Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration.  Here’s last week’s question, along with your responses:

Frustrated by a continuing lack of diversity in your company, you create metrics to hold managers accountable, including requirements that a certain % of new hires be diverse candidates.  Your new policy is most likely:

a.  Lawful (24%)
b.  Unlawful (76%)

Congratulations — you are correct.  As the case we discussed here yesterday demonstrates, employers need to be careful not to discriminate against non-minority applicants in their zeal to promote diversity.  The best policy is to cast the widest net possible during the recruiting process but then to make all hiring and promotion decisions on purely non-discriminatory job-related criteria.  All race-based discrimination (including so-called “reverse discrimination”) is unlawful.

Our readers are now back to an even .500 (14 right, 14 wrong) on our Questions of the Week.  Thanks for your participation — the next one will be coming your way soon.

In a case that offers valuable lessons for employers, a federal court upheld a $1.4 million jury verdict awarded to an African-American supermarket employee who was denied a promotion to a management job.

The Facts

John O’Quinn worked for Raley’s Supermarkets in California.  After more than 30 years without a promotion, he applied for a customer service manager position.  He testified that the job was his “lifelong dream.”  He passed a written manager’s exam required by the company.  He volunteered to take a finance course during his vacation to boost skills needed for the position.

O’Quinn went through several rounds of interviews but ultimately was rejected.  The all-white interview panel awarded management positions to four white employees instead.

O’Quinn eventually resigned because he “felt his career was going nowhere” and then sued the company.

The Result

The jury awarded O’Quinn $455,500 in compensatory damages and $900,000 in punitive damages.

What was the tipping point in the case that led the jury to award significant damages?  More than anything else, it appeared to be the company’s distinct lack of diversity at the management level.  In its decision to uphold the verdict, the court repeatedly referenced the all-white interview panel, the all-white pool of successful candidates and the all-white store management.

As the court stated:  The evidence adduced at trial established that [O'Quinn] worked for [Raley's] for decades, that [he] was not promoted despite evidence of his qualifications (including passing the manager’s exam), that only white employees were promoted to the positions [he] sought, and that [Raley's] lacked any African-American store directors.  Given the above, the jury’s conclusion that [Raley's] acted with malice, fraud, or oppression is a reasonable conclusion . . . .

The Lessons

Companies that lack diversity at the management level operate at their own peril.  Besides being sitting ducks for discrimination lawsuits, they are far more likely to make bad decisions.  Studies show that diversity among decision-makers leads to a greater variety of viewpoints, a more complete analysis of relevant factors and, ultimately, better decisions.

On a more granular level, the “panel” approach used by the company in this case can be a useful tool.  However, if it’s not diverse and not conducted properly it actually increases the chances of a successful lawsuit.

In short, diversity is not only the right thing to do — it’s an absolute business necessity.

As discussed previously here on the Blawg, a study published last year found that diversity training alone does virtually nothing to improve diversity.  A new study goes a step further, suggesting that mandatory diversity training may actually hurt diversity.

In findings that call into question decades of court rulings, government policies and employer practices, a study of more than 30 years of data from 830 U.S. companies found that mandatory diversity training was followed by a significant reduction of minority representation in management positions – 12% for black men, 10% for black women and 7.5% for women generally.

The problem isn’t diversity training per se.  The problem is the mandatory diversity training typically offered by employers — superficial lawyers-made-us-do-it training forced on employees to avoid discrimination lawsuits.

There is hope, however.  The study found that voluntary diversity training undertaken to help meet a company’s business goals resulted in increased minority representation in management.  Specifically, the most successful diversity programs appear to be those that (1) are voluntary, (2) focus on specific organizational improvements such as creating mentor relationships for minority employees, (3) have a clear “owner” who is held accountable for increasing diversity and (4) are directly tied to business goals.  Such programs saw minority management representation increase 30% for black women, 14% for women generally and 10% for black men, according to the study.

The study is not yet published.  To read more, here’s a story from the Washington Post.

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration. Here’s last week’s . . .

Diversity training improves diversity.

a. True (27%)
b. False (73%)

The correct answer is “False.” A recent study by Harvard and others concluded that diversity training alone has virtually no impact on workplace diversity.

So, what does help diversity? The study pointed to four primary mechanisms that have a positive impact: (1) accountability at the top; (2) mentorships; (3) creating a diversity point person or task force; and (4) recruiting frm a wide variety of sources (e.g., minority colleges).

Diversity is far more than a feel-good program. It’s an absolute business necessity. Companies that start taking steps to build a diverse workforce will be ahead of the pack as the war for talent continues to intensify.

Our viewers are now batting a respectable .500 (5 right, 5 wrong) on our weekly questions.

The next one will be coming your way soon. Thanks for your participation!