Why corporate diversity programs fail -- and how small tweaks can have big impact | Joan C. Williams

Transcriber:

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

In 2018, two Black men went to a Starbucks

2018 年，

兩名黑人進入一家星巴克，

to wait for a business associate.

在那裡等一位同事。

But when they asked to use the bathroom,

但當他們想借廁所時，

the manager ordered them to leave.

經理要求他們離開。

They refused.

他們拒絕了。

He called the police,

經理叫了警察，

and the video went viral.

這件事的影片被瘋傳。

Amidst an avalanche of bad publicity,

面對名聲大崩壞，

Starbucks closed all stores across the country

星巴克關閉了全國的店面，

for four hours of diversity training.

進行四小時的多樣性訓練。

And so, baristas were handed workbooks

店員都拿到了工作手冊，

with prompts like, "What makes me me and you you?"

裡面有像這樣的提醒：

「是什麼讓我是我，讓你是你？」

and, "Understanding our bias: from color-blind to color brave."

以及「了解我們的偏見：

從色盲到色勇。」

This made newspapers across the country,

這件事上了全國的報紙，

and arguably, that was the goal.

而這可以說就是星巴克的目標。

"Look, everyone! We're solving our diversity problem!"

「大家看過來！我們在解決 我們的多樣性問題！」

The assumption, though, was that you could address structural racism

不過，這裡的假設是，

如果你想要處理好結構性種族主義，

with an earnest conversation about our feelings.

只要開誠佈公來談我們的感受即可。

My take:

我的想法：

give me a break.

饒了我吧。

To address structural racism, you need to change structures.

要處理好結構性種族主義，

就得要改變結構。

So in the aftermath of George Floyd's death,

所以，在喬治佛洛伊德死後，

my sense is that many companies are feeling pressure

我覺得，許多公司感受到壓力，

to actually deliver on their diversity goals,

要實際去履行其多樣性目標的壓力，

but they haven't a clue what to do.

但他們對於該怎麼做， 則完全沒有頭緒。

And that's because we spent probably close to a billion dollars on diversity.

因為我們可能花了

近十億美金在多樣性上。

But the basic tools of the diversity industrial complex,

但多樣性工業複合體的基本工具

they just don't work.

就是沒有用。

A one-shot bias training --

一次性的偏見教育訓練—— 行不通的理由很簡單：

it doesn't work for a really simple reason:

doing anything once won't change a company's culture.

不論什麼事，只做一次 都不可能改變公司的文化。

And the other basic tools --

至於其他的基本工具——

things like an employee resource group or a women's initiative --

比如員工資源團體

或者女性方案——,

they're fine,

它們都很好，

如果問題是出在 女性及有色人種的話。

if the problem is with the women and the people of color.

But it's not.

但並不是。

If a company faces challenges surrounding diversity,

如果公司面臨到多樣性相關的困難，

typically, it's because subtle and not-so-subtle forms of bias

通常，是因

為隱約的及沒那麼隱約的偏見形式,

are constantly being transmitted through their basic business systems --

經常會透過其基本的 企業制度在傳播——

through hiring, through performance evaluations,

透過僱用，透過績效評估，

through access to opportunities.

透過機會的可得性。

So we need to stop trying to fix the women and the people of color.

所以，我們得要停止 嘗試修復女性和有色人種。

We need to fix the business systems.

我們需要修復的是企業制度。

And if you think about it, this makes sense,

仔細想想，這是合理的，

because if a company was facing challenges with sales,

因為，如果公司面臨業績上的困難，

it wouldn't respond by holding a series of sincere conversations

因應方式不會是進行

一連串誠摯的談話，

about how much we all value sales

談我們有多重視業績，

and put on programming for "National Celebrate Sales Month"

播放《全國業績慶祝月》的節目，

and expect sales to improve.

然後就預期業績會改善。

But that's a lot of what we're doing in the diversity context.

但換成是多樣性， 我們卻幾乎都是這麼做。

If we really want to tackle diversity effectively,

如果我們真的想要 有效地處理好多樣性，

we need to use the same tools businesses use to tackle any business problem --

我們需要用的是企業在處理

任何企業問題時所使用的工具——

evidence and metrics.

證據以及衡量標準。

And, you know, I suspect this will come as a relief

且，我猜，很多執行長 會覺得鬆了一口氣，

to a lot of CEOs who feel far more comfortable using those tools

他們能舒服自在地運用這類工具，

than they do with trying to lead a deep conversation

反而不那麼擅長 帶領大家進行深度對談，

about the inner workings of social inequality.

談社會不平等的內部運作方式。

The first step

第一步，

is for us to understand what bias looks like on the ground.

我們得要了解

一般人的偏見會以什麼樣子呈現。

And I and my team at WorkLife Law,

我和我在「工作生活法律」的團隊，

we have been studying how bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions

我們一直在研究

在日常工作場所的互動中， 偏見會如何展現，

for well over a decade.

至少研究了十年以上。

And what we find is that the same patterns of bias,

我們的發現是，

有相同的偏見模式存在，

the same five patterns,

有五種相同的模式，

they emerge over and over again.

都會一而再再而三地出現。

So here's what the evidence looks like.

以下是證據。

The first pattern we call "prove it again."

我們把第一種模式稱為 「再次證明」。

Some groups have to prove themselves more than others.

有些族群會比其他族群 更需要證明自己。

This is triggered by lots of different things.

這個現象的觸發因子很多。

It's triggered by race and gender,

會觸發它的原因包括種族、性別、

age, disability, LGBTQ status,

年齡、身心障礙、

LGBTQ 的身分，

even social class.

甚至社會階級。

So one study, for example,

比如，有一項研究

looked at callbacks offered to white men with identical qualifications

在探討白人男性投履歷後 得到回電的狀況，

他們的資格完全相同，

but different hobbies.

但嗜好不同。

One résumé listed things like sailing and polo,

一張履歷上的嗜好包括航海與馬球，

and the other résumé listed things like

另一張履歷則有列出

counseling first-generation college students

輔導第一代大學生

and country music.

以及鄉村音樂。

And, if you can believe it, Mr. Polo --

如果你能相信的話，馬球先生——

he got 12 times the number of callbacks as Mr. Country Music.

他得到回電的數目， 是鄉村音樂先生的十二倍。

Too often when we talk about privilege, we forget about class.

我們在談特權時，常常漏了階級。

The second pattern is called "the tightrope,"

第二種模式叫做「走鋼絲」，

and it reflects the fact that a certain in-group of white men

它所反映的事實是， 白種男人族群當中的人

just need to be authoritative and ambitious in order to succeed.

只要有權威性、有野心

就可以成功。

But women walk a tightrope,

但女性則是在走鋼絲，

where they may be seen as abrasive if they're authoritative

她們若是有權威性， 可能會招人討厭，

but unqualified if they're not.

若沒有權威性，又變得不夠格。

And people of color who behave assertively often are written off

有色人種若表現得很果斷，

通常反而會被貶低，

as angry if they're Black,

黑人會被當作是憤怒，

even hotheaded if they're Latinx

拉丁裔甚至會被當作暴躁，

and sometimes as untrustworthy if they're Asian American.

亞裔美國人有時則會 被當作是不值得信任。

The next pattern we call the "tug-of-war,"

下一種模式叫做「拔河」，

and it reflects the fact that sometimes bias against a group

它所反映出的事實是，

有時，針對某個族群的偏見，

fuels conflict within the group.

會刺激該族群中的衝突。

So, for example, if there's room for only one woman or person of color,

比如，

如果只有留給一位女性 或有色人種的空間，

it's entirely predictable:

就完全可以預料：

women are going to be supercompetitive with other women,

女性在面對其他女性時 會變得超級有競爭性，

and people of color, competitive with other people of color.

有色人種則會與其他有色人種競爭。

The fourth pattern of bias is actually the strongest form of gender bias,

第四種偏見模式 是性別偏見的最強形式，

called "the maternal wall."

它叫做「母職牆」。

And it reflects assumptions that mothers aren't committed,

它反應出的假設是， 母親無法全心投入工作，

probably shouldn't be

可能也不應該全心投入工作，

and aren't competent --

且沒有能力——

think "pregnancy brain."

我們還會用「懷孕腦」來形容健忘。

So mothers often find they have to prove themselves yet again

所以，母親產假結束返回工作之後，

when they return from maternity leave.

通常都還得再次證明自己。

And if they do, they may be seen as bad mothers and so as bad people

如果她們證明了自己， 可能反而會被視為壞母親，

因此被視為壞人，

and disliked.

而被討厭。

The final pattern consists of racial stereotypes.

最後一種模式是由 種族刻板印象所組成。

So, Asian Americans again and again report

不時就會聽說有亞裔美國人

that they're seen as a great match for technical skills,

被視為是在技術技能上的強力對手，

but lacking in leadership potential.

卻缺乏領導潛力。

And our studies show that Black professionals, again and again,

且，我們的研究指出，

不斷發生黑人專業人員

report really high levels of isolation

受到嚴重的孤立，

and often startling forms of disrespect.

通常還會受到各種 驚人形式的無禮對待。

And an Asian American professional may be seen as too emotional

在討論當中，專業人員 若是亞裔美國人，

他們的言行舉止會被視為太情緒化，

in a discussion where, you know what,

a white man behaving exactly the same way

但若由白人男性做出 完全一樣的言行舉止，

would be seen as having a career-enhancing passion for the business.

則會被視為對此事務具有熱情， 能提升他的職涯。

And so what we find is that white women report four patterns of bias.

我們的發現是，

白人女性會遇到四種偏見模式。

Men of color also report four.

有色人種男性也是四種。

Women of color report all five in very substantial proportions.

有色人種女性則是 五種全部都會遇到，

且機率都不低。

And among women of color,

且，在有色人種女性當中，

Black women report the most bias as a group.

遇到最多偏見的族群是黑人女性。

But the bottom line, really, is that the experience of white men as a group

但，結果就是，

白種男性族群的經歷

differs from that of every other group.

和所有其他族群的經歷都不相同。

If a white man is a first-generation professional or LGBTQ,

如果有一名白種男性是

第一代專業人員或 LGBTQ，

he may encounter bias.

他可能會遇到偏見。

But but most aren't.

但大部分並不會。

These biases can have really serious negative effects.

這些偏見可能會造成 嚴重的負面影響。

There's a ton of research.

有非常多相關研究。

But here's a story that really says it all.

但，以下這個故事 真的是說明了一切。

We were working with one company, and we spoke to a woman engineer

我們和一家公司合作時， 曾與一名女工程師談，

who had found a mistake in one of the calculations

她發現了一個計算上的錯誤，

of a male colleague,

犯錯的是一名男同事， 而她點出了錯誤。

and she pointed it out.

When she pointed it out,

當她點出錯誤時，

she was violating an unwritten rule.

她就違反了潛規則。

The good woman is seen as modest, self-effacing and nice,

好女性被認為是要 端莊、自我謙遜、體貼，

not a mission-driven expert.

而不是任務導向的專家。

That's why male experts in meetings exert more influence.

那就是為什麼在會議中， 男性專家的影響力會比較大。

But you know what?

但，你知道嗎？其實，女性專家

Female experts, they actually exert less influence than female nonexperts do.

產生的影響力比女性非專家還要低。

And so when this engineer pointed out the mistake in calculation, she told us,

當這名工程師點出了計算錯誤之後，

她告訴我們，

the response of her department was so massively negative that, she said,

她的部門做出極負面的反應，

她說：

"Now I'm just smiling a lot and bringing in cupcakes."

「現在我做的就只是經常微笑，

帶杯子蛋糕給大家吃。」

This company, by allowing gender bias to go unchecked,

這間公司允許放任性別偏見，

was literally jeopardizing their mission.

結果真的危害到他們的任務。

So what's the solution?

那麼，要怎麼解決？

解決方案就是使用阻斷偏見的工具，

The solution is to use bias interrupters,

new tools my team has developed

我的團隊開發出來的新工具，

that are evidence-based and metrics-driven.

這些工具以證據為基礎， 且是衡量標準導向。

And I've just told you about a lot of the evidence.

我剛才已經提到許多證據。

Metrics are also superimportant

衡量標準也超級重要，

because they help you pinpoint where things are going wrong.

因為它們能協助你精準找出 出錯的點在哪裡。

So if a company has challenges with hiring,

所以，如果一間公司 遇到僱用方面的困難，

they should be keeping track of who is in the original pool of candidates

他們應該要追蹤

最原始的候選人有誰，

and who survives résumé review

誰通過履歷審核，

and who gets called to interview

誰被通知前來面試，

and who survives the interview.

以及誰通過面試。

And the reason that's important is because the fix,

這麼做之所以很重要是因為

if you have a nondiverse original pool,

如果原始的人選本來就缺乏多樣性，

is totally different than the fix if no woman ever survives the interview

這樣的情況完全不同於

所有女性都沒有通過面試，

because every woman is either too witchy

只因為她們若不是太妖

or too meek.

就是太軟弱。

Metrics are also superimportant for another reason:

衡量標準這麼重要，還有一個理由：

to establish baselines

為了建立基線

and measure progress.

和測量進步。

If you use evidence and metrics,

如果你能使用證據和衡量標準，

what we have found is that small tweaks can have really big effects.

我們發現，

小小的調整也能有大大的效應。

So we've worked with one company, for example,

比如，我們曾經和一間公司合作過，

who asked us to look at their performance evaluations.

該公司請我們去看他們的績效評估。

And when we did,

看了之後，我們發現

we found that only 9.5 percent of the people of color

只有 9.5% 的有色人種

had leadership mentioned in their performance evaluations.

在他們的績效評估中 有提及領導能力。

That was 70 points lower than white women.

比白種女性低了 70%。

And that was superimportant because, as you can imagine,

這點非常重要，因為，不難想像，

mentions of leadership predicted advancement.

提及領導能力就表示有晉升機會。

And so we worked with them to do two simple things.

於是，我們和他們合作 進行兩件非常簡單的事。

First, we redesigned the performance evaluations form.

第一，我們重新設計了 績效評估表格。

And second, we help them develop a simple one-hour workshop that,

第二，

我們協助他們發展出 很簡單的一小時研討會，

其功能包括

among other things,

projected actual comments from the prior year's performance evaluations,

把前一年績效評估中的評註 投影出來給大家看，

and asked people a simple question:

問大家一個很簡單的問題：

Which of the five patterns of bias does this represent,

在這段評註中能看到 五種偏見模式的哪一種？

or is it no bias?

或者沒有任何偏見？

Just doing that, we found in year two,

光是這樣做，我們就發現在第二年時

100 percent of the people of color had leadership mentioned

所有有色人種的績效評估都提及了

in their performance evaluations.

領導能力。

At this company, white women, they had a different problem.

在這間公司裡， 白種女性有不同的問題。

Almost 20 percent had comments in their performance evaluations

在她們的績效評估中， 有近 20% 的評註

that they didn't really want to make partner --

都說她們實際上並不想 成為合夥人——

this was a partnership.

這是間合夥公司。

And we suspected the women hadn't actually said that.

而我們懷疑女性其實並沒有這麼說。

It was just assumptions.

那只是假設。

And so in that one-hour workshop, we told people,

於是，在那一小時的研討會中， 我們告訴大家：「嘿，

"Hey, don't say this unless you've actually had a conversation,

別這麼說，除非你真的 有跟對方談過這件事，

and someone has told you they don't want to make partner."

且對方真的有告訴你 她們並不想要成為合夥人。」

In year two, only one woman got that comment --

在第二年，只有一名女性 得到那樣的評註——

one woman in the entire company.

全公司只有一名女性。

And so what we find is that we have helped over 100 companies

我們的發現是，

我們已經協助了超過一百間公司

actually make progress towards their diversity goals.

能夠真正有所進展， 朝其多樣性目標邁進。

And there's growing evidence that these bias interrupters work.

有越來越多證據顯示

這些阻斷偏見的工具行得通。

And the best thing about them is that they help every single group.

這些工具最棒的一點就在於 它們能協助每一個族群。

So in this company I've been talking about,

所以，在我剛才談的這間公司裡，

in year two, people of color got wildly more constructive feedback --

在第二年，有色人種得到更多更多

有建設性的回饋——跳升了約三成。

it was like a 30-percent jump.

But white women, they got more constructive feedback, too,

白人女性也得到了 比較有建設性的回饋，

and so did white men.

白人男性也一樣。

If you design your systems based on evidence,

如果你能根據證據來設計制度，

it's going to help every single group.

就能協助每一個族群。

So the bottom line, if you think about it, your systems and your culture,

結果就是，想想看，

你的制度和你的文化

they reflect the people you've already hired.

反映出的是你已經僱用的人。

So if you want to replicate that workforce into the future,

如果你未來也想要有 像目前這樣的全體員工，

definitely keep on doing exactly what you're doing.

那就一定要持續你目前的做法。

But if you don't,

如果你不想要這樣，

if you actually want to make progress

如果你真的想要改善多樣性、

on diversity, equity and inclusion -- what we call DEI --

平等、包容——

我們所謂的 DEI——

my message to CEOs is reassuring:

那麼我要對執行長說的是， 我要再次向你保證：

you already know what to do.

你已經知道該怎麼做了。

Use standard business tools,

用標準的商業工具，

start from the evidence,

從證據開始著手，

gather metrics to establish baselines and measure progress

收集衡量標準，來建立基線 及測量進步程度，

and keep at it until you achieve your goals.

持之以恆一直做下去， 直到達成你的目標。

That's the new DEI playbook.

那是新的 DEI 劇本。

And it works.

且它是有用的。

Thank you.

謝謝。