforces the confidentiality, and that the discipline is not intended to humiliate or alienate the employee. Neither should the employer discuss or disclose the disciplinary action. (Union grievance matters handled under representation are somewhat different, but the principles are the same.)

•  
  ksorensen01/25/08 Report as spam
  10

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  'Find a compromise...' answer sounds good, but you cannot let the protesting employees dictate to you how to discipline other employees.
  
  In this case, the discipline would have to depend on severity and prior behavior. What was the content of the offensive joke? Is this the first offense? Or has this happened before? Answers to those questions determine whether the employee is fired, suspended, whatever.
  
  If the material was acutely offensive, or if this was a subsequent offense after prior warnings, the employee should be fired.
  
  If it was a minor first offense, I would have dealt with the offending employee via a formal warning and training, and talked one on one with any others on the team who wanted to discuss the situation.

•  
  fowlbruce01/25/08 Report as spam
  11

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  Insufficient information. The response depends on the office culture. If this is a tight control organization disobedient employees should be fired immediately for cause. If the organization is loose control even participatory, then fine the absent employees their pay for that period plus the cost of the training.

•  
  sbrennaman35401/25/08 Report as spam
  12

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  There is no ral answer here but some of the responses highlight teh issue from an American (US) perspective. We automatically jump to white vs Black situation when the situationa ppliies to all races. The manager in this case has drawn a line in the sand (manadatory attendance) to a session that should have prompted people to open up and share there feelings. The few disgruntled employees whoce chose not to attend should be reminded that they are valued as emplyees but if they do not attnd the sessions they become part of teh problem not part of teh solution.

•  
  sthunt01/25/08 Report as spam
  13

  Chill and "spread the love."

  Get a grip on reality. If the offending employee does not have a track record of racism, he/she should be counseled by their supervisor and asked to write an honest apology. If the employee has a track record of racism, this is an excellent opportunity to fire the individual. People make mistakes and a reactionary company wide diversity training session can accentuate the problem rather than solve it. If the company has been short on diversity appreciation, then now would be a good time to schedule a pro-active program. Chill and "spread the love."

•  
  tthornton01/25/08 Report as spam
  14

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  I think jumping to fire anyone on either side is wrong. It's usually better to have open discussions and collaborative actions when circumstances like these arise.
  
  I would question the manager's decision to have ALL employees take a diversity training seminar. This blanket approach to discipline is often viewed as offensive in this regard. The offending employee shoud suffer his own discipline, with the non-offending employees understanding that action has been taken, but without having a say in what the actions are or the severity.

•  
  sbrennaman35401/25/08 Report as spam
  15

  Diversity Training

  Excellent point on manadatory diversity training. I have been singled out (30 yrs ago) for diversity traiing solely on the basis of where I was from (southeast US) and white. Did I learn anything? Yes. Did I like being singled out? No. And that was anotehr lesson.

•  
  Xceligent01/25/08 Report as spam
  16

  Training should include all employees

  While I understand the response from the person indicating that he/she felt singled out and was upset that only certain groups had to go through [diversity] training, from a legal liability standpoint the company will be asked if training was provided to ALL employees. I believe the company must mandate this kind of training to everyone - just like discrimination and sexual harassment training.

•  
  tthornton01/28/08 Report as spam
  17

  RE: Diversity Training

  That may be true, however the company should require the training from ALL employees as a standard rule, not immediately following an incident like this. That is insulting - and may lead some folks to resent the minority group for having to attend a session that they feel they don't need.
  
  The problem - and the resolution - involves the manager and the offending employee. Additional discussions with the minority employees - and maybe all others on a voluntary basis - wouldn't hurt either; but mandated 'training' will either do nothing, or worse, add to the problem.

•  
  upshift01/25/08 Report as spam
  18

  Racial Tension

  Did the company have, or have not, an explicit policy in place that dealt with racial jokes.
  
  If they don't there is very little purpose to sensivity training.
  
  If the organization did have specific policy guidelines then the employee should be fired.

•  
  upshift01/25/08 Report as spam
  19

  Racial Sensitivity Training

  As a small digression, the tv show "Rescue Me" had an hilarious take on sensitivity training.
  
  Without going into detail, Dennis Leary, (main character in show),
  recognized that the main message, after attending session, was that only white people were prejudiced.

•  
  sbrennaman35401/25/08 Report as spam
  20

  Prejudice is not restricted to a certain race

  My point exactly. Prejudice is a natural byproduct of being human and is rooted in ignorance. However action as a result of prejudice leads to bigotry and other forms of intolerance.

•  
  ingoodcompany01/26/08 Report as spam
  21

  TEST FOR YOUR OWN HIDDEN BIAS

  Tension is unavoidable. Its what we do with it that makes the difference. For example, there's a difference between preference and discrimination...but the line may be fine when an unconscious bias that affects decisions, becomes manifest and offensive or otherwise detrimental to others.
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18122831/
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/18126390#18126390
  
  TEST FOR YOUR OWN HIDDEN BIAS at
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

•  
  sargmel01/25/08 Report as spam
  22

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  Diversity training should be done an an annual basis. Even if just an online review that employees must read and sign. So regardless of this situation, mandatory training for diversity issues is critical (former HR talking here).
  
  In addition to mandatory training, a very clear written policy on diversity/racism/etc. should be developed. This will outline how actions such as the joke in the email will be handled. This should be included in the mandatory training so no one can say they were not informed.
  
  Now you no longer have this type of dilemma in the above scenario. Not that gray areas won't have to be dealt with, but a clear zero-tolerance mandate will help tremendously.
  
  Assuming no clear policy and no prior training in the above scenario, the employee should have a strong warning, apologize 1:1 with ALL employees it was sent to, and the office should establish the mandatory training and policy mentioned above. The policy on mandatory training attendance should be accompanied by consequences of refusal to attend. This must be communicated before training takes place. If ANY employees do not attend after that, follow the policy on consequences with NO exceptions.

•  
  jackm1014901/25/08 Report as spam
  23

  Racism in the office

  ovbioulsy setting a training in diversity without haveing a previous talk with the minority employees and the the rest is a non-no. during the meeting youmust try to amke the pint that the suspension or firing of the offending employee will depend on the results of the investigation at which point the company, not hte manager or any other official, will decide the action to be taken. a probable explanation would be that there is a need to be cosncious that ther is always room for learning and learnign to ineract between epople is essential to good relationships where gender or race will not taint the raltionship or the flow and excahnge of ideas and opinios which enrich the human person and his relationship with others. this excange of ideas and opinios freely given helps clear misconceptions, explains richness of culture and helps knock down prejudices.

•  
  EEBW01/25/08 Report as spam
  24

  Racial Tension

  The dilema didn't ask us if we thought the mandatory decision was a good one, but rather what action we take once the manager made the decision the seminar was mandatory. I agree that there is not enough information. Was the company's policy regarding racism clearly defined and were staff previously "trained" on cultural diversity? Lots of variables that affect the situation.

•  
  Shopgood01/25/08 Report as spam
  25

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  I would sit down with all parties (the racist and minorities) and try to come up with solution but all parties would be discipline. The racist for forwarding off color jokes and the minorities for missing a mandatory meeting. I would also need to ensure that HR had a clause in the handbook to clarify the policies and procedures for computer usage and code of conduct.

•  
  Lady Socrates01/25/08 Report as spam
  26

  Team problem - team solution

  An ethics problem is not dissimilar to any other kind of problem, in that you may need to treat the symptoms while finding a solution to the problem that caused them. Racist jokes are a symptom of the underlying problem ? the workplace culture in which the individual assumed (correctly) that others would find it amusing.
  
  One symptom has been addressed (the suspension) and ?mandatory? isn?t optional, so that needs to be addressed through disciplinary action as well. However, I would address the underlying problem by putting the team to work on it, with a diversity trainer, and task them to come up with proposed solutions, since the best solutions will always be the ones they were involved in developing. I would be available whenever they would like me to be involved, but I would also make it clear that I want to stay out of their way if my presence would impede their free discussions.
  
  I would assist in transitioning those who have been disciplined back into the workforce, as discipline tends to polarize those who think it was fair and those who sympathize with the one who has been disciplined.
  
  Ultimately, I would adopt a policy, including sanctions, based on their recommendations. How close the policy was to their recommendations would depend on what they propose, but I would probably discuss any significant variances with them before instituting the new policy. I would also ask them to include some method of monitoring and a proposal for continuing education and dialogue because continued good health and healthy environments (of all kinds) require maintenance.

•  
  hbizdr01/25/08 Report as spam
  27

  what are drivers to unethical behavior?

  Having published a global report on business ethics for the American Management Association in 2006 as well as presenting and lecturing and providing executive coaching on the topic in both the corporate and academia environments, below are the report's top identified drivers that are most likely to cause people to compromise an organization?s ethical standards:
  
  1 69.7% Pressure to meet unrealistic business objectives/deadlines
  2 38.5% Desire to further one?s career
  3 33.8% Desire to protect one?s livelihood
  4 31.1% Working in environment with cynicism or diminished morale
  5 27.7% Improper training/Ignorance that the act was unethical
  6 24.3% Lack of consequence if caught
  7 23.5% Need to follow boss?s orders
  8 14.9% Peer pressure/Desire to be a team player
  
  feel free to send feedback/ question to:
  
  hbizdr@yahoo.com

•  
  ingoodcompany01/25/08 Report as spam
  28

  Barn Door Diversity

  First of all, "mandatory training" can range from varying forms of safety training to specific job skills training for a segment of the workforce. Employers have the right to make such training demands of employees, and employees put themselves at risk by disobeying employer directives. That being said, the idea that mandatory diversity training, as compared to any other mandatory training, is less effective simply because its mandatory may be a huge tipoff to bias.
  
  In this case, since the offensive email was widely read and discussed, the employer did the right thing by involving its entire work force. To view it as disciplinary action against the entire work force is a stretch. Training is not punishment. It is designed to increase awareness of an issue, which can have positive results all by itself, and to teach workers what to do when confronted with certain situations. It also provides some level of legal protection for the employer.
  
  Since one segment of the employee base conducted a 'sick-out' as a form of protest, the employer is obligated to follow the law on the matter. Employees can be fired for such a job-action, union or not, and unions will often disavow any overt support for such job-action to avoid being liable for the costs associated with it. Though the employer is not obligated to aggressively prosecute the job-action, it must be dealt with in some fashion by management.
  
  But much of the most painful aspects of this little scenario could likely have been avoided if the employer had delivered diversity training (yes, mandatory) BEFORE there was such a driving need. After that, only those employees directly involved in the inappropriate behaviors would have had to go through a do-over. Doing broad brush diversity training to close the barn door after the horse has run off is a demotivator for just about everyone. Though doing so has a basis in legal necessity, that doesn't make it any easier for non-offending employees to have to feel they're being disciplined or warned about something in which they had no part.
  
  That being said, in 1995 IngoodCompany completed a study of the management group in a large corporation (about 4,000 employees) comparing the work environment and behaviors of management employees in two business units of a company, one unit that had exposure to top quality diversity training to one that did not. The leadership in one unit flatly rejected diversity training as an option, while the other unit had embraced diversity training and had run an intervention for about five years. The outcome of the research was fascinating.
  
  Interestingly, there was virtually no difference at all in the behaviors of the management employees. In fact, the behaviors and attitudinal patterns were so similar it was almost frightening. There were two separate work environments, two very different cultures and value systems, and even some fundamental dislikes between the two units. But through testing, the nature and quality of the behaviors that SHOULD have ideally been impacted by diversity training showed almost no statistically significant differences between the two groups, with one or two exceptions noted in the study.
  
  Among the conclusions reached and recommendations made: Diversity training would have little or no impact in the longer term unless significant changes were made in areas related to organizational performance management and success measures. A number of specific recommendations were made to link the objectives of the diversity initiative to managerial and corporate performance.
  
  There are a number of reasons why diversity initiatives are widely regarded as failures. But it has less to do with the intervention than with what management tends to do with the results of the intervention, especially with respect to meaningful patterns of behavior in the organization that can be taught, mastered and integrated into the organizational culture. Said another way, most organizations view diversity training as an event as opposed to process. Such a view dooms a program to failure from the start, and leaves it open to criticisms such as those seen here.
  
  Diversity interventions are generally hamstrung by management, particularly legal departments, before they even get started. Therein, the handwriting has been on the wall for quite some time...no less than a decade...that diversity interventions would become just another bandaid solution to an entrenched problem that reaches far beyond anything businesses can solve.
  
  There is likely very little an employer can do to prevent racial tension in business offices. Employees are hired from out of society at large, and that's where those problems exist. However, there are steps organizations can take to mitigate the impact of societal problems on the corporate culture and the bottom line, no matter the size, structure or composition of the organization. Employers must make decisions on whether they take those steps proactively or reactively.

•  
  sketchworks01/28/08 Report as spam
  29

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  Although I wouldn't have done any of the events in the scenario leading up to this problem, I decided to go along with it and choose "Find a compromise". Because it's always better to find a solution that works for everyone, rather than choose a side or be led by personal feelings.
  
  I think thats a big issue, not only in the workplace, but in general. People make the wrong decisions from the BEGINNING (speaking of the CEO in this case), which only lead to problems. Then when the problem comes up, they're so confused as to what to do to handle the problem, when it shouldn't have been one in the first place. A lot of times, problem starts WAY before a person realizes that there is one. And when you don't realize the REAL cause or what you could've done differently to prevent it, it becomes difficult to come up with a solution.

•  
  adaiyeg01/29/08 Report as spam
  30

  Discipline the Offender, Compromise With the Protesters

  Disciplining the employess for not attending the meeting will be very harmful as they are standing up for something they believe in and it takes courage to do that considering racism can be severe in the work place. A compromise definitely seems the better route to slow the flames, hear them and make sure they hear you. Firing the offending employee is pointless as well, ignorant runs deep and should be treated like a mental illness thus diversity therapy/training. Afterwhich, if the employees offends again, he is fired. In the meantime, diversity training and a couple of days off without pay is sufficient for a first offense.

•  
  JD-BG01/29/08 Report as spam
  31

  Turning the tables

  This is not an answer but a reflection on the situation:
  
  Some of the responses to date are still making the assumption that the initial offender, and the "majority" employees, are white. What if they are not? What if the "minority" employees who walked out were white, while the initial offender & the "majority" employees were a different race (irrelevant which race)? Does that change your response? What if the race of the supervisor or employer is different from the initial offender & the same as the "minority" employees? If a workplace is trying to be racially neutral, these little nuances may still make a difference: also, a workplace policy & environment cannot force an individual(s) to change their beliefs. A truly neutral workplace, while taking these nuances into effect, should be able to look at the situation from different angles (change the race(s) of the parities involved around) and still respond in the same manner for a group response.

•  
  csrw01/29/08 Report as spam
  32

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  In my management training I have learned it is important to treat everyone the same and do not show favortism. If a rule of conduct is violated by an employee, the employee should be placed on notice and the manager should follow the discipline policy of the company. Listening and negotiating is good, but you cannot let your employees run all over you and make you seem ineffective and imcompetint. All managers have to deal with issues like this. If an employee is insensitive to diversity, then counciling should be sought before dismissal. A company that gets diversity, has better success. Where I work diversity is rampant with most people playing favorites. It does not matter what you do it is who you know that gets you promoted. I don't think this is fair.

•  
  MgmtZen01/29/08 Report as spam
  33

  Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  The story doesn't make clear if there was an existing policy on email usage or anything to cover this situation. Barring the policy, it's difficult to fire the employee. But staff need to know this will not be tolerated. Implement a formal policy outlining the penalties for violation and make diversity training a mandatory part of staff training. Meet with the protesters individually and outline the action you have taken and the action that will be taken for future violations. The protesters must attend diversity training as well - there's no free pass in the policy. This is very volatile issue and each one of the protesters needs some special attention and a manager to listen to their concerns. But they can't be granted an out on doing the training.

•  
  cktipton@...02/01/08 Report as spam
  34

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  My first policy is that there will be nothing of any offensive sexual, racial or other discriminatory nature transmitted using company equipment or disseminated on company property or in relation to any company operation.
  
  The second policy is that discipline will fit the situation. If a manager can't make the decision, the buck stops with me and the decision, once made will not be reversed.
  
  The third policy is that if my company goes to the extreme step of making something such as a meeting mandatory, those that do not attend, especially if their non-attendance is to protest my actions or the actions of the company will be disciplined and possibly fired.
  
  A company can only be run in an autocratic manner. That is why there are bosses and managers. Certain production decisions may be made by a team to the extent that they remain effective. However attempting to influence company policy or to coerce a reconsideration of company decisions by group action that is in contradiction of company policy or direction is disruptive and cannot be tolerated in any shape or form.
  
  I will listen to anyone who comes to my office. And this is encouraged. I will actually ask for input on many issues. A decision to provide diversity training would have been one of those issues. However, the initial discipline call would not have been one of those issues. That would have been between the offending employee and me. I'm the boss and have to occasionally make tough decisions.
  
  A boycott or walkout of a company mandated meeting, no matter what the reason, no matter what sophistry is used for justification, is adversarial and cannot be tolerated. Punishment will be meted out, again, on merits of the situation. The boycott participants must realize the consequences of their actions and must be willing to accept those consequences.
  
  (I'm not sure I would fire someone whom I would otherwise wish to keep over this, ultimately, but in my experience I don't really think that those that would protest thusly are my best employees anyway.)
  
  (This whole discussion is based on the premise that the walkout of the meeting is not a protected work stoppage but actions of a bunch of rabble rousers.)

•  
  Mikhal02/03/08 Report as spam
  35

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  The real issue here is not the racism. The employer disciplined the employee for this offense, and took an extra step to enforce the climate in which the company operates. We have no knowledge of prior training and cannot assume such did or did not take place. The diversity training was made mandatory. Those that failed to comply now fall under the disciplinary discretion of their employer. If they had a problem with how management delt with the person, they should voice their concerns through proper channels.

•  
  luigiantoniol02/07/08 Report as spam
  36

  The Short Story

  It's only racism if it's whites sending out a joke about any other racial group. It's NOT racism if it's any other racial group sending out jokes about whites. Only whites are capable of racism.

•  
  Robyne02/24/08 Report as spam
  37

  RE: Poll: Handling Racial Tension in the Office

  We have a country where the most influential (and publicly funded) broadcaster is intrinsically racist and we act surprised that the UK business environment is racist. A quick analysis of Radio1's staffing would quickly show that there are no black people on staff apart from a token black DJ programme. (I believe they did have some black people but shuffled them out of the way to other stations!)
  But not only is Radio1 racist they also have a highly sexist policy for recruitment and promotion. But then again another publicly funded arm of the BBC Radio2 and 6Music has a controller that openly on Radio says that we have to dumb down radio to meet the needs of the women listeners. If a station with the largest listening audience in the world espouses such backward rubbish what hope does British business have?
  Robyne