Yesterday we looked at the new methodology being used to determine Fortune’s 100 Best Places to Work, which has been tweaked to emphasize feedback from those who self-identified as women, minorities, or LGBTQ.

Hard data has proven over and over that a diverse leadership and workforce increases revenues, adding substantially to company revenues and success.

Companies have spent millions on diversity training, so why hasn’t it worked?

It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers.

The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who considers people, instead of datasets, etc.

In short, people don’t like being told what to think/do.

As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.

Not exactly rocket science.

So what’s a successful approach?

It’s more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability—the desire to look fair-minded.

Or in today’s terms, DIY

Maybe it is rocket science.

More proof that diversity is (finally) being taken seriously is found in a lawsuit recently filed by IBM.

Diversity hiring, once a niche pursuit of human resources, has become a major recruiting priority at many US companies. As evidence, IBM is suing its former chief diversity officer for bolting to Microsoft.

Diversity hiring as a trade secret.

I love it.

Image credit: US Forest Service – Southern Region

Do you pride yourself on your interviewing skills; on your ability to filter out your own prejudices, such as an ugly tie or the fact that you can’t stand blondes? Do you allow outside events to influence your interview evaluations?

If you answered ‘no’ a researcher in Canada has news for you.

Dr. Donald A. Redelmeier examined University of Toronto medical school admission interview reports from 2004 to 2009. After correlating the interview scores with weather archives, he determined that candidates who interviewed on foul-weather days received ratings lower than candidates who visited on sunny days. In many cases, the difference was significant enough to influence acceptance.

Wow. Bad weather just took on a whole new meaning.

These unconscious attitudes impact far more than interviewing; they color all our actions at work, at home and out in the world.

Being human means being vulnerable to unconscious and often illogic actions and reactions, but it also means finding a way to compensate for them.

How? By monitoring research, such as Redelmeier’s, and staying hyper-awareness of the foibles embedded in your MAP.

It doesn’t mean eliminating them, just being aware enough to offset their impact.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedbee/103147140/

Most managers are, whether by sins of omission, i.e., unintentional, or commission, i.e., intentional.

Unintentional sins are usually a matter of

• being unaware of the effect of your words or actions on others;
• time spent in a culture where it’s the norm;
• rushing;
• acting before thinking; and
• not doing or ignoring doing what needs to be done.

Intentional sinning falls in the category of abuse.

The great problem is that the same words or actions from manager A would be omission, whereas from manager B they are intentional.

The people who work for them need to figure out the difference, which is easier said than done.

How do you determine if your boss is blind to her effect or just plain evil?

One of the best ways is to look at the words or actions through the lens of the larger picture as opposed to the isolated incident.

• Does the manager frequently say or do things that produce similar effects and then blunder about trying to eradicate them?
• Are the offending actions random or meted out across the board/directed at a constant target?
• How do they compare to the actions of other managers?
• Are they in line or at odds with the company’s culture?

By analyzing your boss’ comments and actions you can gain insight as to what is really going on.

Unintentional = unconscious = correctible—as long as the manager is willing. You and your colleagues can accomplish that by privately pointing out what’s going on each time it happens. In most cases the manager will be horrified and apologetic. Accept graciously, it doesn’t help to rub her nose in it, and repeat as necessary; the problem will lesson as her awareness increases.

Intentional = conscious = with malice aforethought. The best way to correct this is through diligent polishing of your resume, cultivating recruiters and becoming more active on LinkedIn, so that you are in a position to vote with your feet.

Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute