Normally, I am obsessive when I write book reviews.

Reviewing other scholars’ books is a professional responsibility that I take seriously. I try to give each book a thoughtful, thorough reading, which requires several passes through the book with post-its and a pencil, and usually results in a long, dense analysis like this one.

Which is why it is so counter-normative for me to write this particular review of Bob Sutton’s Good Boss, Bad Boss. Not the book, but the first page. (Actually, not even the first page, but the first paragraph.)

Yes, this is a review of the first page of Good Boss, Bad Boss.

The first page was not where I started my review of Good Boss, Bad Boss. I take a modified Adler-esque approach to book reading, with a look at the Table of Contents, a skim across the final chapter, a more-than-cursory examination of the index, and always taking note of the dedication. These are all ways to get acquainted with a book and its intentions before diving in. Since I already had acquainted myself with Good Boss, Bad Boss from these activities, I believed I knew what I was getting into. Hah.

I only made it to the first page of the first chapter, before I had to stop reading Good Boss, Bad Boss.

Why, you ask?

• It’s not that I felt I’d already gotten all the goodies from the Table of Contents (Sutton is no Seth Godin, in that respect). I was sure that all 275 pages would be worthwhile and valuable.
• It wasn’t that I didn’t have enough time to finish Good Boss, Bad Boss. Yes, my spouse did take the review copy from my desk and read it front to back before I had the chance, but he did give it back to me.
• It’s not that I haven’t continued reading it– after several trips to and from the shore I’m nearly done.
• It wasn’t even Penelope Trunk’s predictably irreverent review of 3 business books that nudged me to try a different strategy.

No, dear reader, none of that explains why I am only offering up to you, at least today, a review of just the first page.

Here’s what explains it:

21 million

In context, that would be:

“There are at least 21 million bosses in the United States.”

I cannot seem to get past that number, right there on the first page, because of all that this number implies about good bosses, bad bosses and why 21 million people should read this book.

Quantify the possible benefits

Until I read that first paragraph from Bob, I had never before put a hard number to the potential community of folks using soft skills to guide people in organizations.

Whether you call them “bosses” or “managers”, 21 million is a lot of people. It’s slightly less than three times the size of New York City, nine times the size of Chicago, and about 150 times the number of MBA graduates this year.

For a scholar/guru like Bob who bases his recommendations on evidence and hard facts, surely there is nothing more evident than that there are a lot of managers who might become better bosses.  Whatever improvements these 21,000 bosses might make, they will surely make a difference in the work lives of the larger number of people who work for them.

Imagine

Imagine if just one percent of these managers (21,000 people) read Good Boss, Bad Boss (past the first paragraph, of course). What if each of these 21,000 people put into practice just one of Bob’s recommendations?

What if one percent of the managers in the US decided to:

1. Adopt the right mindset
2. Take control
3. Strive to Be Wise.
4. Distinguish between Stars & Rotten Apples
5. Link Talk and Action (my personal favorite, for obvious reasons)
6. Serve as a Human Shield
7. Step up to do the Dirty Work, or
8. Squelch (their) Inner Bosshole?

It may not seem like a lot, getting one percent of a population to adopt just one behavior.  But consider a stock market analogy — when a share price goes up one percent, like maybe a quarter or a half point, that small percentage shift translates into a whole lot of dollars.

A small percentage of improved managers translates into a significant absolute number of improved workplaces and work lives, not to mention work results.

I image that Bob has high hopes for this book, not for high sales or lots of buzz, but for high impact. Surely, he expects (as well he should) that readers will follow Good Boss, Bad Boss beyond the first page, and the first chapter, to their first effort to do something better as a boss.

I’m really stuck on those numbers: 21 million bosses, 21 times X million employees. I think about the potential for positive change that resides in a compelling, fluid, reasonable, well-grounded, realistic book about becoming a better boss.

I just have to stop reading, and savor the possibilities.

Following The Wall Street Journal’s recommendation, I’ve been taking Good Boss, Bad Boss down the shore to enjoy. On the beach, I’ve been able to alternate between reading the book and imaging a workplace where bosses worked conscientiously to improve their management practices.  I’ve been able to wonder what my own work life might have been like if I’d had more bosses willing to do the dirty work. I’ve also been able to reflect on whether, when I’ve been the boss, I did all that I could to serve as a human shield so that good people could do good work.

I don’t think that it requires a quiet beach day, or glamorous business travel, for Good Boss, Bad Boss get you thinking about how to be a better boss. Read it on the train, in the airport, or on the sly so nobody puts any pressure on you to pony up with new behaviors until you’re ready.  But,

Be ready to stop, put the book down, and think about the deceptively simple advice. It can stop you in your tracks, no matter what you were expecting.

I’ve got evidence for that recommendation– look what happened for me, on the very first page.

See also:
Good Boss, Bad Boss: How To Be The Best And Learn From The Worst. My Review by Brett Simmons
Management Excellence Book Series Kicks Off Featuring Good Boss, Bad Boss, by Art Petty
Being a Good Boss is Pretty Damn Hard: Reflections on Publication Day by Bob Sutton

[Disclosure: I am not an objective reviewer of this book... I got a review copy for free, which of course obligates me to be delighted by a free book, my favorite kind of gift. And, I've known Bob as a colleague since I was a graduate student and he was researching organizational death. Still waiting for the book "How Asshole Managers Kill Organizations", to complete the cycle. ]

I’m a supporter of LGBTQx rights and of organizational diversity.

As an individual, I’m not likely to do much to boycott Target in response to Target’s $150,00 contribution to an anti-gay, pro-bigotry gubernatorial candidate.

But, if I were Target’s business customer, business supplier, stakeholder, or other important large stakeholder, I would make a bit deal out of withdrawing my support for Target to protest Target’s anti-gay action.

How do I make sense of these competing beliefs?

These two types of boycotting action have dramatically different effects on the ‘target’s’ bottom line and overall reputation. Damaging an organization’s reputation is more effective at provoking change than trying to hurt their bottom line.

Why Consumer Boycotting is Less Effective

As an individual consumer, my $200 in back to school spending isn’t much… and if I took it from Target, I’d only end up spending it at somewhere perhaps even less socially responsible (no way, Wal-Mart). So, on an individual level, my boycotting doesn’t have much of an impact on Target.

And, gathering up enough consumer to boycott target to make a difference is quite difficult.

Even with Facebook organizing and online petitions, it’s hard to aggregate individual consumers all across the nation and argue that the boycott and not the economy is what’s hurting Target’s same-store revenues.

First, for a ‘call to boycott’ to be effective at mobilizing individual consumers, the situation that prompts the boycott has to be visible, severe and egregious.

Despite the way that Target’s political donations have offended me and my P-Flag/LGBTQx community, many in Target’s consumer base are not all that aware of Target’s anti-gay action. And, of those who are aware, not all think that a $150,000 donation to a pro-bigotry candidate is severe enough to provoke a boycott. After all, Target has a long track record of supporting their LGBTQx employees … many consumers might see this action as a one time mistake.

And, even when you get individual customers to support the boycott in principle, once they get to the store they often fail to follow through in practice.

It’s hard to organize a consumer boycott that has an impact on a corporation’s actions. However, the situation is much different for institutional stakeholders.

Why Institutional Boycotting is More Effective

Most people assume that boycott actions taken by institutions, like other businesses, associations, and universities, have more of an impact because they aggregate (and thus maximize) the financial pain inflicted by a boycott.

And, they assume that institutional actions by stakeholders influence organization’s actions by influence the organization’s leadership. For example, shareholder action can pressure the business’s leadership to change policies and procedures.

However, the big reason that Institutional actions are more effective is because these actions are more likely to damage the ‘target’ organization’s public reputation.

As sociologist Brayden King explains,

“Boycotts don’t tend to work in the way people think, by hurting the bottom line”. … The big driver tends to be “the threat to a company’s reputation.” “Boycotts are essentially impression management tools. Actions by large organizations and institutions get more media attention.

For example, Washington University publicly withdrew from the “Target After Hours Shopping Event,” a nationwide program to draw college freshmen firstyears into Target Stores. This action was not only publicized in the Wash U student newspaper and on many blogs, but also the story has (to date) been retweeted over 1,000 times.

And, media outlets took note when three socially responsible investment firms issued a press release about introducing corporate governance resolutions directing Target to re-examine its political contributions and spending processes. While these resolutions will likely influence Target’s long-term behavior, the press release immediately influenced Target’s reputation– for the worse.

Because protests like boycotts matter because they make issues part of the public agenda and consciousness, public actions by institutions that influence damage on the target organization’s reputation are what make a difference.

The fact that institutional action is more effective than individual action doesn’t mean that individual action is useless– it means, instead, that individual consumers should consider activities other than/ in addition to withholding their own purchases.

What Individuals Can Do to Make a Difference

Consider that many Target customers don’t know anything about Target’s support of an anti-gay candidate… Anything you can do to raise public awareness can have an impact on these consumers and their sense of Target’s reputation.

Public actions to raise awareness that you might consider:

• Create an in-store protest. (see this great video of a protest inside a Target, at Queerty.com.) Remember, you have no right to free speech on private property– and inside the store is private property– as long as you respect their property and leave when asked, you can still create a bit of a ruckus.
• Create an outside-of-store protest.
• Picket in front of a Target store.
• Put fliers on cars parked in Target’s lot.
• Place signs on the road up to the Target entrance.
• Picket at Target-sponsored events.
• Send letters and photos to your town newspaper.
• Write about Target on your blog.
• Wear a pro-marriage equality T Shirt as you shop in Wal-Mart or Staples

If your organization has an opportunity to work with Target, use that opportunity for your own activism.

This may mean ending the relationship (like Washington U. did). Or, it could mean using this relationship to influence your Target contacts. (Just be sure to post on your corporate blog: “We’re partnering with Target to help educate Target about LGBT issues and Human Rights”.)

Go ahead and boycott - just don’t imagine that it makes that much of a difference to Target right now. Although individual boycotting may make you feel better, don’t stop there.

Instead, take different kinds of actions, actions that keep the issue in the public’s consciousness and work to damage the “Target” organization’s reputation.

See Also:

Target Misses the Mark on Diversity: Corporate Donation equals Corporate Homophobia
ColorLines: How To Make a Boycott MatterSFWeekly: Target Targeted By Angry S.F. Supervisor Candidates
NYC Protest 8/19/10 – Target Event @ The Standard Hotel (image
The 10 Day Boycott: A S.M.A.R.T. response to Whole Foods’ CEO Mackey

A key premise of taking an explicitly inclusive approach to work-life issues is that people of different gender, social, cultural and racio-ethnic groups experience work-life challenges specific to their group.

In my overview of research on work-life issues for women of color (see citation below), I’ve identified four types of work life challenges that can work differently for women of color than for employees who are part of the dominant group(s) (e.g., white men).    These work-life challenges can occur for any individual, but are likely to occur more often for women and especially for women of color.

When compared to the experiences of employees in the dominant group(s), women of color experience work-life challenges related to:

• Status as a minority group member in many work organizations

• Gendered experience of adulthood (including childbearing) and their gendered social role expectations

• Connection to a ‘home’ cultural group whose values may or may not fit comfortably within the expectations of their work organizations.

These four issues for women of color include:

1. Women of color challenge commonly held stereotypes about “the ideal worker”.

“The ideal worker” is defined as a person who puts work quality and work commitments ahead of personal interests, and demonstrates “professional” behavior that prioritizes the interests of the work environment. Stereotypes about women in general, and especially stereotypes about women of color, suggest that women of color are less likely than men to display the kind of work quality and work commitment, and personal comportment at work, that create “the ideal worker”.

2. Women of color are hyper-visible.

Hyper visibility refers to the characteristic of being noticed simply because you stand out from the norm.

In organizations where the majority of employees are white men, women of color are hyper-visible. Anything that women of color do at work, and particularly the flexible work arrangements that they may use to manage work-life tensions, will be noticed more than when those very same behaviors are demonstrated by men.

3. Women of color have a qualitatively different experience in the (majority) cultural world of work.

The kinds of task-related and interpersonal behavior expected of employees by others in their work community can create additional tensions for women of color. When women of color are connected to a cultural, social, or ethnic group where the dominant values and expectations conflict with those in their work organization, the woman of color employee must subordinate her personal, cultural self-expression to fit into the expected behavior in the work organization. This adds additional work life stress, because the employee has to be two different people– one kind of person at work, and another kind of person at home.

4. Women of color are often held to qualitatively different expectations by others in their social, cultural, & racial communities when they tried to resolve work demands in the non-work sphere.

The behavior that is expected of women of color at work may not be considered appropriate or comfortable in their social world outside of work. For example, women of color who place work demands ahead of family role expectations may be seen as abandoning their families, while white men making the same choices are seen as being dedicated bread-winners.

I’ll say more about each of these four challenges in upcoming posts… please let me know if you have ideas, questions, research, etc. that I should include.

[For this series of blog posts about Work-Life Challenges & Diversity, I'm drawing on a soon-to-be-published paper by S. Blake-Beard, R. O'Neill, C. Ingols, and M. Shapiro, Social Sustainability, Flexible Work Arrangements, and Diverse Women. (full citation to follow)  I'm riffing on, rearranging, and adding to their exposition of the basic issues.]

Work-life issues are important to everyone, but not everyone has the same kinds of work-life challenges.

Even though we know we are not all the same in our work life challenges , it’s been hard to include more than a generalized “everyone” in the conversation. Because work-life advocates often find ourselves struggling with pretty basic issues of awareness, we’ve been keeping our arguments pretty simple.

And, with the basics of the argument still ‘dumbed down’ to the lowest common denominators, we talk generically about what ‘everyone’ seems to need. We are pushing so hard to get the basic concepts of work-life strategy understood that we have glossed over important differences in the types of jobs people have and in the variety of social groups people belong to.

It’s time for the work-life conversation to be more explicit about differences among groups of employees. Along with getting more explicit about differences, we can also get more explicit about solutions that address the needs of more than the generic majority. It’s time for the Work-Life conversation to get explicitly inclusive.

But what kinds of important differences do we need to include?

Work-Life and Different Types of Jobs

The differences that we are more aware we are glossing over are related to types of jobs. Knowledge work, managerial work, and location independent work are easier to flex than manual work, front-line customer work, and work that is anchored to a specific place. We are beginning to realize that for some types of jobs, work-life solutions might not be centered on scheduling flexibility.

For example, work-life solutions might include improved public transportation so that workers anchored to a location can get to and fro efficiently. It certainly would reduce work life stress if commuting time was a reliable & affordable 20 minutes on a train, and not 35-75 minutes in a car or a bus trip with 2 transfers).

At least with regard to differences in the structure and demands of different kinds of jobs, we are getting a better sense of the differences we’ve been glossing over and the specifics we have to deal with more directly in the future.

Work-Life and Different Social Groups of Employees

Gender
We are somewhat more aware of gender differences among employees. We understand that women who bear children need flexibility around pregnancy, maternity leave and breast-feeding, and that organizations need to plan ahead for these needs and take these needs for granted rather than continuing to think of them as a ’special case’.

Parenting Status
We are coming to understand that men who are parents, and women & men who are adoptive parents, also need flexibility to manage the demands of a new child and full or part-time paid work. We are also coming to understand that anyone (not just a parent) may have legitimate needs for flexibility to care for other family members, such as elderly parents, siblings, partners, nieces & nephews, and even close friends.

In many very important ways, the conversation about work-life challenges is extending past women-as-parents, and past parenting in general, to incorporate challenges that employees without children might have, such as participation in important activities outside of work. Making sure that work-life is seen as more than a parenting issue, and more than a women’s issue, has been a recent priority.

Cultural, Social and Racial Group Differences
We are much less aware of the cultural, social and racial group differences among employees that are relevant to work-life challenges. These differences are still being glossed over, and occasionally ignored altogether.

When colleagues remind us that we need to remember that people from different ethnic groups and social cultures have demands, norms and expectations that don’t fit with the ‘general’ or dominant culture, we nod our heads and say “Yes, of course.”

But often we don’t know enough about the specific texture of these cultural, social and racial group differences to realize the kinds of challenges we should be talking about next.

I’m a good example: I “know” there are ethnic, social and racial differences in work-life challenges that need to be considered, but up until recently I couldn’t have discussed these differences in detail or offer specific work-life solutions that addressed these specifics.

I have been on the hunt for more information about how specific ethnic, social, and racial groups are challenged by work-life tensions, and about how these differences can be incorporated into our work-life thinking in inclusive ways.

As we push forward with the work-life change conversation, we need to stay ahead of the conversation by pushing ourselves to learn more. We need to be deliberate about which specific issues we discuss next and whose particular solutions we promote to businesses.

As a way to contribute to this conversation, I’ll be summarizing some interesting research about Flexible Work Arrangements and Diverse Women in my next post.

If you have any specific cultural, social, and racial group-based work-life challenges to raise, and/or solutions to share, I’d love to hear from you.

Image: fish in water from McBeth on Flickr

It’s not often that I get to follow up a post about an organization’s disappointing actions with a post celebrating that very organization’s next step. Given how easy it is to pay attention to and be outraged by the bad actions, it is all the more important to devote some energy to positive resolutions– so share this post!

Have you seen these headlines?

M·A·C to Donate its Global Profits from the M·A·C Rodarte Makeup Collection to Benefit Newly Created Women and Girls of Juarez Initiative

M·A·C and Rodarte apologize to the victims and their families in Juarez, the people of Mexico, the Mexican Government and concerned global citizens

MAC Cosmetics, the company that generated so much ill will with its thoughtless choice to name a cosmetics collection after the epicenter of femicide, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, has made a full apology.

MAC’s ultimate response addresses all five of the key components of successful apology (as outlined by John Kador, and summarized here):

• Recognize the offense
• Take responsibility
• Show remorse
• Make restitution
• Prevent repetition

MAC’s apology is effective because it contains all five of these components. But MAC’s apology goes even further:   MAC’s apology is authentic.

MAC’s Authentic Apology for the Ciudad Juarez Collection

MAC’s apology is authentic because MAC took went two steps beyond what’s “effective”:

1. MAC linked their apology to their collective identity and purpose, and

2. MAC designed into their organization an ongoing process of attention to and restitution for their offense.

Look at this excerpt from MAC’s apology:

“We are deeply sorry and apologize to everyone we offended, especially the victims, the women and girls of Juarez and their families. We have heard the response of concerned global citizens loud and clear and are doing our very best to right our wrong. The essence of M·A·C is to give back and care for the community and our initial handling of this makeup collection was not reflective of M·A·C’s values. M·A·C and Rodarte are committed to using these learnings to raise awareness on this important issue and to leverage our unique platform to help the women and girls of Juarez,” said M·A·C President John Demsey.

MAC’s Authentic Apology is linked to the organization’s identity

MAC’s official statement uses phrases like these to show a link to “who they are” as a company:

• The essence of MAC is to give back and care for the community
• Our initial handling … was not reflective of MAC’s values
• (We are) Committed to leverage our unique platform

Statements like these demonstrate that MAC understands that their offensive action was not only offensive in general, but also was offensive because it contradicted who MAC claims and wants to be as an organization.

MAC’s statements show that MAC is also apologizing for being inauthentic, and for damaging their stakeholders’ trust in them as an organization.

MAC’s Authentic Apology is built into the organization itself.

MAC has designed into its organization an ongoing process of awareness of and restitution for their offense.

Many blog posts and tweets about MAC’s Juarez Apology focus on just one component of MAC’s apology– their decision to donate all of the profits from the collection to initiatives to reduce violence against women in Ciudad Juarez. This is an important decision, but not as important as the way that MAC is implementing this decision.

MAC is building their restitution into MAC’s existing systems, relationships, and capabilities.

MAC is going to use the same process, the same stakeholder connections and the same expertise that they use to deliver their support for their well-regarded HIV/AIDS initiatives to deliver ongoing support to The Women and Girls of Juarez Initiative.

As the Facebook statement explains:

M·A·C has a longstanding tradition of service in Mexico, supporting important social causes in the country such as HIV prevention and treatment. Since 2002, the M·A·C AIDS Fund has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to local entities, including Fundación Eudes, La Casa de la Sal, A.C., Ser Humano, A.C., Mesón de la Misericordia Divina A.C., Pirana Studio, and Fundación Unidos por un México Vivo.

By building their support for the Women of Juarez into the organization itself, MAC accomplishes two things:

1. MAC makes sure that as an organization, it has a process for staying aware of issues related to violence against women, and

2. MAC makes their support ongoing (rather than just a one shot deal).

These actions demonstrate that MAC actually does care, and has made a commitment to continue to care, about violence against women.

You can expect that MAC’s apology is not superficial, because they themselves have connected their apology and their method of restitution to their core identity. MAC has reflected on its values, acknowledges that it has acted inauthentically with regard to its values, and demonstrated a renewed commitment to these values in their apology process and outcomes.

Let’s celebrate MAC’s authentic apology.

It is shameful that MAC didn’t catch this problem before it happened; it is admirable that they are working towards an authentic apology. An apology that is linked to MAC’s identity and built into MAC’s system is real, and it will make a real difference.

For more of the story of how beauty bloggers pushed MAC to apologize, see Healing Beauty’s posts, starting with  Success! MAC Rodarte to Donate ALL Profits to the Women of Juarez.

Many conferences have a quiet, dark secret. The folks attending share some longing yet to be fulfilled, some disappointments buried deep, some ideas that will never become actions. Many professional conferences (like the one I’m skipping this weekend) are marked by a faint whisper of “you’re not good enough” to be here, giving a presentation, chairing a symposium, or holding forth in the hallway chitchat.

But not BlogHer.

BlogHer has something else– a bight shiny secret. It’s so bright and so shiny you can hardly imagine it’s a secret, except it is a secret, until we are all together.

What is BlogHer’s secret?

I was trying to explain what was so unique about BlogHer to my friend LW, who will be at BlogHer for the first time this weekend. We were at a preBlogHer meet up, surrounded by these interesting women who blog about things the two of us don’t know anything about (e.g., single parenting, Celiac disease, Nia).

Many of these women are domestic bloggers (“domestic” being my word for all things home, mommy & parenting), while others blog for specific causes. These women each participate their own communities, communities LW and I aren’t familiar with. These women share insights we can’t quite appreciate, because each of us is quite different from the other.

Except at BlogHer, where we are all alike.

At BlogHer, we’re alike, because we each have the same bright shiny thing.

We each have a voice and we each use that voice.

When we come together at the conference, our bright shiny things create BlogHer’s secret:

BlogHer is a conference about women’s empowerment.

Every single woman (and man) there, has a voice, and she is using that voice. She is using her voice on her blog, in her network, on Twitter, and with her Flickr stream. She’s using it to show us how to change the world at work and at home. She’s using it to add her support to MomsRising. She’s using it to move towards the White House. She’s using her voice to do whatever the heck is important to her.

Each woman at BlogHer has claimed her own power in a domain that matters to her.

She has taken charge of a key element of her life, and she’s letting us know about it.

What makes BlogHer kind of crazy, and absolutely special, is that for many of us BlogHer is one of the few places we can be surrounded by women like us, women with voices that we are using. Women who have given themselves and keep giving themselves the power to speak out.

At BlogHer, everyone else assumes that you have a voice. Everyone assumes there is something you care about. At BlogHer we jump over that part. BlogHer is all about the next step– taking that voice, honing it, directing it, and making it more influential.

At BlogHer, you can be confident that whoever you talk to “gets it”. She knows what it’s like to have a voice and use it, in a world where we are still expected to be quiet.

So if you’re at BlogHer for the first time this weekend, and you feel overwhelmed by the noise, take heart. It’s 2,500 women and 2,500 voices. It’s 2,500 women who know how to speak up, who have things to say, and who are ready to listen– to you.

See also:
Find Your Tribe at BlogHer: MeetUp for Leadership, Business & Organization Change Bloggers

BlogHer 09: Does Swag Pervert the Purpose?
Image:  I hold disco in the palm of my hand, from bookgrl on Flickr

Everyone who’s ever asked the question:

“Is this Racist?” “Is this Sexist?” “Is this Anti-Semitic?” “Is this Homophobic” or the plain vanilla “Is this Offensive?”

has tried the Group Replacement Test.

The Group Replacement Test

With the Group Replacement Test, you take out the name/noun of the group you’re wondering about, and you replace it with a noun related to another marginalized group. So, you replace Women with Blacks, Jews with Gays, or Blacks with Jews, and see how the language flows.

The Group Replacement Test helps you assess a text and arguments for bias– often, what doesn’t bug us when talking about “the poor” bugs us when we think about “the Differently-Abled”, and doing the Group Replacement Test lets us get past our own superficial acceptance of an argument.

On the downside, the Group Replacement Test can compare a putatively small-ish concern to a more global one, and risk offending people. For example, some folks got offended when bloggers used the Group Replacement Test to evaluate the sexism in MAC Cosmetics Juarez makeup collection: instead of “Juarez” would MAC have felt it okay to use “Dachau”? Or “slave” instead of “sleepwalker”?

And, obviously, the methods, explanations and outcomes of the oppression of one group don’t translate exactly to those of another group– Homophobia and Anti-Semitism aren’t the same, although they are related in ways that each can illuminate the other. It’s incendiary, to be sure, but it’s also provocative.

Try the Group Replacement Test

Test it on this short bit of text, the announcement for TEDWomen:

Over the last several years, our ideas about women Gays have changed. Investing in women and girls Gays was once seen as a radical notion today, its value is clear…. To track this emerging story, the first-ever TEDWomen TEDGay will explore in depth: Who are the women Gays who leading change? What ideas are they Gays championing? How are  they Gays shaping the future? TEDWomen TEDGay will also reveal how women Gays and men, in concert with one another, orchestrate different but complementary approaches to ideas worth spreading.

Does that make you wonder about the overall understanding of a separate, niche TED conference?

The Group Replacement Test and TEDWomen

Now try the Group Replacement Test with a bigger sample of text: the recent conversation between Huffington Post’s. Tech Edior, Bianca Bosker, and PM from the Paley Center/TED: Why TEDWomen: A Q&A Consider how this text/conversation reads if we replace the name of original group “Women” with the name of a similarly marginalized group “Blacks” …. as you read this, ask yourself the question:

Do these comments really sound politically enlightened?

Huffington Post: Why has TED, in conjunction with the Paley Center, decided to launch TEDBlack?

PM: Chris Anderson, TED’s curator, and I have been talking for several years about a TED conference that would focus on Blacks and we agreed that the time was right to capture an evolving narrative about Blacks in the unique way that the TED format offers. I really admired how they produced two specialized events — TEDIndia in 2009 and TEDGlobal in Africa (2007) — and believed that a similar opportunity had emerged to turn the TED lens on the stories of Blacks as architects of change around the world and across all sectors, to focus on how their ideas and innovations were shaping and reshaping the future. At The Paley Center for Media, through our programs on the role of media, we witnessed the growing interest in the ways that Blacks work, think, learn and lead and the impact of their ideas across the globe and across the media landscape as well as all other sectors of life and work. We agreed that the two institutions together had an opportunity to produce a conference with significance.

HP: Why now?

PM: In my opinion, there’s never been a better time. Investing in Blacks may once have been considered a radical notion or even a waste of resources, but in most places in the world today, Blacks are increasingly recognized as a critical link to greater prosperity, political stability, better health and public policy. In the West, of course, generations of educated, empowered Blacks are moving into leadership across all sectors and the impact is measurable. It’s an important moment in the evolution of the story of how Blacks, in new, and sometimes, old ways are the architects of change across sectors and countries.

HP: Why not TEDWhite?

PM: It’s an irresistible question, isn’t it? But embedded in that question is a dangerous assumption: People tend to assume that the balance between the races is a zero-sum game, that when Blacks win, Whites lose. But it’s simply not true. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: When Blacks win, we all win. This is one of the key reasons that Blacks are such effective change agents.

HP: One online commenter wondered whether TEDBlack was in danger of blurring the lines between “idea sharing” (TED defines its mission as “ideas worth spreading”) and cause advocacy. What do you think?

PM: It sounds like this online commentator reacted to the name without reading about the event! TEDBlack isn’t championing a cause; it’s surfacing and sharing some of the most important ideas of our time. Our focus is on Black as change agents, innovators and idea champions, and I think people will be both inspired and surprised by the program. We’re exploring some fascinating territory! For example, there’s been a flood of data in recent years showing how investment in Blacks in developing nations leads to economic growth, public health improvement, political stability… Why is that? How does it work? What ideas are these Blacks championing? These are profound questions that matter to all of us.

HP: What is the mission of the conference?

PM: Now, I attend many Black’s conferences — in fact, I went to six on four different continents in one month last year. The increasing numbers of these forums all over the world indicates to me a new awareness of the roles Blacks are playing in bringing new ideas and innovations to their communities and countries. These forums are also ways to discuss the challenges that remain for Black to achieve their fullest potential.

TEDBlack will focus on the ideas and innovations championed by Blacks. These cover everything from community development to economic growth to biodynamic farming to robotics to medical treatments to the use of technology for personal safety and peace making. White and Black speakers will take the TEDBlack stage with ideas that are reshaping our future, and matter deeply to all of us.

HP: Some have wondered why TED is launching a distinct TEDBlack event, instead of focusing on increasing the number of Black speakers at its existing conferences. What’s your take on why TEDBlack is necessary? Are there plans to increase the number of Black speakers at other TED conferences? If so, how?

PM: Thank you for asking that question! There are a few assumptions there, which we’d like to address head-on. First, the intent behind the conference is to explore in depth a subject we find fascinating and timely. We’re seeking out talks about Blacks (not just by Blacks). As with every TED, the speaker program will include Whites and Black. And of course, TED will continue to invite extraordinary Black to speak at all of their events.

It’s important to understand that TED didn’t launch TEDBlack to segregate Black attendees or speakers outside the main conference, nor as an alternative to putting forward a balanced speaker program at other events. As my TED colleague has pointed out, this was already a priority for TED. The launch of TEDBlack marks an enthusiastic “yes/and,” not an “either/or.”

… I know that TED is striving for a balanced program in all their conferences, and will continue to do so.

To be sure…

Obviously, this Group Replacement Test isn’t perfect.  But,  doesn’t a statement like “When Blacks win, we all win. This is one of the key reasons that Blacks are such effective change agents” make you cringe?

Of course, if you want to consider whether an organization is sexist, a better and more comprehensive way to begin your analysis would be to use the Six Degrees of Sexism test…  However, the Group Replacement Test really gets the conversation going, don’t you think?

Thoughts?

TEDBlack
Reshaping the future

See Also: Is The Daily Show Sexist? Use the 6 Degrees of Sexism Test to judge for yourself
Only A Cosmetic Apology? MAC’s Juarez Controversy & Fauxial Awareness

June Cohen, one of the producers of TEDWomen, kindly replied to my piece over at The Huffington Post. I discovered that I couldn’t fit my entire response– plus the important hyperlinks — to the HuffPo Space, so for those who are interested, our exchange follows, below.

From June Cohen:

Hi CV — June Cohen here, from TED. I’m one of the producers of TEDWomen, and Exec. Producer of TED Media. I want to clarify a few things about our intent, and respectfully clarify a statistic you cited.

First the stats: You wrote that only 17% of TED speakers are women; this is misleading. It’s true that 17% of speakers on TED.com are women; however, those talks cover TED’s full 27year archive, dating back to the 80s, when the conference was tech-oriented and yes, male-dominated. TED is a different organization today. For the past several years, we’ve had ~30-40% women speakers at each TED event. This isn’t ideal, but it’s respectable & improving.

You state here that TED is marginalizing women, and I want to be clear: We didn’t launch TEDWomen to segregate women attendees or speakers, nor did we launch it as an alternative to a balanced speaker lineup at other events (which was already a priority for us). This is an enthusiastic “yes/and” not an “either/or.”

We launched TEDWomen to take a deep dive into a subject we find fascinating, timely and important. A slew of new data shows women are a vital link to economic growth, public health, political stability. There are many stories looking at women through this lens — as change agents — and we’re looking forward to exploring them in depth.

A longer comment here: http://bit.ly/do4NVh

Happy to continue the conversation. Email us at ted.comn@ted.com Twitter: @tedwomen

From CV Harquail

June, thanks so much for commenting here and for sharing the organization’s views. It means a lot to me and to HuffPo readers to have you join the conversation here in and elsewhere online. The larger opportunity is for TED as an organization and for TED’s larger community to continue a learning-oriented conversation about sexism and marginalization in the world of ideas.

What do the data and data analysis show?

It would be helpful if TED could post publically the data on the gender distribution of its speaker lineup. I came up with the 17% number by counting women’s names/pictures and men’s names/pictures in the speaker line-ups. Others have arrived at similar percentages of 17 to 30 percent, depending on what they counted. I have not seen anyone quote a percentage higher than 32%, so to suggest 40% seems generous. Maybe TED is counting women that the rest of us haven’t actually seen, and maybe our counts are lower as a result. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be much of an improvement … if in the latest TEDGlobal conference, the ratio was 17 to 58.

Still, the percentage of women is an empirical question that can be answered concretely with data. You already have some of this data available on the TED blog) so adding columns for gender and category wouldn’t be that hard. An official data display of the distribution of speakers over conferences and categories might show what percentage of speakers overall have been women, and how those numbers are (or are not) increasing in a statistically significant way. A data display like that might also uncover other trends, for example, that when women are on the stage they are more likely to be in some categories (e.g., “Play”) and nearly absent in others (e.g., “Breakthrough” and “Boldness”).

An analysis like this would not only provide accurate data for those who care to comment, but also would provide the TED community with the beginnings of a diagnosis of the systemic exclusion and selective inclusion of women

Whether TEDWomen really addresses sexism.

Let’s consider, too, whether TED really understands the issue of sexism and the root of our concerns about TEDWomen. I want to believe that TEDWomen is a politically and intellectually sophisticated effort to address sexism, and that the TED organization ‘gets it’. And, I want to believe that TED has accurately documented, diagnosed and begun to address sexism for real, not only on the podium but also behind the scenes and in the organization’s processes.

The official announcements of TEDWomen, and your later explanations of the conference would suggest that this is not the case. First, the text of the announcement is condescending. It is condescending to say that women’s issues and ideas have only recently become interesting. It is condescending to describe perceptions of the “importance of women globally” as being “conventional wisdom” rather than to understand that “conventional wisdom” is actually systematic discrimination in the world of ideas. Others have pointed this out to TED, so I won’t go into it here in any more detail.

The official response by TED to criticism of its decision has dug it a deeper hole. You’ve confirmed the still-marginal position of women in TED’s world of ideas, by explaining that TEDWomen is “the next in line” of a series of “niche” conferences. Women as a population, women as thinkers, ideas that address issues pertinent to women (and men) – these are not “niche” ideas. We’re talking about 51% of the world’s population here, not a subset of consumers.

Finally, when you described the conference’s appeal to Ryan Brown over at Salon, you said,

“Yes, it won’t appeal to everyone, but that is part of our point. When you try to appeal to everyone, we find you don’t appeal to anyone at all.”

What that statement does is compare the appeal of a TED conference that would incorporate women’s ideas to a TED conference about predominantly men’s ideas—and diminishes the women’s ideas as being less appealing. Less appealing to whom?, I would ask.

I do appreciate that TED’s official responses are showing a change in how the organization is positioning the TEDWomen conference. I hope that the change in copy also reflects a change in understanding.

What I and others would like to see from TED is more transparency in the organization’s self-analysis, and more specificity in your strategies for addressing what seem to be deeply embedded sexist assumptions about whose ideas and which ideas matter, and to whom. Maybe TED is already working on this, maybe not. Certainly, the ongoing evolution of how you all are presenting TEDWomen on TED’s own site and in other online line forums is encouraging. You are out here engaging in the conversations, and that’s not only useful but also admirable. Organizations with less commitment to ideas would have stopped trying to understand, if they’d ever even started.

In diversity work we distinguish between intention and outcomes. TEDWomen may have been intended to celebrate women’s ideas, but the outcome is that TED as an organization has offended people with simplistic thinking about discrimination and how to resolve it. Actions with good intentions that reinforce discrimination are still reinforcing discrimination.

I know you don’t think that TEDWomen is marginalizing women and women’s ideas. But frankly, the response to the conference is telling you and the TED organization otherwise. It is telling you that women feel marginalized not only by the creation of TEDWomen but also by the explanations provided for it. Not to mention, the silence from the organization about anything related to a deeper, more committed effort to address gender discrimination.

I really, really wanted to put this post here on Authentic Organizations, but my colleagues at The Op-Ed Project told me to shoot big….

so here it is, on The Huffington Post’s Politics section.

Please come read the post (it’s only 700 words!) add a comment, and encourage the HuffPo to keep printing contentious feminist organization scholars feminist opinions.

How do you know whether an organization is racist, or sexist, or homophobic?

You can use my 6 Degrees test, or you can use an even simpler method:

You can watch where they put their money.

Target has put its money behind the campaign of a homophobe who’s against same-sex marriage.

This single action casts doubt on all the other positive things that Target has done in support of the LGBTQ community and the supporters of the LGBTQ community.

Target is not “homophobic” like Marriott

Last year in the conversation around California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, The Marriott Corporation was accused of being anti-gay.

Like Target, Marriott has had a long history of demonstrated, structural support for employees and guests in the LGBTQ community.

But, while Marriott shareholders donated money to fight gay rights and support discrimination, Marriott as a corporation did not support discrimination against gays and lesbians. Thus, Marriott cannot be fairly called “anti-gay”. Instead, all of Marriott’s other pro-diversity efforts stand un- contradicted, as demonstration of Marriott’s support.

Target’s Action Directly Supports Homophobia

It’s not Target shareholders, or Target employees, who are donating to the campaign of a homophobe. It is the corporation itself.

This distinction between individuals’ money and corporate money is an important one.

The corporation can’t control or be held responsible for what people do with the money they earn from that corporation– these decisions are up to the individuals. Corporations also can’t force employees to donate their money to one cause or another; nor can they punish an employee for where he or she contributes. These are our individual rights as citizens.

However, any time a corporation puts corporate money-- funds that the organization has earned but has not paid out to individual shareholders, funds that belong to the corporation as an entity – towards the support of a candidate, that organization is directly supporting the views of that candidate.

If your organization gives $100,000 of corporate cash to a candidate who stands against equal rights, guess what?

Target, by using corporate money to support the campaign of a candidate who fights equal rights for all, you have  just supported homophobia.

It really is that simple.

Really.

What about Target’s other, supportive actions?

Sure, folks are going to say “But what about all Target’s other support of the gay community? Shouldn’t that count?”

Certainly, that track record of real support matters. But, if the executives of Target don’t demonstrate their corporation’s claimed values in each and every action — from health insurance to marriage rights — their claims to hold those values aren’t authentic.

A corporation that truly supported it’s LGBTQ employees and customers? A corporation truly dedicated to diversity and inclusion? That corporation would decline to contribute to a homophobic candidate.

If they could not find a pro-diversity candidate with economic policies they also liked, they would sit it out.

It really is that simple.

Really.

See Also:
The Case Against A Marriott Boycott (part 2): Marriott is not Anti-Gay
What Do Sarah Palin, Bill Marriott and John Templeton, Jr. Have In Common?

Is The Daily Show Sexist? Use the 6 Degrees of Sexism Test to judge for yourself