Diversity Training Won't Change Your Behavior (or Trump's)
The president may be totally irredeemable, but diversity training generally isn't working for others in the workforce either, according to research by faculty at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
July 16, 2019 at 01:51 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
I think we can all agree that it wouldn't hurt Donald Trump if he signed up for a little diversity training. (Bonus question: Are employees of the White House required to do diversity training as the rest of corporate America?)
I mean, telling people of color, who happen to be American citizens and members of Congress, to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” is such a tired trope. I can't even tell you how many times I was told to go back to China, Japan or Viet Nam when I was growing up in Texas during the '70s. Shouldn't the president of the United States be more sophisticated than those 10-year-old bullies at the Red Elementary School from the Dark Ages?
Trump might be totally incorrigible, but diversity training generally isn't working for others in the workforce either, according to research by faculty at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. (The study involved over 3,000 employees from large global organizations who participated in online diversity training, measuring their attitudes toward women and racial minorities.)
“We found very little evidence that diversity training affected the behavior of men or white employees overall—the two groups who typically hold the most power in organizations and are often the primary targets of these interventions,” write the authors of the study in the Harvard Business Review.
Repeat after me: It didn't change the behavior of those in power.
But before I get accused of only focusing on the negative, let me give you the positive results from diversity training:
- Bias training helped change the attitudes of those who had been the least supportive of women. After training, this group became “more likely to acknowledge discrimination against women, express support for policies designed to help women, and acknowledge their own racial and gender biases.”
- Bias training prompted junior women to seek out mentorship and be more proactive about their careers. The researchers speculate that the training made women more conscious of bias in the workplace. Or that “the institutional effort to promote inclusivity led these women to trust that it was safe to advocate for themselves.”
- Gender bias training made employees more conscious of bias faced by racial minorities. “It appears that helping people recognize biases towards one marginalized group of people can have positive spillover effects on their attitudes and behaviors towards other marginalized groups.”
How wonderful and touching that so many attitudes were changed through training. But so what?
Again, the bottom line: Training didn't change behavior. And that means diverse and female employees are still not getting what they need to advance, such as mentorships or recognition. For instance, three weeks after the training, employees were asked to nominate coworkers they'd like to meet for coffee. Here's what the researchers say about the result: “Contrary to our expectations, the training didn't prompt men to nominate more women, nor did it lead senior women to nominate more junior women.”
Sadly, this all also reconfirms research conducted by the legal industry. In a study by the American Bar Association's commission on women and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, the finding was that the profession's gender equality and diversity efforts over the last three decades have been largely useless and a waste of time.
Edward Chang, a doctoral candidate who worked on the Wharton study, offers no comfort that diversity training in law firms would be better. “We don't really have any reason to expect that the effects of training would be different among lawyers than the effects we found in our research.”
But Chang tells me that management support can tip the balance. “The more supportive you are of diversity prior to training, the more likely you are to change your behavior as a result of training; the less supportive you are, the more likely you are to change your attitudes but not your behaviors.”
So there we are again: We won't see a meaningful spike in the percentage of women or minorities in the legal profession or anywhere else controlled by white, middle-aged men unless those white, middle-aged men make it a true top priority.
Not to be a constant naysayer, but I'm not seein' it.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLess Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
6 minute readHow My Postpartum Depression Led to Launching My Firm’s Parental Leave Coaching Program
9 minute readProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250