JUSTICE. EQUITY. DIVERSITY. INCLUSION.
the world’s smartest.
perpetuating bias.
we only hire the world’s smartest people.
recruiters say it all too often.
it’s a belief that permeates a company’s ether.
it reaffirms decisions to join during moments of unsureness.
it sets one apart from others — the king of the hill. the cream of the crop. the wheat from the chaff.
it’s a precious belief that perpetuates exceptionalism.
a company may indeed be chock full of extremely smart folks.
but, the world’s smartest?
that’s quite an assertion.
what’s the litmus test?
the belief almost instantaneously loses credibility upon a simple examination of representation and mix.
let’s generalize tech as an illustrative example.
men can often make up nearly 60% of the employee base while only representing 50% of the global population.
tech companies easily over-index on asian and white talent, often representing over 90% of the employee base while only 6% and 60%, respectively, of the US population.
do these folks represent the smartest in the world — when so much diverse talent was never even in the initial consideration set?
not to mention that while go-to top talent pipelines may source intellect, they also likely serve as arbiters of opportunity, rather than of true ability.
we only hire the world’s smartest is an insidious cultural belief — thinking that codifies and advances systemic bias.
systemic bias. also referred to as institutional bias, these are practices and processes embedded in the everyday workings of a system or institution that create or perpetuate disadvantageous outcomes for individuals from othered or minority backgrounds.
in 2018, two black men were profiled in a philadelphia starbucks store.
we all know what happened next.
the part of the story germane to this conversation is about what preceded the incident.
starbucks stores are a microcosm of the world.
leadership is constantly working to balance the realities of surrounding communities with the experience and safety of its partners (employees) and its customers.
to that end, the company—with the best of intentions—designed a policy to aid store managers in navigating challenging customer situations.
the issue, as demonstrated by the philly incident, is that store managers were ill-equipped to execute the policy.
the policy perpetuated bias.
here’s why.
when companies create policy they can often hardcode cultural beliefs, intentionally or unintentionally. thus, they must constantly check for bias — keeping an eye on the ripple effect.
without offering tools and resources to mitigate bias, employees will turn to personal experiences, belief systems, and proclivities to navigate workplace complexity.
in other words, they will lean on their bias.
bias is a slippery sucker that can easily undermine the best of intentions.
cloaking the culture of a company in the notion that we only hire the world’s smartest is no different.
the notion, by definition, is exclusionary.
there is an in-group and an out-group.
no different than the starbucks policy, it leaves gatekeepers of companies left to grapple with how to determine who belongs and who does not.
they then simply rely on what they know — their experiences, belief systems, and proclivities.
they rely on their bias.
and, they turn to the tried and true pipeline providers — the top schools, the top brands, the top companies.
they turn to existing employees.
they return to the same wells over and over again.
companies continue to dip into the same waters and are then surprised when they face relatively the same intersectional hiring data year over year.
this isn’t rocket science.
many companies realize this.
sticking with generalized tech for a moment, an entire cottage industry has sprung up to foster increased STEM skills among black and brown students.
the goal is simple.
by increasing early access to science, tech, engineering, and math skills these orgs hope to increase access to the tech industry.
the intention is noble.
and, yet.
these programs engage black and brown youngsters as early as third grade.
tech companies are evaluating resumes for participation in these programs that go far back into a black or brown candidate’s background.
leading one to believe that unless black and brown candidates have dedicated their afternoons and weekends to STEM since early childhood they won’t pass muster.
is this the same bar for white and asian counterparts?
it brings to mind the cartoon of the various children of different heights trying to peer over a fence to watch a baseball game. some are tall, some are standing on boxes, and some aren’t — each with different vantage points, some unable to see the game at all. the cartoon is used to illuminate the difference between equality and equity.
the intent is that these programs uplift the children who might not be able to view the game; however, to benefit necessitates quite a few boxes stacking up.
so actually, we are saying to kids that are tall: well, good on you!
just be you.
stand tall in your glory and full view of the game.
but, you shorter ones?
well, work doubly hard to scramble up those boxes for a glimpse of the game.
by the way, hope you get to the top before it’s over.
that’s deep.
sit with that for a moment.
black and brown children are being sent signals that not only are they disadvantaged but also so inherently behind they need to spend 10–15 immersive years to even hope for a foot in the door.
while little white and asian children are told they don’t need to do a thing. they are perfect just the way they are.
why?
it’s the tax on being different.
dr. vivienne ming and the mad scientists at soco demonstrated the systemic barriers facing individuals who do not represent the gold standard — the normative composite profile candidates are evaluated against.
their data spotlights the undue burden placed on minorities that translates into how much harder it is for diverse talent to make headway in the professional marketplace.
the take-away is othered individuals pay a tax.
they pay it by attending more prestigious schools, having additional/higher degrees, more exceptional experience, and brand name work history.
ming’s research shows that you can evaluate two schools — say michigan university versus princeton. attendance at either of those schools does not serve as an indicator for professional success.
that is unless you are a black man.
there is another version of the cartoon that pops up from time to time.
it depicts a third scene where the fence is removed, the ground level, and all the kids regardless of height have equal viewing.
that’s justice.
what if companies focused on removing the fence instead of stacking boxes? perhaps then access to the smartest people in the world might be a possibility.
[AUTHORS NOTE: this is a generalization. of course not all asian and white children are academically advantaged over black and brown ones. the mental exercise is meant to examine the unintended barriers some groups may face.]
