Negative Labeling at Work Indicates a Need for Culture Change
Leah Smiley, CDE?, IDC-GGE?
President of the Institute for Diversity Certification (IDC)?, Inc. (formerly The Society for Diversity Inc.)
My husband always says that going to the hairdresser is an "R-rated" experience. Yet, the hilarious conversations that take place in the beauty shop actually pertain to real life. For instance, last week, my daughter had an appointment with our regular hairdresser. One of the stylists at the shop had a customer that was going to Morocco, and the stylist shared how she visited Morocco as well. After the trip, the stylist said she felt empowered when she went back to work. However a lady at her school told her, "you are always being a rebel." The stylist felt that the woman expected her to say, "No, I'm not", but she replied, "Yes, I am."
Some people learn early on that no-one wants to receive a negative label because these "nicknames" can stick with you forever. I tell my kids about the story of a guy who used to pick his nose and eat his boogers in class when he was 6 or 7. Students began to call him Boogeyman. Almost 40 years later, we (yes, I'm guilty too) still refer to him as Boogeyman-- although he is a successful professional, who may or may not pick his nose.
Labels can have powerful implications. For Boogeyman, he couldn't get a girl to save his life. In the workplace however, imagine what a label can do to one's career trajectory. For example, one's prospects for new opportunities may be limited if an employee is labeled: feisty, troublemaker, b----, soft, Affirmative Action hire, grandma/grandpa (when the person is not related to you), snitch, or over-privileged, to name a few. In fact, it was said that Serena Williams, a professional tennis player who has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to being the best, had a 'tantrum' and was 'over-privileged' when she called out unfairness during a recent tennis match.
What's interesting is that Serena was labeled over-privileged but Ethan Couch, the young man who unabashedly used his privilege in court to claim that he was a victim of Affluenza, was called affluent. In fact, his so-called affluence enabled him to recklessly drive drunk, cause an accident that killed 4 but injured 9, and violate the terms of his probation. Should we have used the term "over-privileged" with Ethan Couch for his bad behavior? After all, the only injustice that he experienced was not being held accountable for his actions in the court of law. As a professional, Serena worked hard to achieve the many accolades that she has received, but because Black people are generally referred to as 'underprivileged', she is labeled 'over-privileged' because she managed to fight through discrimination and stigma to become #1 anyway. No, Serena can't have the ordinary benefits of privilege, which afford one the benefit of doubt; she is wrong for having an 'outburst' and for believing that she was 'entitled' to win.
First, the risk in giving Serena, or anyone, a negative label for protesting unfairness is that it can excuse different treatment or inequity. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term excuse as an "attempt to lessen the blame by attaching a fault or offense; seeking to defend or justify" certain actions or inaction. In this instance, the negative label is a reminder to Serena to "stay in your place". Don't call out inequity, don't try to change the status quo, and don't forget that you were allowed to get to this place in your career. Just be thankful and play tennis.
Yet, this attitude does not affect the careers of Blacks alone; a White woman in the C-Suite or an older professional could face the same reminder. Or someone who is an immigrant. Or even a person with a disability. Labels can be used on anyone, including a White male who grew up in the South or in a rural area. The purpose of the negative label is to stop the individual from drawing attention to the need for change.
Second, negative labels and their associated categories can reinforce biases. Ryan W. Quinn nailed this phenomenon in the Harvard Business Review when he wrote, "Why You Shouldn't Label People 'Low Performers' ". Quinn says, "once people accept these categories as 'truth', they often act as if these categories are true, and these actions influence performance. This can happen directly, as when managers withhold resources from employees labeled as “low performing” because they do not want to waste those resources, or indirectly, as when comments or actions from a manager undermine an employee’s confidence, and the employee acts in self-limiting ways as a result." In this manner, the negative label can be used to throw someone off their game, perhaps as a ploy to get them to under-perform.
Finally, negatively labeling workers, or students, serve to maintain the status quo. At a time where talented professionals have options in a tight labor market, and most industries are hyper-competitive, employers can not afford to maintain a culture that resists progress. Keep in mind, preserving an environment that sustains the current state of affairs will shut out new ideas (or innovation); ensure that the organization takes actions that demonstrate a lack flexibility (or agility); and instead of being disruptive, will result in a company's disruption. So how does an organization avoid the bad outcomes associated with negative labeling?
- Stop and think before you label someone. Do not rationalize that the person deserves the label (even if they do). For example, disagreeing with your plan of action doesn't make someone racist or sexist. Perhaps there are more details that you can add to the plan or there is another model that you can emulate. Instead of a label, ask for clarification (i.e., In your opinion, what would make this plan better?). Do empathize and try to see things from a perspective other than your own. Do give an individual the benefit of the doubt-- especially when you and the other person are different.
- It's OK to make people uncomfortable about labeling others in the workplace. Do not shame or blame, but Do present contrary information to indicate that the label could be an error. For example, if someone says, "This candidate is over-qualified and could have problems adjusting to our fast-moving culture". Your response could be: "But what if they don't? With 30+ years of experience, he/she has solid skills in ___________. What if this person is the game changer that our team needs?" If the individual persists with a rebuttal, dig deeper by inquiring: "What makes you say that?"
- Ask questions to determine if inequity really exists. Instead of excusing inequity, assume that there is a possibility that unfairness, or the perception of unfairness, exists. Do not ignore it; Do seek to understand it by asking questions, using the data, and applying similarly-situated illustrations. For example, in the WNBA women are paid way less than men in the NBA. In many cases, female basketball players are even paid less in America than they are overseas. Why? Do take the time to explain the rationale for inequities. By explaining it, one may realize that it doesn't make sense.
- Review comments in performance evaluations and written disciplinary forms to determine how negative labels impact discipline, pay, promotions and other opportunities. Do not dismiss patterns or subtle irregularities. For example, a female did not receive a promotion because she "left work early" on too many days, but the male who received the promotion had notes in his file that he was hard working, disciplined, and consistent, although he exceeded his paid time off. Do ask questions such as: Is the female coming in to work earlier? Is she working at home? Is it necessary to stay at the office late? If there is a pattern of females being denied promotions for various reasons, and all of the reasons relate to 'caregiving', that's your negative label. Do provide training.
Name-calling, or labeling people, does hurt. It can impact one's career trajectory and reinforce negative biases that are already ingrained in people's minds. It also makes it harder for your organization to be the best. Be courageous. Do something different. Get rid of the status quo. Stop using negative labels for individuals who are different.
** NOTE: Feel free to share your experiences with negative labeling **
~~~~~~~~~~~
Leah Smiley, CDE, is the President of the Society for Diversity, the #1 professional association for Diversity and Inclusion. For more information about its membership or certification programs, log onto www.societyfordiversity.org.
Using Predictive Index to enhance Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; Co Chair, Nevada Minority Health and Equity Coalition, African American Steering Committee
6 年With over 25 years in management, I’ve seen my fair share of labeling. It seems that it is a integral part of business. And while sometimes lately is appropriate, too often it becomes arbitrary. During part of my tenure, I became known as the “remedial manager“. Employees that were challenged were struggling were saying to me, In the hope that I would improve their performance. Well I was not always successful, I will say to a great extent I helped improve performance. In fact several of these employees were ultimately promoted. My first meeting with the reassigned employee Always involved giving them my ground rules and basic philosophies.. The most important philosophy was that I would not rely on other opinions to assess their performance. They would be judged solely on how they performed under my watch. I promised to be demanding, but fair. It would be a clean slate. As example, I was assigned an African-American female from New York; the Bronx. The consensus opinion was that she lacked the necessary customer service skills and didn’t show empathy. They were wrong. Over the next six months, we worked on active listening skills, using voice as a tool and helping her “soften” her “New York State of mind“. She was ultimately promoted to supervisor position and has been very successful since that time.