One competency that any diversity practitioner should have and teach is cultural competence. “Cultural competence” refers to one’s ability to interact effectively with people from different cultures. With our world shrinking, this is an important skill to develop especially businesses or organizations whose work moves beyond the United States borders. Many U.S. corporations are playing on a global stage now, working with diverse suppliers, clients, and business partners. To succeed in this highly interconnected world, cross cultural competencies are a critical skill for everyone.

When dealing with global diversity, organizations with products to sell also need to keep the customer in mind as well. If your company is looking to expand globally, how much does your workforce know about other countries customers and what they want and desire in products? General Motors learned that a global perspective is an economic imperative when they considered marketing the Cadillac brand in China.

Cultural differences in the Chinese market are reflected in the styles they gravitate towards–smoother and curvier than that featured on the Caddy’s new sharp, angular lines. Automotive News reports that “Cadillac needs to hear what Chinese buyers are saying” if they want to meet their sales objectives of selling more than 75,000 cars in 2018. Is your organization listening to customers from the emerging market that its hoping to capture?

Employee resource or affinity groups (ERGs) have been around for awhile, but they should be seen as something more than social groups created around race, gender, sexual orientation or some other similar attribute or interest. Do your ERG’s reflect the kind of diversity your organization is working to create? Do they include groups created for veterans, new hires, working parents, employees with disabilities, for example? Do they contribute to your business plan or help with succession?

Anymore, ERGs are not just a social club. They should be groups that help your organization achieve a high ROI, mentor future leaders, and more. They should help your organization’s internal and external brand. Is it time for your ERGs to engage in a bit of self-reflection to ensure that they are keeping up with what today’s employee resource groups should be doing?

Check out the top five employee resource groups that Diversity Best Practices determined through a 2011 benchmarking and assessment survey.

The question in my title is the one Advertising Age used to open an October 8, 2012 article. It seems that senior marketing executives at Procter & Gamble are turning to their teenage children for answers on how to best use digital media for advertising. Executives with teenagers realized how much time they spent on their phones and started paying attention to what apps their teens used, why they used them, and what role advertising played in the process.

This story deals with advertising but my interest in it came in the messages of diversity I found in it. Diversity isn’t just about race and gender; it is also about age differences. The first message of diversity I found in the article highlighted generational intelligence. Senior marketing executives with years of education and experience are beginning to realize that teenagers offer multiple insights that they can leverage to increase their bottom line.

While this newfound knowledge offers one way to take advantage of generational differences to boost profits and increase an online presence, it also worries me that these same senior marketing executives are not turning to their younger colleagues at Procter & Gamble for the same kind of information. It makes good business sense to leverage the knowledge of both Gen X as well as Gen Y, because both have valuable insights to offer.

Another message of diversity that didn’t appear in this article revolves around another demographic whom I would claim are even bigger influencers that white, suburban teenagers–Latinos/as! That Advertising Age dismissed or remained unaware of this surprises me!

I would think it would be common knowledge that the face of the United States is changing. The children of senior marketing executives, who are undoubtedly mostly white and suburban, are a shrinking population. By 2050, the Latino/a population is projected to increase by 167%. Right now, the median age for population by race puts whites at 41 and Latinos/as at 27. While whites are trending older, Latinos/as are trending younger and having larger families.

Latinos/as will be the primary feeder of new consumption for the next ten years or more. Therefore, marketing executives as well as publications like Advertising Age cannot afford to ignore this trend. Is your organization ignoring the generational and racial diversity available in your workforce and beyond?

Diversity and inclusion would seem to be the latest buzz words in business right now, but what they mean can be different from one office to the next. One segment of corporate America that still has a long way to go is the automotive industry.

I recently conducted a very small climate survey about LGBT diversity among members of the Automotive Digital Marketing community. Community members on this site represent just about every segment of automotive, so I received a good sampling in spite of the small size (75). What I learned didn’t exactly surprise me.

According to my survey results from ADM members, the auto industry has a long, long way to go to achieve a diverse and inclusive work environment at all levels of the food chain, from dealerships to the C-suite to suppliers to employees. According to my survey results, a handful of individuals in automotive recognize the need for developing a business case for diversity and inclusion.

However, another recent finding of mine reveals how little automotive is doing to increase their understanding of marketplace demographics, more proactively manage costs and identify opportunities, and position themselves to thrive in a global economy. Before I get to this, let me talk a little more about organizations outside of automotive who are working to promote inclusion in automotive.

13th Annual Global Automotive and Energy Summit & Rainbow Push

A non-automotive organization promoting inclusion bears a name that is probably familiar to many people. That organization is Rainbow Push (RP). What does the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. and his Rainbow Push (RP) coalition have to do with automotive? That question popped into my mind when I read about an annual conference that RP hosts every year. On October 2012 RP held its 13th Annual Global Automotive and Energy Summit in Detroit. The event drew over 500 attendees, including automotive executives, entrepreneurs, government and elected officials and a host of professionals.

I went to RP’s website to find out more about it’s involvement with automotive. I learned about the issues it has taken on, which includes “Corporate Inclusion,” and from this issue, I presumed that one area of corporate that RP has chosen to focus on is automotive. The RP website describes the issue as

Corporate Inclusion

Since the days of Operation Breadbasket, Rev. Jesse Jackson has had a focus on diversifying corporate America. Today, through the Rainbow PUSH Wall Street Project (WSP), we challenge corporate America to end its multi-billion dollar trade deficit with minority vendors, consumers, and employees. The WSP uses the Breadbasket model of research, education, negotiation, and reconciliation to promote inclusion, opportunity, and economic growth by encouraging public and private companies to improve hiring and promotion practices; name more minorities to corporate boards; allocate more business to minority companies; and increase the amount of business minority firms conduct with each other.

The main goal of the conferences is to dialogue with key people in the industry so as to increase diversity at every level of automotive. I am a member of a professional automotive community, so I thought I would check out the website to see what conversations were taking place about this conference. This led to the discovery I mentioned earlier. There was absolutely no conversation taking place on a social community website of automotive professionals. This community has nearly 6,000 members too! A google search uncovered 1,380,000 hits.

My climate survey was sent out to this community, so the results it produced and this indifference toward a conference that I think is significant was disturbing. This deafening silence on this particular page spoke volumes to me about the place of diversity and inclusion in automotive, but these volumes are empty and have yet to be written.

According to Glenda Gill, executive director of  the Rainbow Push/CEF Automotive Project, “Communities of color are still being treated as charity or social projects and not the profit trajectory that we represent.”

At the conference the Automotive Project unveiled a comprehensive research document that presents a factual record about the economic impact of the automotive industry on urban communities.  A story about the conference describes the document as making “a business case for why auto manufacturers would target urban areas in the first place.  Partly, it cites studies that reveal manufacturers located in densely populated urban centers are more productive because they benefit from better access to skilled labor.  It also explores how an auto manufacturing facility with 2,000 workers located in an urban area can support an additional 5,200 jobs in the local community.”

So why is a prominent automotive professionals’ networking community totally silent on this?

I haven’t posted for awhile, but there is a good reason for my absence. I’ve just become a Certified Diversity Professional! I was studying for an exam and working on a project that kept me away from Out and About. With the holidays around the corner, however, I’m not sure sure that I’ll be on this much until after the new year starts and all the holiday madness ends.

My project for certification began with a survey of people working in the automotive industry. I conducted a climate analysis survey to gauge the need for diversity and inclusion in this area. While the results were hardly surprising to me, I want to expand my survey and create a business case to launch myself as a diversity and inclusion expert in automotive. That’s the goal anyway.

I recently applied for a D&I job in a well known company and would really, really, really love to get the job!! I accidentally came across it, so I’m hoping that it’s destiny calling. We’ll see.

As we celebrate the holidays, remember that Christmas is a Christian holiday not celebrated by everyone. Learn to appreciate the differences in the way we celebrate days that are sacred or special to us or even in the days we celebrate. At this time of year there are Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Las Posadas, Three Kings Day, as well as Christmas celebrations! Look at it this way–more parties to attend!

Okay, I’m all for target marketing, but I’m not sure how to interpret the Automotive News‘ write-up of these campaigns. Writer, Mark Rechtin, captions the above image: “A Honda Accord commercial designed for black consumers shows parents using features such as lane-departure warning and rearview cameras to appear as superheroes to their children.” Is target marketing really that simple (minded)–put Blacks in the commercial and then you can say that the ad is specifically designed for Blacks?

Apparently, the children’s language is what makes this commercial “black,” I guess. I say this, because Rechtin notes that “the TV spot for black consumers veers from the Accord’s mainstream commercials.” How does it do this? The children in this particular spot “describe their parents in over-the-top terms,” referring to them as superheroes, for example. Um…….is this a “black thing?” Don’t white kids ever refer to their parents in similar terms? Rechtin implies that over-the-top language isn’t mainstream.

Rechtin’s interpretation of the Latino commercial also presents some problematic language: “The mass-market Accord commercial describes the trials and tribulations of people’s daily lives. But the Hispanic version carries a message of striving to succeed in America.” I’d say that the father-son duo in this ad is already successful. I’d even hazard a guess that their roots in America go back quite a long way. The way I read the ad is that Honda wants to share the message that they have continued to produce great cars with each new generation of Accord and that sense of responsibility is mirrored in the way the father raised his son–to be great by following in the footsteps of something already tried and true. This whole striving to succeed sounds to me like someone who just came over on the boat.

Rechtin’s description or analyses of Honda’s efforts does them a disservice in my mind. However, his description of other activities attached to this campaign make Honda stand out. What follows are the kinds of things that any company hoping to reach out to a new demographic should do.

Rechtin quotes Honda’s assistant manager of multicultural marketing, Gina Jorge: “We’re trying to connect in a cultural context.” Honda succeeds in this regard. For the Black-targeted campaign, Honda is sponsoring HBCU football events and launching a social media platform with activities and events culturally relevant to this market. For the Latino-targeted campaign, Honda aired a subtitled commercial on NBC during the American Latino Media Arts Awards. It didn’t air on Telemundo or Univision; it aired on an English-language station, which demonstrated that Honda was reaching out to this demographic.  They are also hosting cultural specific events–”Mira Quien Baila,” the Hispanic version of “Dancing with the Stars,” on Univision, and a radio commercial with Jose Feliciano.

Am I being too sensitive on my read of Rechtin’s article? What do others think?

A shift in perspective is needed as to how we frame the business case for diversity. Instead of asking, “How do we build a business case for diversity?” we should be asking, “How can businesses prosper that do not value diversity?” How does a company grow if they do NOT keep up with changing demographics of their consumers and employees?

Years ago diversity initiatives were considered a cutting edge business practice. Today it is a necessity. The simple truth is in order to grow as a business you must be diversity-wise just to keep pace with your competitors. Many businesses have experienced the financial benefits and the increase in customer and employee satisfaction and productivity. We all know that it costs less money to keep a loyal customer or employee than it is to get a new one.

If you are asking what are the benefits of diversity and how does it impact your bottom line then you are lagging behind your competitors. Most likely you view diversity initiatives through a Deficit Model lens, believing that the costs are too high to implement. In the long run this perspective will not serve you or your business. This may feel better financially in the short term but it lacks vision.

Instead, to remain competitive, today’s businesses must view diversity initiatives through an Investment Model lens. It’s the classic line of, “you can pay me now or pay me later”. The pay me later will always end up costing you more because it typically comes as a result of something that has gone wrong, a reactive response. It will cost you far less if you put your investment into implementing diversity initiatives proactively verses reactively.

Outlined are four principle influencers that are changing the landscape of the workforce and how business is done.

1. Productivity & Problem Solving

2. Changing Racial Demographics

3. Legal Implications

4. Recruit-Retain-Refer

1. PRODUCTIVITY & PROBLEM SOLVING

Research indicates that diverse work teams outperform homogenous teams. Here’s a quick example. Many years ago I sat on a committee that was charged with rectifying compliance issues regarding ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The issue at hand involved the accessibility of drinking fountains. Initially many of the members falsely believed that because the building was an older structure that it would be ‘grandfathered in’ thus exempting them from having to make adjustments. But there was no ‘grandfather’ clause. But we did not know this because we did not have the right people at the table, people who would bring a different perspective. We needed someone with a legal perspective. Another perspective we were missing was to have people at the table that understood the challenges and issues of people who encounter accessibility barriers. Because the committee consisted solely of people who did not currently have mobility issues, we wasted a lot of time and resources creating remedies that were costly and problematic. At last, one of the members had the wisdom to ask some people with disabilities their thoughts and they offered a simple, inexpensive and quick solution; water coolers. Having water coolers with cups and/or individual bottles of water would have sufficed in this situation.

Does this mean that you have to have a person from every under-represented group on every committee in your organization? No. However, the take away message in this example is simple and clear; diverse work teams outperform homogenous teams.Additional benefits of diverse work teams include:

· Increased problem solving skills

· Increased innovation and thinking outside the box

· Increased productivity. Effective diversity programs are associated with an 18% increase in productivity. (National Urban League)

· Production creation to a bigger and broader consumer base, which means more consumers, which results in more profits.

2. CHANGING RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS

GLOBAL RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS

· In 1900 30% of the world’s population was considered White

· In 1950 it decreased to 24%

· In 2050 it is projected that 9% of the world’s population will be White

UNITED STATES RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS

· In 2000, 69% of the U.S. population was White

· By 2050, the Census Bureau projects a decrease to 46%.

· From 2000-2010 the Hispanic population grew a whopping 43%

· By 2050, 30% of the U.S. population is projected to be Hispanic

Currently we are experiencing the first overall decline in the number of high schools graduates in more than a decade. Although the overall number is declining there has been a shift in the racial makeup of our graduates. These statistics do not even include immigrant and non-documented students. Here are the numbers of what our new batch of graduates and members of the workforce will look like through 2015 (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education):

· Hispanic/Latino graduates 54% INCREASE

· Asian/Pacific Islander graduates 32% INCREASE

· American Indian/Native Alaskan graduates 7% INCREASE

· Black/non-Hispanic graduates 3% INCREASE

· White/non-Hispanic graduates 11% DECREASE

By 2020 it is anticipated that 46% of college graduates will be considered minorities. (NCES.ED.GOV).

These numbers are just racial differences, now add differences in age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, disability and socio-economic class, etc… and you begin to see how the landscape has changed and will continue to change dramatically. The numbers are clear, both our consumer base and workforce have forever changed. Common sense dictates that businesses must keep pace in order to effectively capitalize on these changes.

3. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Here’s the bad news–and you don’t want to get this kind of notoriety. Here are some of the settlement costs experienced due to discrimination of bias.

· Coca-Cola $192 million racial discrimination

· Abercrombie & Fitch $50 million race/gender discrimination

· Florida Gulf Coast University $4.2 million gender equality suit

· Rutgers University $516,000 racial discrimination

· State Farm Insurance $157 million

· Home Depot $104 million racial discrimination

None of these are a simple slap on the wrist. The average cost of most settlements including legal fees is $800,000.

Here’s the good news outlined by Susan Heathfield in About.com on what employers can do to prevent employment discrimination.

1. Implement and integrate a zero tolerance policy in your workplace.

2. Train managers of the anti-discrimination policy with the expectation that prevention and adherence to the policy is their responsibility.

3. Require MANDATORY employee diversity training.

Bottom line: Be proactive in creating and implementing diversity initiatives and policies. It will be a great return on your investment.

4. RECRUIT-RETAIN-REFER

STEP ONE: RECRUIT.

Recruiting any qualified candidate for a position in your organization costs money. Organizations that believe that finding a qualified pool of diverse candidates costs more money than a non-diverse pool are not serious about finding the best candidates. Too many companies and business shortcut the process and get lazy. They rely on the old true and tried methods of recruiting they have always employed and wonder why they get the same results, a homogenous pool.

I once heard Tony Robbins, the great motivational speaker say,

“If you always do what you have always done, then you will always get what you have always gotten.”

If you want a different result then you must take different action. The most qualified people are not always white or male. If you want the best-qualified candidates of all races, genders, sexual orientations, age, ability, etc…then you must go fishing in many different ponds. It’s not an “extra” expense, it just the cost of assembling the finest team for your organization.

STEP TWO: RETAIN.

This is not rocket science. We all know that it costs more to recruit talented candidates than it does to retain them. Here are the facts according to the Corporate Leavers Survey.

· Each year more than 2 million professionals and managers leave their jobs due to unfairness, costing employers $64 billion in turnover costs.

· People of Color are three times more likely to leave because of bias.

Employee satisfaction increases productivity, reduces absenteeism, reduces bad morale and reduces employee turnover. Building a more inclusive workforce will increase employee satisfaction.

Satisfied customers who feel valued and respected tend to be more loyal which results in repeat sales and increased referrals.

STEP THREE: REFER

One of the most effective ways to cut recruiting costs for building a diverse workforce and consumer base is to keep the workers and customers you currently have happy.

Social networking sites have changed the game of advertising forever. With the click of a button consumers and potential employees continually evaluate your company. Happy employees and consumers tell other people of their positive experience and that results in more employee applications and more customers.

Conversely, word of mouth referrals cut both ways and can have a negative impact on your bottom line. The Corporate Leavers Survey states that:

· 24% of employees who experienced bias related experiences strongly discourage them from recommending their employer to other potential employees.

· 13% stated that their negative experience strongly discouraged them from recommending their employers products or services.

Good news and bad news travel quickly, especially given the far reach of the Internet and social networking. The great news is that you get to frame the outcome by building an inclusive and diverse work environment that welcomes the talents and contributions of all.

copyright Dr. Maura Cullen www.TheDiversitySpeaker.com.

The Supreme Court is back in session, and the Justices are currently reviewing the Fisher v. University of Texas case, a case that challenges affirmative action at a time when the SCOTUS is hostile to it. It was only nine years ago that the Supreme Court affirmed the rights of universities to consider race as one factor in the admissions process. Affirmative action’s head is on the chopping block once again, with its supporters being forced to affirm its constitutionality. This time, however, it’s unlikely that it will survive.

The fight for diversity in higher education could learn some lessons on survival from the path that business has taken toward diversity and inclusion. Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity helped launch discussions of diversity, and legal compliance to avoid litigation prompted early efforts toward diversity. Now diversity experts are using numbers to prove the value and return on investment that comes with diversity.

Social science organizations, Fortune 100 companies, and ivy league universities have all filed amicus briefs supporting the University of Texas. Their briefs extol the economic, social, and educational benefits of racial diversity. Social science research has identified connections between racial diversity and an improvement in student attitudes about minorities. Businesses recognize the value of diversity and link it to their bottom line, so universities need to be graduating students who are comfortable with difference. No longer are corporations only adopting diversity to avoid costly litigation. They are embedding it into their practices and philosophies because it makes good business sense!

I’m anxious to see how this case turns out and how the final decision impacts diversity attempts in institutions of higher education.

UPDATE: Here is a more detailed list of amicus briefs filed (found on the Melissa Harris-Perry blog)–

An avalanche of over 70 briefs were filed from major corporations like Merck, DuPont, Halliburton and American Express, retired military leaders like General Colin Powell, over 100 college and universities, small businesses, religious denominations, and leading civil rights organizations. There also have been numerous opinion pieces, such as a piece in the Washington Post by Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Yale Law School Dean Robert Post, and another by Steve Farmer, Vice Provost for enrollment and undergraduate admissions at the University of North Carolina, which forcefully make the case for diversity.

Diversity needs to happen in more than just the workplace. There is a need to see diversity on television as well. And by diversity, I don’t mean the inclusion of a minor character thrown in for good measure. Instead, we need to see more lead roles scripted for diverse characters.

Since 2005, GLAAD began tracking series characters on broadcast television for diversity, and each year they release their findings in the Where We Are on TV report. Here you’ll find their archive of reports from 2005 to the present.

At the launch of the 2012-2013 television season, GLAAD estimates that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) scripted characters represent 4.4% of all scripted series regular characters on the five broadcast networks: ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC. This is an increase from last year, with 31 series regular characters identified as LGBT.  Additionally GLAAD counted 19 recurring characters on primetime broadcast scripted series.

In the summer, GLAAD releases another report that offers a critical analysis of this representation. Not all depictions of diversity are fair and equal. So the big question that always gets asked among those of us who belong to a “diverse” group is, “Is bad or negative visibility better than no visibility?” I put that question out to anyone who reads this. Are negative representations or stereotypes better than being invisible, because at least it starts a discussion, or at least it hopefully starts one? Your thoughts.