Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is 'white' the only color of success?
Christian Science Monitor ^ | October 31, 2005 | Marilyn Gardner

Posted on 10/31/2005 2:11:10 PM PST by Graybeard58

Minorities can have their careers derailed by their tone of voice or hairstyle, a new study shows.

During her years as an attorney for one of the top international law firms in the United States, Angela Williams looked forward to defending clients. But sometimes she was not given the chance.

"When it came time for an opportunity to represent Fortune 500 companies on huge cases, even though I might have had trial experience over and above my white male colleagues, they were chosen," says Ms. Williams, who is African-American.

In an age of diversity, when many companies point with pride to their multicultural workforce, a sobering reality remains: Minority professionals often find their career ambitions thwarted by hidden bias - what workplace experts call the new face of discrimination. "Acting white," they say, can be the price of promotion in a business world where white men account for 98 percent of CEOs and 95 percent of top earners in Fortune 500 companies. Diversity does not always extend to the executive suite.

"Minorities are getting stuck in the early stretches of career structures," says economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, whose study of minority professionals appears in the November Harvard Business Review. "They are not getting promoted and advanced at a rate commensurate with their weight in the talent pool."

In a survey of more than 1,600 minority professionals, Dr. Hewlett and Princeton professor Cornel West found that sterling credentials can be overshadowed by personal and cultural traits. Everything from cornrows, ethnic jewelry, animated hand gestures, and certain manicures can leave colleagues thinking, "You're different."

Forty years ago, it was very easy to see prejudice, Hewlett notes. "People wore it on their sleeve and enshrined it in law. Today, it's much more subtle, but it's pervasive. Whether it's a tone of voice or hairstyle or accent, the cumulative impact can be brutal and can derail a career."

The study comes just weeks after Neil French, the creative director of WPP Group, reportedly explained the small ranks of female advertising directors by saying that "they don't deserve to make it to the top" because of their family obligations. He resigned over the flap.

While the proverbial glass ceiling remains one obstacle for women and minorities, Hewlett identifies another barrier - a "Jell-O floor" that keeps them mired in negative stereotypes.

Over 40 percent of minority professional women in large corporations say they feel excluded and constrained by "style compliance" - the need to blend into a corporate culture dominated by white men. More than a third of minority men feel the same way.

"The pressure is added for minority professionals because we don't necessarily come from the same background as those in leadership positions, and we haven't had the same experiences," says Williams, a vice president of Sears in Chicago.

A quarter of minority businesswomen worry that they are perceived as "affirmative action" hires. In addition, nearly a third of minority female executives are concerned that their speaking style labels them as lacking leadership potential.

"Asian women executives were convinced that they weren't commanding enough in their tone of voice, and were not assertive," says Hewlett. "African-American managers were quite sure they spoke too loudly, were too threatening."

One woman, a native of India who works as an IT executive at a Fortune 500 company, learned that colleagues regarded her as quiet. "There are people who talk just to be talking," says the woman, who asks not to be identified to protect her job. "That's not my style. People said, 'She's quiet.' Management perceived that I didn't have leadership quality. Eventually people said, 'But when she says something, it's valuable.' The last few years, I haven't heard them talk about this 'quiet' thing."

Both whites and minorities must adapt, she says. "People like me coming to Western society and working here have to figure out that there are certain things you have to do, that you have to project certain things. That becomes part of the norm of being a successful professional leader."

Referring to Americans' views of professionals from India, she says, "There's a stereotype that they're very good technically, you can rely on them, but they're not really the leaders of tomorrow." Yet she is encouraged by changes at her firm. "They're looking for diversity candidates like me who can grow."

Invisibility - not being heard or seen - remains an issue for women of color, says Ella Bell, an associate professor of business at Dartmouth. "If a woman of color speaks up to make her point, it will just plop. A white male will pick it up and all of a sudden it's bells and whistles." White women might have similar experiences, she adds, but not to the same degree.

Professor Bell also notes a reverse challenge: "You become visible when they need an affirmative action poster child to show that they're making a good attempt to connect to minority communities. That kind of visibility doesn't contribute to the bottom line, so it doesn't help when it comes to promotions."

Another form of invisibility occurs outside the office. To a much greater degree than their white peers, minority professionals spend off-hours doing charitable work. One-quarter are religious leaders. Nearly 30 percent are mentors to needy young people. Forty percent engage in a variety of social outreach activities. Yet many remain silent at work about this service.

"The work they do in minority communities, which is leadership, is very important, but their corporate managers never know about it," Bell says. "It doesn't get counted. Meanwhile, John Doe, who happens to be Caucasian, is on the United Way board or the arts council. It's a big deal."

Hewlett tells of a young woman who formed Girl Scout troops at homeless shelters in Washington, D.C. She received an award at the White House for her work but had not told her boss about it.

"She was afraid to," Hewlett says. "She thought it would imply that a homeless shelter was the kind of background she came from, and she didn't want to be stuck with that label."

Being open about outside activities can bring rewards. When Sears hired Williams as chief compliance and ethics officer, she was told that part of the reason she was hired was because she was both a successful lawyer and an ordained Baptist minister. "The general counsel said to me, 'Who better to be the conscience of the company than a lawyer and a minister in one person?' If people really felt free to let corporate America know the things they are involved with outside their 9-to-5 jobs, that can be an enhancement to their performance on the job."

Williams, who counts fewer than five minority CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, sees progress. But, she adds, "We still have a long way to go."

Eral Burks, CEO of Minority Executive Search in Cleveland, also finds bias camouflaged.

"Companies talk about bringing on more minority board members and senior executive staff, but they're always finding excuses why they won't hire a prospective candidate," he says. "They weren't really interested in hiring, but it looks good that they brought people in. A lot of companies don't think there are qualified minority candidates."

Some firms are designing strategies to combat hidden bias. These include benefits that serve extended families.

Pointing out that minorities have spending power, Mr. Burks says, "They're going to be buying your product or service. They're starting to look at companies and say, 'Why should we spend our money here if your senior staff looks a totally different color?' "

Some CEOs, he adds, "are becoming aware that it makes good business sense to get senior-level staff on their team. They're very positive about wanting to hire more executive minorities and women candidates."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: aa; affirmativeaction; diversity; racism; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-290 next last
To: MikeinIraq
Since you obviously refuse to explain or defend your remarks, you must only read the talking points instead of understand them..

So, I'll give you another chance to dazzle us with something unique. Find a single post from me defending anyone on this thread.

And I'll explain this to you one more time. He was banned because you tattled not because of his remarks. If racists remarks were his reason for being banned, this article and thread would have been completely removed the minute it was posted.
261 posted on 11/01/2005 5:09:23 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
He was banned because you tattled not because of his remarks.

I pinged the mods BECAUSE HE ASKED ME TOO. Get that through your head. Get this through your head as well. NO ONE gets banned because of complaints. They get BANNED BECAUSE OF CONTENT!! Just stop. This is getting embarrassing for you.
262 posted on 11/01/2005 5:12:39 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Why yes, except for Bill Clinton of course. (think about it! )


263 posted on 11/01/2005 5:14:08 PM PST by ladyinred ("Progressive" = code word for Communist/Nazi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
They get BANNED BECAUSE OF CONTENT!!

Really, then please give me some more of your brilliance and explain why you get a pass for calling someone a POS. And why the article wasn't pulled because it is 100% full of racist CONTENT.

Might I add that you've still failed.... I repeat, failed to answer a single question I've posed to you. Are they really that difficult? maybe you're afraid or maybe the script you read from doesn't have the answers.
264 posted on 11/01/2005 5:34:27 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
And why the article wasn't pulled because it is 100% full of racist CONTENT.

Do you really believe that?

265 posted on 11/01/2005 5:36:27 PM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

I'll answer to you when you get around to answering to me WHY you are defending a BANNED racist....

you seem to be quite insistent about it.

Either answer or just drop it. you are getting tiresome.


266 posted on 11/01/2005 5:37:37 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

of course he does.

And he wants to protect his buddy the racist


267 posted on 11/01/2005 5:37:54 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Current Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis was rewarded with a 10 year contract after a 5-2 start in his first 7 games as coach. He is white. Tyrone Willingham started 8-0 his first 8 games as coach at ND. He was shown the door after 3 years. He is black.

Gary Gibbs was the Oklahoma football coach for 5 years and had only one losing season. He was fired. He is white.

Howard Schnellenberger was the Oklahoma football coach for one year and had a .500 seaason. He was fired. His is white.

John Blake was the Oklahoma football coach for three years all of which were losing seasons before he was fired. His is black.

What's your point?
268 posted on 11/01/2005 5:49:23 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
WHY you are defending a BANNED racist....

If you can't identify a post of mine that defends anyone on this thread then you owe me an apology.

Maybe your too tired to look.
269 posted on 11/01/2005 5:52:05 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

LOL

no just tired of sifting through the garbage you keep posting to me....


you seem AWFULLY insistent on painting me as the bad guy to NOT be attempting to defend the banned racist....


270 posted on 11/01/2005 5:54:44 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
insistent on painting me as the bad guy to NOT be attempting to defend the banned racist....

Ok... Try to defend these posts for me... I saw one that referenced "white trash", one referenced "low class whites", one was so bold as to say they'd love to own a t-shirt that said "kill the honkeys", and you who called someone a POS.

Please tell me how the "content" of these posts are so much more pure and non-racist than the post you got so worked up about?

And please don't get tired on me. I'll be here until you answer.

pssst... I already know the answer, I'm wondering if you do.
271 posted on 11/01/2005 6:08:54 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
pssst... I already know the answer, I'm wondering if you do.

Gee Gaijin, you certainly didn't seem to know the answers last night....
272 posted on 11/01/2005 6:14:08 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Seamoth

It ain't always so subtle. I'm still in shock over the thread on interacial dating that Jim deleted. Hat's off to Jim for the deed. It was sickening. You couldn't count the so-called conservatives who were coming down hard on the side of racism.


273 posted on 11/01/2005 6:54:47 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
Now that you've lost this argument you have no other resort than to start calling me names too. Is David Duke next, then Robert Byrd. Will you call me a POS after that.

You claim to enter these threads to have a conversation about race but you want no such thing. You want to preach. You look at posts and say "yeah" when an article is posted claiming institutional racism against blacks, but are noticeably silent when those adversely affected by government sanctioned affirmative action are taunted as whiners.

You think it's funny when someone says "white trash" and claim they want to "kill honkeys". You then become rigorously indignant when a hint of negativity appears towards non-whites. You express outrage, blast out the tiresome racist claim. You goad the posters into an argument by calling them names, you build straw men by falsely associating them to every bigot you can think of, (not surprisingly all of them white). Then you call them a POS just before you so bravely press the abuse button.

You fail to accept challenges to your tripe by intentionally not answering questions about your own bigoted remarks all the while posing as the savior to the gentile conversation.

You are so noble and should be honored for your hypocrisy and deceit.
274 posted on 11/01/2005 6:55:50 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

Save the song and dance. The endless badgering thing is just getting old. Gaijin's comments were racist. Everyone agreed on that point but you, including the moderator.


275 posted on 11/01/2005 7:15:09 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Do you really believe that?

ok... Probably not 100%.

Now tell me you believe g.. whomever was banned because of the "content" of his/her posts.
276 posted on 11/01/2005 7:16:46 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Everyone agreed on that point but you, including the moderator.

Not you too, please find a post on this thread where I have defended anyone's derogatory remarks. Just because you want to say it doesn't make it so. The point I am trying to make is that people get banned because someone tattles. There are many more posts on this thread that in my opinion are much more racist and extremely more defamatory than the post which was pulled. If you want to believe that the mods pull all posts that don't adhere to posting ettiquette, you go right ahead.

If that were the case this thread would be half the size it is now.
277 posted on 11/01/2005 7:24:35 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill; MikeinIraq

I complained about one of gaijin's posts before Mike did. It was blatently racist,or so I thought. The post stood.

Many posts later gaijin asked Mike to report him. Instead of hitting abuse he posted to the admin mod and JR. That got somebodies attention because he was quickly booted.

Neither MikeInIraq nor I got gaijin banned, he did that himself.

Before all this happened #12 was deleted, it was a poor attempt at parody of how someone thought black people talk. The remark was removed but as far as I know the member is still active. He had the good sense not to persist with that kind of posting.

I know you don't appreciate people hitting the abuse button but that's what it's there for. To notify the mods and they make the call.

I do not think you are racist neither do I think Mike was wrong in taking on someone who he, the mods/owner thought was.


278 posted on 11/01/2005 7:48:42 PM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
Now tell me you believe g.. whomever was banned because of the "content" of his/her posts.

If not for that, what do you think he was banned for? Because I complained? Because Mike complained? I don't know about MikeInIraq but I don't have any pull at all here. I do not know the owner personally or any of the mods, nor am I a long time member.

279 posted on 11/01/2005 7:53:45 PM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Thank you for your reply. Finally a cogent response.

I saw his posts and as with many posts on these types of threads I try to take it as intended or as I perceive it was intended. They may be uncouth but for the most part are non-abusive. I see many hee hee ha ha posts that I find blatantly offensive and they are never challenged by the "racist cops" on these threads. Not surprisingly most are towards whites. For instance, there is a post currently in this thread in which the poster wishes they had a t-shirt that said "kill the honkeys".

I saw not a single post putting this person in their place the way the deluge would have been had they wished for another type of t-shirt.

Either be consistent or don't be so sensitive. We cannot have a valid discussion about race without being intellectually honest with each other. The hypocrisy that emits from these threads is an embarrassment. I realize the mods/Jim want to give the appearance of not being a redneck right wing white power blog. I couldn't agree more, but you and your ping list could be a bit more helpful by being more consistent. If you're going to press abuse for abuse against blacks, press for abuse against others.

I personally have never touched the abuse button and never would. Although I find many posts, even some in this thread to be above and beyond offensive/abusive. My own personal policy is that comments found offensive and their posters should be ignored. But that's just me.
280 posted on 11/01/2005 8:16:12 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-290 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson