Diversity! Do we sometimes get it wrong?

"I'm Mexican so I'm the best judge of this."

This statement is a quote from a District Manager referring to his judgment as to when or when not to use Spanish in customer service. After reading that statement take a moment and check out how that feels for you.

Now let’s get a summation of the situation. A Spanish speaking customer asks a clerk for an item. The clerk doesn't know if the item is in stock. The clerk pages a manager to please get the item and he does it in Spanish. When the clerk is asked about his rationale - after the clerk was told this was unprofessional. The clerk responded that he used the customer's native language so the customer would know that their question was being addressed. The manager in question said the practice was unprofessional and offensive. The manager said, “as a Latina, I use English and I think we should use English.” The clerk respectfully heard the feedback, but disagreed. So the manager replied using an indignant tone, “As your manager, I'm telling you it was unprofessional and offensive.”

 Now that you have the scenario, know that the District Manager who is also Latino made the statement referenced above. His rationale was different, he focused on what was said and if it was said correctly. He repeatedly asked the clerk, "what did you say?" "what did you say?" It had been several weeks since the incident so the clerk didn't remember exactly what was said, but he repeated his rationale for using Spanish. What do you think happened here?

The District Manager used the quote above and said, "speaking in a language that you are not proficient in opens the door for offenses to happen and it would've offended me and I'm Mexican so.... " The clerk responded that he was proficient in enough in Spanish and proof of that is that the other manager’s feedback was not that his Spanish was improper or spoken incorrectly. In fact, the manager had previously complimented the clerk on his Spanish. The feedback was that it was offensive and unprofessional.

Michael B. Adams, an expert in affirmative action and employee relations who is currently Assistant Vice Chancellor of Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity at the University of California at San Francisco, and Dr. Guadalupe Valdes, an expert in sociolinguistics who is currently Professor of Education at the Graduate School of Education at the University of California at Berkeley, testified ?? that English-only policies such as the one adopted by Spun create ?? atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and intimidation. Supp. E.R. at 154-185. English-only policies demean one's culture, deny one's ethnic identity, and interfere with expression and communication. Id. at 155:6-157:20 and 157:22 160:1. They are also counterproductive in dealing with the types of problems (i.e., “racial disharmony” and “ethnic tensions”) alleged by Spun. Id. at 177:18-178:27. Non-discriminatory approaches to those problems, such as mediation and culture) sensitivity training, are often more effective, and in fact have proven effective at the University of California where an English-only controversy had previously surfaced. Id. at 179;1-180:27.

The previous was taken from expert testimony presented in a brief against English-only work places. In the case referenced, several employees were mandated to speak English only at work. A suit filed by the Union on their behalf was won because English only rules at work have guidelines before they can be established. English-only rules are applicable only in certain situations that maintain the safety and flow of the business and all parties must be informed of the rule and its rationale before implementation or as a part of the hiring or onboarding process.

However, what just happened here? Did these two managers get it wrong? Often when giving feedback managers with focused training, don’t stay proficient in proper ways to give feedback. They are busy with the demands of retail, service to customers and commitments to upper management. These managers use the common tools in their arsenal to give feedback. Sometimes even if training is provided to managers, they revert back to using words that are less effective in describing what and how they feel about a situation.

 To label the clerk’s actions here as unprofessional and offensive is not only improper. It flies in the face of training on giving effective and high-quality feedback. The reason repeat observation is important is because it gives the manager the option to see if the behavior is a re-occurring theme. If the behavior is not over the top bad for business, using repeat observation can be used to include what the clerk did right and follow up with what might help the team be more effective in service. It also allows the seasoned manager to check in with him or herself on what they believe the rationale for the behavior is or why they feel the way do about the behavior. Of course, this approach takes more time, more introspection, but it can preserve working relationships, reduce the need for power plays and increase the likelihood that the feedback will be incorporated developing the clerk to whatever standard is required of the business.

Now there are some barriers to this approach. One major barrier is managers with many years of service who actually see the trainings as optional and juxtapose their efficacy against their years of experience. These managers conclude that the trainings amount to a cookie cutter approach and not one size fits all. That has some validity. However, when measured against the actions of the aforementioned managers – one in particular, has over 20 years of service with the company – one may see the benefit of using the guidelines provided in trainings. Trainings that corporations spend millions to provide to employees and managers and use completion of them as a vetting process for promotion.

Let’s face it finding out who we are in a diverse landscape can be confusing and bring misunderstanding. However, when you go through the process of hiring and investing in a clerk, a cashier, manager or executive, it behooves you to take the time to develop them and nurture the relationships you’ve invested in and that is not what happened here.

From a legal perspective English- only suits have been won around the country because they are ill executed and done with the wrong intentions. Even when Attorneys argue that the intentions were correct the several courts have ruled that English- only mandates have disparate impact on no - or partial English speakers. In the interest of addressing another concern, I’ll request you do the research yourself using Westlaw or LexisNexis.

I’d like to address the elephant in the room. Two managers of Latin/ Hispanic heritage thought this feedback was proper and they got it wrong. You may think that’s a hard stance, but I’ll tell you why. In process and problem-solving in business environments, the greatest barrier to effective management is groupthink. It’s a phenomenon where the route of least resistance is taken simply because it feels normal familiar or is akin to the tools in our tool-box. Groupthink as a theory was developed by Irving Janis and here’s the problem:

• Inadequately considering all alternatives in order to maintain unanimity
• Poor examination of decision objectives
• Failure to properly evaluate the risks of the chosen solution alternative
• Information searches that are insufficient or biased

The District manager stated that he had not previously spoken with the other manager on the issue, but when the issue was brought up by the clerk in the meeting, the District manager said “yes, I’d like to know more about that.” “Exactly what did you say.” This indicated that the subject had indeed been previously discussed. Being on the outside looking in, we cannot pretend to read the minds of either manager, but I surmise that on some level the thought of someone speaking Spanish that is not a native speaker could be seen as condescending or patronizing to the native speaker. That is what can be seen as offensive and tapping into that shared experience could have led to the groupthink that made these responses possible. This is one of the reasons ‘off the cuff’ reactions are ill advised in business environments and adherence to training should prevail. Using the logic of the District manager, one would never become proficient in Spanish or the language of any other cultural or ethnic group, because one would never use the approximation to gain mastery of the language. How inappropriate an antithesis to what we try to accomplish as we approach issues of diversity.

Do we embrace those who try to embrace us? As people of color, we have to make sure we embrace those who do the work of embracing us. Our groupthink can be a barrier to breaking down barriers because we just don’t let people try or appreciate their progression towards change. As a person of color, I struggle with my notion of diversity as well. I have to remind myself that I do not encompass the totality of the African American experience because I am African American. I can speak to my own notions and my own experiences because diversity exists in the African Diaspora. The same is true of the Latin/ Hispanic Diaspora. I am not an expert on notions of African/ African-American culture because I am Black. The work of diversity is a work we all have to engage actively in daily.

Last argument for reflection and reconsideration of the issue at hand. At four major retailers, the average monthly traffic is 139,000 bilingual and Spanish preferred persons aged 15 and above. As a result, retail chains have opened Spanish language and culture focused establishments. Leading the way was Best Buy, Target followed and now CVS has followed suit. The emphasis on diversity is not only good for business, it’s good for all of us who need to embrace different languages, cultures, and experiences.

In conclusion, I’d like to invite you to give feedback on the issues raised here. I relish the opportunity to engage other perspectives, as I practice my continued work at embracing diversity.

Willie C. Lang Jr.