From the category archives:

Diversity

McCain Campaign Exploits the Race of Their Hired Help

October 28, 2008

The McCain Campaign has hired Obama supporters to work as as "paid volunteers ." As reported by Tom Baldwin in the UK Times, and picked up by The Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, the McCain Campaign is paying temp workers $10 an hour to go door to door handing out absentee ballot requests. Although the hired volunteers work for the McCain Campaign and wear McCain-Palin campaign stickers, some of them actually support Barak Obama .

Paid volunteers are inauthentic.

Paid volunteers fake the expected relationship between the organization and the volunteer who represents the organization. Especially when they are working for an ideological organization, like a political campaign, paid volunteers need to act like and be perceived by others as supporters of the organization and its beliefs, even if they are not. The burden to them of "wearing the brand" of the ideological organization can weigh heavy on volunteers, asking them to be inauthentic to themselves.

As one woman on The Huffington Post concluded:

It’s a sad commentary on our country when people need work so much they will speak against their own ideologies just to collect $10 per hour!

Even more of a concern is that some of these paid volunteers are not only Obama supporters but also African-Americans. This is a concern because the (apparent) race-ethnicity of the "paid volunteer" campaign workers is interpreted by the potential voter who answers the door to infer that these particular African Americans have chosen McCain over Obama. The appearance of a supposedly volunteer campaign worker who is African-American contradicts the voter’s expectation that African Americans support Obama. (And over 84% of African-Americans support Obama, as of 10/21/08.)

The perception that these African Americans have repudiated Obama to volunteer instead for McCain adds extra power to the campaign workers’ perceived endorsement of McCain.

Paid Volunteers look like they support the cause even if they don’t.

When a campaign representative appears at a citizen’s door, the citizen usually assumes that the person herself/himself supports the cause they are there to advocate. The volunteer is perceived to be someone who believes in the candidate so much that the volunteer will work for the candidate for free. The perception that paid campaign staff are volunteers adds additional power and weight to their inferred endorsement of McCain.

There is a long tradition of campaign workers being volunteers. Although campaigns do hire and pay some workers, it is understood, as one McCain organizer explained, that "paid staff don’t work. " However, because it’s been hard for the McCain campaign to get enough volunteers, they have been hiring "paid volunteers". Paying for volunteers tactic not only gets the campaign more feet on the street, but also these paid volunteers make it look like support for McCain is more widespread than it actually is. The McCain campaign benefits from the additional staffing and also from the perceptions of broader support than what is real.

"Who You Are" is part of the implied endorsement

The campaign workers’ outward appearance is used as part of the persuasion process, even if the appearance is irrelevant (e.g., if the canvasser is pretty) or inferred (e.g., a uniformed Veteran campaigning against Obama). By using African-American temps who are not McCain supporters , the McCain campaign is playing on citizens’ assumptions about the race-ethnicity and cultural values of the campaign’s African-American hired help. In this way, the McCain campaign benefits from "who these paid volunteers are," particularly their race-ethnicity, to communicate a message that African-Americans support McCain and his policies — even where this is not true.

Two Messages for the Price of One

By hiring African-Americans as paid volunteers, the McCain campaign is getting a two messages for the price of one. The perception that these African-Americans implicitly endorse McCain comes along with the perception that these African-Americans repudiate Barak Obama.

There are of course African-Americans who do support McCain. These African-American supporters are authentically committed to McCain and his policies because they truly believe that McCain will represent their best interests, personally and perhaps even in terms of their cultural group. But, adding ‘fake’ African-American supporters allows others to concluded that McCain has more minority support than he actually does, conveying a doubly inauthentic message.

It hurts to wear the brand that contradicts your beliefs.

Some of the paid volunteers described their discomfort with being McCain Campaign employees:

"This is embarrassing. We’re doing this because we have to live. At least none of our friends can see us."

Asking Obama supporters to override their own beliefs to sell the competition sets up contradictions for these employees. The employees have to appear as though they believe in a candidate that they in fact don’t support, which can be emotionally and philosophically burdensome. But the burden is even worse when the employees are actually Obama supporters. Then, the employees are actively working against their values, beliefs and best interests. The employees not only have to endure the self-contradictory behavior of looking "like the brand" by presenting beliefs that are not their own, but also they must manage the reality that they are hurting themselves.

Asking African-American Obama supporters to override their beliefs adds an extra sting.

These employees must cope not only with pretending to support McCain and being assumed to repudiate Obama, they must also cope when others assume that they are betraying their social identity group. Of course, no African-American automatically supports Obama just because they are both Black. Rather, most African-Americans support Obama because they believe that Obama uniquely understands the position of their group within US culture and history, in part (but not only) because he identifies as Black. For an African-American citizen to reject Obama as a candidate can be seen as them rejecting the idea that being Black matters, either to the citizen or to the candidate.

What must it be like to know that you working against your own candidate and against what you perceive as your best interests, just because you desperately need the money? Isn’t this just another kind of exploitation?

How could the McCain Campaign be more Authentic?

Should the McCain campaign hire only white workers who actually support McCain?

No one who needs a job should be pushed aside because their beliefs don’t match those of the organization, or because members of their social identity group don’t match the organization’s expected target demographic. The job market is too small, and grocery bills are too high, for this to be the best option.

However, perhaps the McCain campaign could put these temporary workers in different jobs, where the work they do has nothing to do with the assumptions anyone would make from their appearance or about their beliefs. Better to give these workers hourly jobs where there is no assumption that the job holder endorses the candidate…. jobs like coordinating canvassing routes, organizing mailings, and data entry. After all, these jobs all pay the same, and none is a stepping stone to a career.

For jobs with citizen contact, the campaign should strive to hire employees who are genuine, authentic McCain supporters, if at all possible. Better to pay people to promote what they believe in than to pay them to lie.

Alternatively, the McCain campaign could give each hired hand a name tag that reads:

I am a paid employee of the McCain campaign.
No personal endorsement of McCain should be inferred.

That would be the most authentic, least misleading, and least exploitative option. Do you have other ideas?

(If you enjoyed this post, please consider Digging it. I’d love for more people to read it. Thanks. )

For an interesting contrast with the Obama Campaign, check out my earlier post: Obama’s Website Made Me Cry .

For more information: There is a video by Sam Mayfield , a reporter from UpTake and the Center for Media & Democracy , available on YouTube. She interviews a McCain campaign official who explains that "paid staff don’t work" (at 0:50). He argues that the job of these paid employees is to retrieve absentee ballot requests, and as such "It’s functional in nature" he explains. "It’s not about persuasion." Yet the employees all wear McCain-Palin campaign stickers on their shirts, putting the lie to the claim that the employees’ aren’t expected to appear to endorse the candidates.

{ 0 comments }

Black Organizations: Authenticity through "an obligation to our own"?

September 5, 2008

What makes an organization or business authentically "Black"? [Or for that matter, what makes an organization authentically "feminist", authentically "Mormon", authentically "Republican", and so on?]

By my definition, an organization is authentically "Black" not when the majority of its members or employees are Black, but when the organization promotes the interests of the Black community.

Because the question of "what makes an organization authentically Black" is one I’ve been pursuing in my academic research, I was intrigued by a column in last week’s Advertising Age, Five Rules for Black Agencies , by Moses Foster , head of the West Cary (Advertising) Group . From his perspective as the owner of a Black advertising agency, Foster argues that black-owned agencies have a particular role to play in the advertising industry. The particular role of Black-owned agencies, he argues, is to hire & develop talented Black advertising professionals.

Foster’s column continues a long-running conversation in the NYC Advertising community about the lack of African Americans in the business , and it needs to be understood against this context. [See these stories from earlier this summer about diversity initiatives in the NYC Advertising community.] So, keep in mind that there is more to the story….and check out the comments under his article, too.

Foster’s Five Rules for Black Agencies include (as written):

1. Do exceptional work.

2. Don’t settle for Black business (alone).

3. Don’t get caught in the "Chuck D Trap" (i.e., don’t assume that you can represent every Black person’s point of view).

4. Don’t kid yourself; yo ur agency didn’t just happen to be diverse .

5. (Recognize that) We do have an obligation to our own .

In his colloquial and practical language, Foster recognizes that no Black organization can represent every black person or black community, because there is a diversity of ideologies/beliefs systems about why racism exists and about how members of the Black community should work for equality. And, Foster recognizes that there is a critical distinction between an agency that employs Blacks and an agency that is a Black organization. A Black organization demonstrates its commitment to the Black community, however it defines that commitment.

It’s rule #5 that creates the important distinction:

Acting on a sense of obligation to the community it claims to be part of
is what makes an organization authentically Black.

Foster’s implied emphasis on creating job opportunities for other Blacks is an individualistic approach, and just one of many approaches . There is more that a Black agency can do. As Foster himself reflects, he found the stories of Black entrepreneurs like John H. Johnson to be so impressive, because:

They created jobs for black talent, created respect in the industry for black-owned businesses and helped to favorably shape America’s perceptions of black people.

If the ultimate goal is to improve the standing of the entire community, Black agencies should not only (1) create opportunity for Black advertising professionals, but also (2) represent the Black community in the advertising industry and (3) represent the Black community effectively through the agencies’ products (in this case, through the advertising & media messages themselves ).

A more complete way to understand Rule #5 is:

Recognize an obligation to our own,
- for nurturing their talents,
- for establishing organizations they can be proud to be part of, and
- for creating work that represents the group well enough to help
change perceptions.

What do you think? What is it, in your view, that would make an organization authentically Black?

Technorati Tags: Advertising Age ,Moses Foster ,West Cary Group ,Black organizations ,black professionals ,advertising industry ,diversity ,authenticity ,leadership

{ 0 comments }

8 Ways to be Authentic: Tyson Foods suggests how

September 2, 2008

Tyson Food claims that, as part of its core values, it is “striving to be faith friendly”. But, if Tyson’s handling of the brouhaha over recognizing an Islamic holy day in the labor contract of its plant in Shelbyville, TN, is any indication, Tyson is having a hard time finding ways to demonstrate its values through its actions.

hypocrite

Tyson Food’s recent public actions seem to show, instead, that Tyson doesn’t really want to be authentic and/or that Tyson simply doesn’t know how to be faith-friendly. (See my earlier post for a fuller description of the situation.)

I don’t think that I can convince Tyson to act more authentically, at least not until I can offer them some examples of actions that might demonstrate faith friendliness. So, I put some creative energy against that task, and here’s what I came up with:

8 ways to be Authentic: How Tyson Foods can demonstrate faith friendliness

1. Respond respectfully to employees who ask for their religious holiday to be considered in their work schedules.

We’ll give this one to Tyson. We’ll assume that by including the holiday as a paid day off, Tyson was already being faith friendly.

2. Take responsibility for negotiating and agreeing to the contract that recognizes the holy day.

At the first sign of public relations trouble, Tyson denied its own responsibility for the contract. Tyson blamed the union for pressing the issue and ultimately faulted its own Islamic American employees for requesting the holiday in the first place. Instead of taking responsibility, Tyson behaved like a victim. To whit: (From MSNBC via HR Capitalist)

Tyson company spokeswoman Libby Lawson said by phone that, “This isn’t a religious accommodation, this is a contractual agreement. The majority asked for it.”

3. Describe the contract as a demonstration of the organization’s commitment to being faith friendly. Use the corporate response to the situation as a way to share with other stakeholders your understanding of what it means to be faith friendly.

The contract was not at all a demonstration of Tyson’s commitment to being faith friendly. If it had been, maybe Tyson would have responded differently, and defended its decision as an effort to be faith friendly. Instead, Tyson actually back-pedaled, rescinding the option of a negotiated Islamic holiday after this year. By back-pedaling, Tyson publicly withdrew its commitment to being faith friendly. Oops.

4. Stand fast against criticism of the faith-friendliness as a value and against criticism of your commitment to it.

Tyson never took the opportunity to discuss how its part in the contract was an effort to be faith friendly. Instead of responding to public pressure by engaging in a conversation– a conversation that might have educated, encouraged and inspired employees and other organizations, Tyson acted without a thoughtful explanation of its actions or reactions. In the absence of a thoughtful explanation of their behavior, Tyson’s actions made it look like the organization had buckled under public pressure.

Worse, because this public pressure was largely hateful, bigoted, and demonstrably not respectful of the diversity of faiths ( to put it mildly), Tyson’s action demonstrated an antipathy towards non-Christian religions, showing that it was not really committed to being faith friendly to anyone other than those who celebrate Christmas.

5. Talk about the example that Tyson can set for other organizations that want to become more faith friendly. Seize the leadership role.

Tyson missed the opportunity to model faith friendliness for other organizations, and missed its opportunity to exert positive influence. By repudiating the contract, being defensive and backing away without thoughtfully engaging the public in conversation, Tyson Foods actually showed other organizations how not to even try to be faith friendly.

5. Discuss and explore the opportunities that the contract and negotiation at one site offers for Tyson’s other locations.

Unfortunately, Tyson closed off any option to use this situation to experiment with how to extend faith friendly behavior across its other locations. By emphasizing that the conversation about the Islamic holy day was limited to the Shelbyville plant (as a way to constrain the public relations damage) Tyson constrained the way it was thinking about the situation. This cut off opportunities for Tyson to innovate around being faith friendly.

6. Seize the opportunity presented by this situation to learn more about, expand and enrich its own understanding of “what it means to be” a faith friendly organization.

Tyson never took the opportunity to be self-reflective. It did not ’seek to understand’ what it was trying to accomplish for its Muslim employees, or for faith friendliness in general. It missed the chance to learn about what it means to be faith friendly, and about what being faith friendly requires from an organization.

7. Reflect on how well you put your faith-friendliness into practice and recognizes how you can do better the next time.

In addition to a chaplaincy program or a booklet of mealtime blessings, there are more ways that Tyson can be faith friendly. They need to spend more time thinking about how to put faith friendliness into action– using this situation as a learning opportunity is a great way to start.

For Tyson, this would mean looking back over the way it handled this situation, and taking note of what it could do differently when they next have the chance to demonstrate their identity. This might mean, for Tyson, to look at the difference between the way it recognizes the religious holidays of its Christian employees versus its non-Christian employees. It might also mean using lessons from this situation to develop a vacation policy that met the needs of all employees, regardless of their faith, so that all groups receive equivalent treatment.

8. Extend gratitude towards the stakeholders who ask you to put your claims into action. Thank those who hold you accountable.

Tyson should have been grateful to the Islamic-American employees and the union, because together they created an opportunity for Tyson to put its faith friendliness into action. However, instead of being grateful, Tyson blamed the employees for even asking the organization to act in a faith friendly way.

Worse, by taking away the holiday that had been granted, Tyson punished its Islamic-American employees. It blamed them and made them look wrong and illegitimate for wanting to have their holy day as a day off. Even worse, by breaking their promise, Tyson suggested that its Islamic employees were silly to have counted on the organization to keep its promises to them.

But the harshest outcome of all? By succumbing to the bigoted pressure from some of their public, Tyson demonstrated that ultimately, it too was biased against its Muslim employees.

Instead of show how to be faith friendly, Tyson showed how not to keep a commitment, how not to take responsibility, how not to learn, how not to be a good role model, and how not to act in good faith.

When you add it all up– and then give it the most generous interpretation– Tyson really made a mess of this opportunity to be faith friendly. Which makes me wonder, why does Tyson even bother to make this claim, if it is so unwilling and/or unable to support this claim through its actions?

Technorati Tags: Tyson Foods,authenticity,change management,diversity,religion,muslim-americans,religion in the workplace,unions

{ 0 comments }

Tyson Foods lacks faith in its own identity.

August 9, 2008

When organizations are being authentic, they approach their problems by drawing on their identity.

An organization that wants to be authentic must regularly find ways to translate its beliefs about ‘who we are’ into actions that demonstrate ‘who we are’. When an organization has faith in its own identity, it will strive to demonstrate this identity in its behaviors. But if the organization’s identity claims are not reflected in its behavior, you start to wonder just how much the organization believes in these claims.

There is a fascinating situation occurring right now at Tyson Foods that really illustrates this point. Tyson, an organization that claims to be “faith friendly ” can’t seem to connect its behavior with its self-definition.

The situation in Shelbyville

1. The Shelbyville (Tennessee) Times-Gazette ran a story (8.01.08) that made public a months’ old contract agreement where “(W)orkers at Tyson Foods’ poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day, but will instead take the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr in the fall.”

2. In response to the flak generated by this article, Tyson Foods issued a press release (8.04.08) Labor Day Still Recognized at Tyson Foods; Union Contract Provision only at Shelbyville, TN Plant in which they denied responsibility for the decision and emphasized that the consequences of the decision were local and minimal. This response satisfied no one.

3. The squawking online continued, consumers threatened to boycott Tyson’s products, and Tyson’s received hundreds of e-mails from angered customers who who opposed this “accommodation to Muslims”.

4. Then, less than a week later (8.08.08), Tyson’s announced that it had reached a revised agreement, that : “for this year and this year only, employees could have both the Labor Day holiday and the Muslim holiday.” Labor Day Reinstated as Paid Holiday at Shelbyville, TN. It looks like Tyson’s pressured the union to renegotiate the contract so that it could get out of this public-relations mess.

What’s surprising about this situation?

Tyson’s claimed identity as faith-friendly was never mentioned.

Based on what I know about Tyson’s, the only part of the story that did not surprise me was the very first step — the accommodation of their Muslim employees’ religious holiday. I thought this would be a great opportunity to write about supporting an organization’s faith friendly identity through organizational design — specifically, through labor relations practices. As it turns out, what’s going on with Tyson’s is the opposite of what I would have expected — leading me to conclude that Tyson’s lacks faith in its identity.

How important is faith friendliness to Tyson’s organizational identity?

When I first saw this story in the New York Times (all disclaimers apply), I was not surprised that Tyson’s had found a way for its Muslim employees to have their holy day as a vacation day. I think of Tyson’s as a faith friendly organization, because I’m one of the 35,000 moms who requested a copy of Tyson’s Giving Thanks at Mealtime booklet of blessings, one of their public expressions of faith friendliness.

1. The company claims throughout its corporate publications that it is striving to be faith friendly.

I wondered whether I was mistaken to think of faith friendliness an important part of Tyson Foods’ identity. When I surfed over to their corporate website, there was faith friendliness as one of the (only three) elements of Tyson’s corporate, public description of “Who we are”.

Who we are:

We strive to be a company of diverse people
working together to produce food.

We strive to be honorable people.

We strive to be a faith-friendly company.

Tyson’s corporate sustainability statement elaborates on their identity, in the discussions of the people and ethics that compose “who we are”, particularly the statement “we work hard to respect and honor traditions”. Maybe that’s just the standard boilerplate… but no, there’s more: Tyson’s discussion of “Who we Are” also describes the growth of their Chaplaincy program. Chaplaincy program?

2. The company has designed a system to support its faith friendly identity.

Tyson Foods chaplaincy program employs over 125 part-time chaplains, working at Tyson’s 280+ plants and offices, including the Shelbyville plant. Nearly all the chaplains are Christians, although at one time at least one was an imam. This “unique benefit” has been in place since 2000, and has drawn the attention of organizations promoting spirituality in the workplace as well as news organizations.

The Director of Chaplaincy Services is even charged with the task of supporting management and advising management, “consult with senior management on matters relating to chaplaincy, religion in the workplace, ethics, etc. … and provide guidance on crisis response to management.”

Yes, but …

By establishing and growing a company wide program to support their employees with non-/multidimensional chaplains, Tyson’s seems to have designed in an organizational system to support their identity of being “faith friendly”. If you only saw the claim about striving to be faith friendly or had heard only about the chaplaincy program, you might even think that Tyson’s was on the leading edge of organizations trying to embrace the challenges of spirituality in the workplace.

But, when you read either the first press release or the second press release you start to wonder:

Just how much faith does Tyson’s have in its faith friendly identity?

If Tyson’s really believed that it was faith friendly, Tyson’s would have seized this opportunity to demonstrate how much it respected the religious beliefs of all of its employees. Tyson’s would have looked for ways to demonstrate that it was working hard “to respect and honor the traditions, values and contributions” of Tyson employees.

It’s a strong signal of Tyson’s inauthenticity that Tyson’s does not seem to know how to translate faith friendliness into behaviors. But it’s even more damning, if you will, that Tyson’s never even mentions the idea of faith friendliness in the context of this situation.

How would you expect a faith friendly organization to approach this problem?

If striving to be faith friendly is authentically part of Tyson’s organizational identity, then the concept of “faith friendliness’ — what it actually means to be faith friendly– should inspire how Tyson approaches this situation.

What might this look like? Tyson’s could say “this issue of religious holidays for our employees is important to us as a faith-friendly organization.” And, Tyson’s could ask itself “what might be a faith friendly way to resolve this problem?” But it doesn’t look as though Tyson’s did either of these things.

At the very least, I would expect an organization that claimed to be faith friendly to return to this belief and use it to help understand a crisis situation like this one. I’d expect the organization to release a statement that read something like: “As a faith-friendly organization, we recognize the importance of religion in our employees lives and we do our best to accommodate employees of any religious or spiritual persuasion in a fair way. Therefore…” And this is absolutely not how Tyson’s responded.

Is Tyson’s being authentic or not? My preliminary conclusion is that either

1. Tyson’s has an extremely limited view — a parochial view, if you will — of what it means to be faith friendly,

– OR –

2. Being faith friendly really isn’t part of Tyson’s core identity.

What do you think? Weigh in by clicking the comment link (at the very bottom right of this post) and sharing your opinion.

Here is Steven Greenhouse’s article… notice the additional specifics missed in the Times-Gazette report.

Technorati Tags: tyson foods,muslim,labor day,unions, faith in the workplace,chaplaincy,diversity,core values, authenticity,organizations,identity,image

{ 0 comments }

Want Authenticity? Design Homophobia Out of the Organization

July 31, 2008

The System isn’t working at Omnicom.

Omnicom says “we are committed to ensuring that we use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices”. Yet, Omnicom’s agency, Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO (AMV/BBDO) , creates advertising that is anti-gay. Because Omnicom is not addressing the contradiction between who it says it is as an organization and how it acts, Omnicom is not being authentic.

Last week, in an effort to challenge a homophobic advertisement for Snickers candy bars , Bob Garfield’s column in Advertising Age admonished John Wren, the CEO of the Omnicom Group, by asking him to “tell his agencies how to behave.”

Most of the ensuing commentary about the offensive ad and about Garfield’s column discussed whether or not the ad was homophobic and whether or not Bob Garfield was overly sensitive, and this diverted attention from discussing how to eliminate anti-gay advertising altogether. Meanwhile, some advocacy organizations, particularly the Human Rights Campaign applied direct pressure on the client (Mars) and got the advertisement taken off the air .

Problem solved– at least this time.

But what about the next time, and the time after that? And what about action that could stop anti-gay ads from being created in the first place? A week later, and after another 230 plus comments on the issue – this time, facilitated by Chris Martin writing at The Consumerist - there is still no reflection about how to banish homophobia from the organization’s products.

The big-picture problem that created the biased ad is that the organization is acting inauthentically .

There is a gap between the organization’s claimed commitment to acting in a socially responsible way and the behavior that was socially irresponsible. By focusing on this gap between claims and actual behavior, a push for organizational authenticity could pressure the organization to change its behavior. If advocates were able to get the organization to act more authentically re: its claims, advocates could influence not only the organization’s homophobic actions, but also other actions that contradict the organization’s claim to be socially responsible.

So, let’s try a different tack on the question of eliminating homophobia. Let’s talk about designing an organization that acts authentically. …

**Want Bias? Design Homophobia in .**

Among the handful of absolute truths about organizations and leadership that I wanted my MBA executive students to learn, is this simple statement about an organization’s results:

Organizations are designed to get the results they get.

I have never been able to find a pithier way to state this truth. Nonetheless, I’ve always found this truth to be a useful starting place for diagnosing any kind of problem in an organization. So, let’s take this approach to considering the CEO’s role in aligning the orgnization’s products & external actions with the organization’s statement of commitments. Keep in mind that this approach works only for organizations that already claim to be against bias, because this is all about making the organization accountable for those claims .

Want to Banish Bias? Design Homophobia Out .

If an organization claims to be “committed to ensuring that we use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices and that we make positive contributions to society across all of our operations”, then it should not be creating and selling advertising that denigrates the GLBT community. But where do we go to create change, so that the organization’s ignoble actions come closer to its lofty claims?

Let’s start with a diagnosis. Many would say that the offensive ad got through the Ad Agency because:

- Some employees at AMV/BBDO are homophobic
- Some employees at AMV/BBDO are unable to recognize an anti-gay sentiment
- Some employees at AMV/BBDO are unable (or unwilling) to speak out against an anti-gay creative idea
- Some employees at AMV/BBDO lack the power and influence to convince their peers that the ad is problematic

Any and all of these explanations could be true, and any of these issues could be addressed as a part of a program to prevent anti-gay advertising concepts. But, if you take to heart the idea that "Organizations are designed to get the results they get ," could there be something about the way the Omnicom agencies are designed that permits anti-gay advertising to be created?

If AMV/BBDO is producing some ads that are anti-gay, then something in the design of the agency is making homophobic ads possible.

Want to change the organization’s outcome? Change the organization’s systems .

The way to prevent the agency from creating anti-gay advertising to recognize that there is something about the way that the agency is organized that is creating and/or letting pass ideas that are anti-gay. The job of top management is to analyze the organization’s systems ( its routine, procedures, policies, rewards, etc.), to identify places where bias could be created and/or filtered out, and to make changes in the system.

The CEO is responsible for changing the organization’s design

But let’s be realistic— Should eliminating homophobia from an agency’s advertisements be the responsibility of John Wren, the CEO of the Omnicom Group? Mark Horn points out that Wren is merely the CEO of the agency’s holding company. There are several layers of corporate hierarchy between Wren and any of ABM/DDBO’s processes. Horn suggest that, instead of addressing Wren, perhaps it is the CEO of AMV/BBDO (Farah Ramzan Golant) who should take action here. [Mark, I’m with you on that one, as are the folks who commented on my initial post .]

The CEO should modify the systems for creating and approving ads.

The CEO should consider system changes to eliminate anti-gay and otherwise biased advertising, and system changes that will promote clever advertising that is generously humorous. Golant should modify the ways that advertisements get created and executed (e.g., adjusting the idea generation processes already in use, or adding standards and checkpoints alongside the evaluations that each idea goes through as the creative quality is vetted.)

The CEO should establish systems that will align the organization’s actions with its claims.

Golant should establish a system for managers and employees to compare the organization’s products with the organization’s statements of purpose and value.
Golant should hold herself and the agency’s employees accountable for producing ads that reflect the creative and social standards that the agency claims to hold.
Golant should create regular opportunities for the organization to assess, reflect on and adjust its actions so that they align with the organization’s claimed commitments.
Golant should establish a process whereby the agency could ask itself:
How does the advertising we create "use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices?"

With these changes in the design of the organization, Golant can lead AMC/DDBO towards being more authentic.

Remember, too, that the behaviors of individual employees still matter.

Arguing that the CEO should change the organization’s systems does not let employees off the hook; employees are still responsible for their own actions and for supporting the organization’s claims through their own behavior. Employees’ sensitivity to anti-gay ideas, employees’ commitment to producing bias-free advertising, and employees’ ability and willingness to speak out against an anti-gay creative concepts are very important. But the actions and commitments of individual employees are not enough to eliminate homophobia in the organization’s products.

It takes heroic effort by employees to override an organization’s systems, and no amount of hard work can consistently overcome bad design.

To overcome a system that allows homophobia in, you have to design your organization to keep bias out.

Technorati Tags: Bob Garfield , Organizational authenticity ,homophobia ,Snickers ,Human Rights Campaign ,Omnicom ,Farah Golant ,organizational design ,leadership

{ 0 comments }

Homophobia and (In)Authenticity at Omnicom: What can a leader do?

July 24, 2008

I am struggling to understand the pattern of reactions to a recent critique of an organization’s authenticity. Bob Garfield, writing in Monday’s (7/21) Advertising Age, has an Open Letter to Omnicom President-CEO John Wren, asking Wren to look at the contradiction between Omnicom’s public Statement on Corporate Responsibility and the homophobia represented in three recent advertisements by Omnicom Group agencies TBWA and BBDO.

Exhorts Garfield:

“Stop the dehumanizing stereotypes. Stop the jokey violence. There is no place in advertising for cruelty. Pull the campaign. Do it now. Then tell your agencies how to behave.” (emphasis mine)

Of the 73 comments (so far, at 7.24 noon) on Garfield’s Open Letter, only 4 of these comments refer to Garfield’s central critique and his actual request: that Wren should ensure that the work of the agencies he leads represents the agencies’ policy.

The vast majority of comments on the AdAge page critique Garfield’s characterization of these three adverts as homophobic, while a few support it. Garfield is told everything from that he is wrong, he doesn’t know what homophobia is, he is too sensitive, and too politically correct to the other extreme, that he is naive and that he has not gone far enough in his criticism. In general, the pattern in the blogworld is the same: mostly criticism and some small, occasionally impassioned but not completely focused support.

Some comments get close, but….

Check out how these four supportive comments get closer to the real issue, but still don’t quite make it there:

Karen McBain: ‘Using mass media to reinforce ANY negative stereotype as a means of growing market share and sales is socially irresponsible. The buck doesn’t stop with John Wren: the marketers who paid for the Dodge and Snickers work are just as much to blame.”
* Okay, the marketers need to pay attention too.

Galen Bernard: John Wren should be made aware of this spot and he should be worried. Not that some of his London based creatives are homophobes …but that they are small thinkers.
* Wren should care, but mostly because the ads are dumb.

Terry Floyd Johnson: John Wren not only needs to step in, but make a public apology for so gross of a hate commercials, attacking gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
* Wren should say he/they are sorry. (Is that enough?)

Jack Jones: The spots are only symptomatic of a bigger problem. … A commercial does not hatch in a vacuum. It’s seen and produced and commented upon by scores of people. How many individuals do you think saw this commercial during its production process without noticing the potential issues? That’s the most disturbing part of all. … There continues to be an arrogance and ignorance in our industry that no one wants to admit. Writing a letter to John Wren doesn’t begin to address the real problem.
* ~~The whole~~ Some people in the industry is are homophobic,racist, sexist… and Wren can’t affect that.

Notice that no one is saying:

Hey Omnicom/Wren–
Put your products where your promises are!

Maybe Garfield’s phrasing is too dramatic, maybe his rhetorical strategy of indignance pushes a few buttons. But even so, why miss the real point, that the CEO should take responsibility for keeping the organization’s behavior aligned with its statements of purpose, vision and value?

What I don’t understand about the responses to Garfield’s letter is that so few people are focused on holding Wren accountable for aligning his organization’s actions with its words. Why is this?

Striving for authenticity, for alignment between who you say you are, what you believe about yourself, and how you behave as an organization, is the responsibility of the organization’s leadership.

And responsibility for being authentic is not confined to leadership: Keeping behavior aligned with the organization’s statements of purpose, vision and value is the responsibility of every employee. The people at Omnicom know this– it’s right here in Omnicom’s Code of Conduct statement:

Our reputation depends, to a very large measure, on you taking personal responsibility for maintaining and adhering to the policies and guidelines set forth here. Your continued cooperation in this regard is appreciated.

So, what are the employees of Omnicom’s agencies saying? What do they think of this criticism of their work and their organizations? And, how is John Wren, Omnicom’s leader, planning to respond?

These are not (only) questions of political correctness and social responsibility; these are questions about whether an organization is willing to hold itself accountable for putting into practice what it says is important.

Given that it is the leader’s responsibility to make sure that the organization at least strives for authenticity, what will John Wren do?

Technorati Tags: homophobia,Omnicom,John Wren,Bob Garfield,AdAge,organizational authenticity,authenticity,leadership

{ 4 comments }

Authentic or Not?: A Men’s Organization with a woman member

June 5, 2008

Recently, I told you about an organizational situation that raises some interesting questions about whether the organization is being authentic. The organization, a Men’s Chorus, has up to 249 male members and 1 woman member, my neighbor Joan Garry.

I proposed that this organization is either very special or very inauthentic — how else could the organization embrace being ‘for men’ and also embrace a woman/not man member?

I didn’t share all the pertinent information in my description of the situation, because I wanted to see what kinds of questions you readers would ask about a men’s organization that admits a woman member. But now let me tell you a little bit more (some of which was revealed in the comments of the earlier post). The organization in consideration is the New York City Gay Men’s Chorus (GMC). Joan Garry was for 10 years the Director of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

I got together with Joan late last week to talk about being a female member of a men’s organization. While we didn’t have enough time to consider all of the questions you’ve raised, what we did have time to talk about was pretty interesting. Keeping in mind my standard disclaimer #3, I draw on my notes from my conversation with Joan, as well as a few direct quotes, to consider the question:

Is the NYC Gay Men’s Chorus being authentic, if it admits a woman member?

The answer? It depends.

Our conclusions about the Chorus being authentic depend on which part of the organization’s identity – as a Gay, Men’s, Chorus—we’re considering. And, the conclusions depend on which part of Joan’s identity — as a white, lesbian, gay rights activist, mother-partner-homemaker, daughter, and singer – we’re considering.

The GMC is being authentic in having Joan as a member,
The GMC avoids ‘not being’ authentic, and
Having Joan as a member helps the GMC extend its understanding of “who it is” and what defines it.

All at the same time.

1. How is the GMC being authentic in having Joan as a member?

The GMC is being authentic, because having Joan as a member fits with an important, defining attribute of the Gay Men’s Chorus. The Gay Men’s Chorus sees itself as an organization that fights discrimination that is based on social identity. So, they don’t want to discriminate against someone who wants to be a member just because she is a woman.

Having a female member demonstrates that the Chorus is willing to demonstrate this part of its self-definition/identity.

The GMC being authentic in having a female member because she fits with what the organization does. The Gay Men’s Chorus creates and performs vocal music at a professional level. Joan and the organization fit, because she is an experienced, skilled singer with a lovely voice.

Having Joan as a member helps the Chorus do its thing.

2. How does the GMC avoid being seen as inauthentic by having Joan as a woman member?

The GMC avoids being seen as inauthentic by having Joan as a member because some of Joan’s personal characteristics allow her to fit with other elements of the Gay Men’s Chorus’ identity. So, even though all the members of the chorus know that there is a female member (and find nothing inauthentic in that), there is little public awareness of Joan contradicting the organization’s identity as a Men’s Chorus. Although as a female she is physically different from other members, Joan blends in both vocally and visually.

– Vocally, Joan’s rich alto passes for 1^st tenor. Her voice blends in with and adds texture to the sound of the tenor section.

– Visually, at least during concert performances, Joan isn’t easy to identify as a woman. In her Chorus uniform (a black tuxedo), with her short hair and funky glasses, Joan looks like one of the guys.

[Joan happens to stand in the front row of the Chorus, because she’s shorter than most other members. I imagined that, with her in the front row, the audience would notice her and respond to the idea of a woman in the Men’s Chorus. But, Joan told me that (while she’s never actually talked to an audience member about it, she believes) people barely notice that something is slightly different about her appearance; her appearance is “quizzical". Joan’s partner, Eileen, says that from her perspective in the audience, Joan sticks out only when the Chorus bows, because Joan is one of the few members without a bald spot! ]

(photo from JoanGarry.com)

– In terms of personality, Joan also blends in with other members of her vocal section, the 1st tenors. (At weekly rehearsals, Joan’s primary interaction is with the 16 or so other 1st tenors.) Joan explained to me that first tenors are known to be more “diva-like” and demanding of attention, and that she kind of fits this stereotype.

Joan has several ways to fit in, that to outsiders help her and the GMC pass as ‘male’ and that to members help her to connect.

3. How does having Joan as a member help the GMC extend its understanding of “who it is” and what defines it?

Having Joan specifically, as their female member, makes it possible for the GMC to extend its organizational identity in an interesting way – by extending its understanding of what it means to be a “gay” organization.

As a lesbian, Joan shares the ‘meta’ social identity of the Chorus, because she is a member of the same non-dominant social category as the gay men (i.e., homosexuals, as compared with heterosexuals). So, as a lesbian, Joan can be understood as being ‘gay’.

Also, Joan explained to me that her professional position as a long-time spokesperson for Gay and Lesbian rights, and the fact that other Chorus members see her as an advocate for their collective rights, raise their awareness of the Chorus as an organization promoting Gay rights. This is a mission is shared by all Chorus members, both the gay men and the lesbian woman.

An additional benefit for the Chorus is that Joan’s presence can remind the organization of the alliance between gay men and lesbians in the fight against discrimination. For Joan personally-politically, her being in the chorus is “a way to be in the gay community in a different way”.

So, for the Chorus, being authentic in having a female member is different from being authentic in having a lesbian member.

I asked Joan if she thought that she would have been as welcome in the Chorus if she’d been a straight woman. She replied that, for her, “it’s hard to imagine being drawn to sing in a gay chorus, and to have that shared social orientation that feels so important to me”. (But I can say from my own experience, as a straight woman who sang in a predominantly lesbian choir, I was perfectly happy to share the social justice/ gay rights orientation of that choir. Which only goes to suggest that a value-based identity connection can help people work around a bio/social identity disconnect. But more on that another time.)

What about not fitting in?

I was able to ask Joan whether there any ways in which she felt as though she didn’t fit into the Chorus’ Gay Men’s identity. Were there ever situations in which she felt awkward or uncomfortable as a member?

As it happens, the one situation in which Joan occasionally feels uncomfortable is when the Chorus takes a break in the middle of rehearsal. Those 20 minutes are sometimes uncomfortable for her, because this is a time when a different element of the Chorus’s identity and purpose come out. As Joan explained, “many of the guys come to the choir to meet other guys”. The secondary purpose of the organization, which is for gay men to meet, develop friendships, and perhaps find romantic relationships with other gay men, is a purpose that Joan can’t easily contribute to.

And the question everybody asks: How did Joan become a member of the Gay Men’s Chorus in the first place?

The partner of one of Joan’s colleagues at GLAAD was the executive director of the GMC. One day during her last few months at GLAAD, Joan joked to her colleague that soon, as a stay at home mom, she’d have a lot of time on her hands. So, maybe she should join the Gay Men’s Chorus? Just as she said this jokingly, Joan realized that she was in fact interested in singing in the Chorus. There is neither a lesbian chorus nor a women’s chorus in New York City, so a woman who wants to sing with a chorus has few options beyond a church choir.

On Joan’s part, becoming a member wasn’t intended to be a political statement. And, although the Men’s Chorus with a woman member is a funny story that can get Joan and the Chorus some press attention (like this blog post for example), becoming a member wasn’t “a publicity stunt”. Had there been any animosity or any concern about her auditioning for the chorus she would have withdrawn.

As Joan explained, “I didn’t want to change the tone and tenor of the chorus.”
[pun unintended but still enjoyable...].

Her motivation was simple. Said Joan:
“I just wanted to sing.”

So what do you think? Is the Gay Men’s Chorus being authentic, or not?

{ 1 comment }

Authentic, but how? What questions would you ask this organization….

May 21, 2008

Readers-

I found a great story in my local paper about a woman in my town who sings in a men’s chorus. Yes, you read that correctly–She is in a Men’s chorus.

While not exactly like the photo, above, I think the ratio in this chorus is at least 75:1 men to woma n. Which is interesting, because– I don’t know about you, but — when I think of a "men’s chorus", the picture I have is more like this….

I suspect that this organization is either very special or very inauthentic — how else could the organization embrace being ‘for men’ and also embrace a woman/not man member?

There is obviously more to this story. Specifically, how can we understand this organization’s authenticity, if it defines itself as "a men’s chorus" at the same time that it admits a woman member?

I’m excited to say, I have the chance to interview Joan, the female member of the Men’s Chorus, early next week! I can’t wait to learn more about how Joan became a member of the Men’s Chorus, and explore what it says about ‘who’ the Men’s Chorus is that it welcomed her as a member.

There are so many different questions about authenticity that we might explore, that I thought I should ask you what you’d be interested in knowing…

What other questions should I ask Joan about her organization?

Send me your suggestions by making a comment, below. Or, shoot me an email at cvharquail@AuthenticOrganizations.com.

I’ll put the questions together, talk with Joan, and report back…..

**note: to see the comments that have already been made, click on the "# comments" link…. (5.22.08 7 am)

{ 7 comments }

An Authentic Response from Glamour Magazine

January 17, 2008

This past summer, a story about a Glamour magazine staffer who was giving a talk about ‘what to wear to work’ was making the rounds among feminists and fashionistas. During the staffer’s lunchtime talk at a law firm, she allegedly remarked that wearing an Afro at work was "a Glamour Don’t ". Those who heard the story, first reported in the August issue of American Lawyer, were shocked that Glamour magazine would give professional women fashion advice that was both racist and sexist.

The question of whether or not people in corporate America find natural African-American hair to be unprofessional or inappropriate merits further, serious discussion . However, what’s more important to organizational authenticity is the question of whose racist and sexist attitudes were expressed. This question is what set up an authenticity dilemma for Glamour as an organization: Was it the staffer or the organization itself who put down natural Black hair?

Among the magazine’s readers and public the Glamour Don’t story created an authenticity dilemma . Readers and others aware of the story saw a disconnect between the way the magazine presented itself (e.g., its image) and the real-world advice it offered to young career women (e.g., its choices of action). What went wrong here?

First, since the staffer was presenting herself as a spokesperson for Glamour, she was deriving her authority from Glamour itself. Thus, her remark was received as an expression of the magazine’s actual beliefs about what was and wasn’t appropriate, professional hair.

Second, the staffer’s remark invoked Glamour magazine’s iconic catch phrase — "a Glamour Don’t ". By linking the magazine’s well-known catchphrase to her statement the staffer made her statement all the more memorable. Any reader knows that a "Glamour Don’t " is an outfit, accessory or style statement that shows its wearer to be a clueless fashion victim. As a catchphrase, “a Glamour Don’t ” carries all of the magazine’s authority as a fashion arbiter. It is a definitive statement about what look is “in” and what look is “out", and it separates women into two groups: fashion insiders in the know, and fashion outsiders who are Don’ts. Labeling natural Black hair as a fashion Don’t suggests that Black professional women themselves can be fashion Don’ts .

Third, the remark was contradictory to the way that Glamour magazine presents itself. Relative to other fashion magazines targeted at young career women, Glamour magazine stands out with its second-wave feminist orientation, its support for a woman’s right to choose, and its emphasis on young women taking control over their personal lives, career lives and communities. For Glamour magazine to dictate that natural African-American hair (hair that is unprocessed, unstraightened, free, braided or dread-locked) is a ‘Glamour Don’t’ says that Black women who want to appear professional need to submit to appearance standards designed for white women. [That's a racist attitude, most would agree.] And worse, it also indicates that, when it comes to giving specific, real-world advice about what to wear, Glamour magazine abandons the positions it presents in its pages and is as racist and sexist as any other organization.

So here’s the dilemma, for the reader, the audience, and the organization itself: Which Glamour is the ‘real’ Glamour? The Glamour that supports women’s rights or the Glamour that puts Black women down?
You can imagine the indignation of Glamour’s fans (and others) when they encountered the story. But it wasn’t long before Glamour’s editor, Cindi Leive, grabbed the issue and promised to set everyone straight (pun intended). In September Leive was interviewed on NPR and in October published this terrific Letter from the Editor , describing the issue and explaining the magazine’s response.

To be clear: Glamour did not, does not, and would never endorse the comments made; we are a magazine that believes in the beauty of all women.

As a Glamour subscriber, I was reassured and heartened by the way Leive’s letter addressed each facet of the situation. As an organizational and management scholar, I was *initially* impressed by what was presented in the letter.

In particular, I was impressed that Leive:

Responded directly, in more than one medium
Recounted the facts of the situation
Expressed concern commensurate to the situation
Clarified the organization’s position
Accepted responsibility (even though it was not the organization’s fault)
Apologized to the organization’s stakeholders
Listened to the concerns of offended stakeholders
Validated their concerns
Addressed the issue with the errant employee
Pledged to follow up with an additional article in a forthcoming issue, to demonstrate further the organization’s non-racist, pro-women attitude
Thanked the stakeholders for caring
Invited the stakeholders to continue to air their concerns
Invited additional communication from anyone interested
Made it easy to reply with a web-link directly below the letter

You’ve got to admit it; this is a comprehensive set of actions.

Each of these actions seems appropriate, and I was prepared to celebrate this story as an “Authentic Organization” response to an authenticity dilemma. Here, an authenticity dilemma triggered by a disconnect between the way the organization acted (e.g., advice given at the luncheon) and the way the organization presents itself (e.g., as a magazine that is pro-women and not racist), was resolved by a reinforcing the organization’s self-presentation, disconnecting the organization from the incongruent actions, and demonstrating actions that reinforced the organization’s desired self-presentation.

I found, though, that I couldn’t pronounce this dilemma solved, because a more thorough search suggested there’s even more to the story. Additional info includes, but is not limited, to the following:

According to the New York Post’s Page 6, the “staffer” was actually the fashion editor (not a lowly post), she didn’t have permission to speak at the luncheon, the staffer allegedly “covered up” the incident, so that the Editor was blindsided by the problem. Also, according to bloggers, the staffer and some colleagues claimed that she had been prohibited by Condé Nast, Glamour’s parent organization, from issuing a public explanation and apology herself. And, the Editor was criticized for taking ‘too long’ to address the issue herself.

You’d never know any of this from the diplomatic Letter from the Editor .

So what do we believe? Whom do we believe? What is really ‘true’ about how Glamour as an organization feels about Black women’s hair, about the ‘appropriate look’ for minority and white professional women, about the place for young career women in our society, about racism and sexism within their organization and their industry? How will we know?

I, for one, will be a little more skeptical as I read the magazine. Until I know more, I’ll withhold my judgments about the staffer, the Editor, their actions, and the Glamour organization itself. I will be on the lookout for the promised article about the roundtable conversation on race, gender, careers and fashion. As both a Glamour subscriber and as a management scholar, I’ll specifically be looking for actions, choices, and behaviors by the magazine and by its Editor that will demonstrate that Glamour is resolving its authenticity dilemma by adjusting the organization’s explicit choices to its self-presentation.

Will this incident be a useful model for Authentic Organizations? Or will we forever think of it as a glamorous "Don’t". Tell me what you think.

{