[issa]

I think it's great that you put this question out here. The funny thing (in my experience) is that white people DO understand exactly how it feels, they just aren't always honest enough with themselves to realize it.

The Experiment: Go to whatever is considered to be the worst neighborhood in your town. At night. Alone. Do something completely normal. For example, buy something from a gas station, walk into a nightclub, etc. How do you feel? Out of place? Scared? Not sure how to act?

Well, that's the feeling the OP is describing. The immediate defensive response is usually to think "that's different...those neighborhoods are DANGEROUS. I could be killed." Granted, black people can certainly be in danger just for being in white neighborhoods (think unprovoked police shootings), but even if your biggest fear is losing your job or something of that nature, it isn't all that different.

I think, ultimately, the best way to promote an inclusive workplace is to hire a diverse team. Really put effort into finding candidates from diverse backgrounds. That means expanding your circle even when you aren't actively recruiting. (also, try not to ever say "binders full of women")

[presumeaway]

"The Experiment" is comparing two different things. One's an issue of personal safety combined with elements of not fitting in, the other's an issue of not fitting in, combined with elements of career stressors.

You say it isn't all that different, but having experienced too much of both, it is.

Both are real, and sometimes both occur at once, but to say a white guy in a predominantly non-white and high-crime neighborhood would gain empathy for a non-white coder in a predominantly white tech company, would be as absurd as claiming the reciprocal.

[coffeemug]

A better comparison might be moving to a different country and getting a job there when you don't completely understand the culture and possibly have a language barrier (which I've gone through). You don't feel unsafe, but you don't quite fit in, you feel homesick, you don't mesh well with your coworkers, and you feel a constant background radiation of insecurity because you aren't used to the legal system, the social support system, etc. Your coworkers might make slight jokes about you. They mean well, but it sure as heck doesn't help your situation.

That feeling really (really) sucks. It must suck ten times as much when it's happening in your own country. I really feel for people who are forced to experience this.

[mcguire]

The issue of personal safety is almost always overblown. The difference between the best part of town (i.e. where you feel comfortable) and the worst part of town (where you are uncomfortable), anywhere I've ever been, has been at most a relatively small degree. The perception of the issue is almost always caused by the "not fitting in" part.

Further, career stresses are frequently underplayed in the tech environment. Certainly, I would feel very little worry about saying, "Adios, and I'll leave my badge on my desk on my way out." On the other hand, if you are not part of the tech culture and everyone you know is either unemployed or working, say, outside the tech field, the potential of being punished simply for standing out is a bigger worry than I suspect you really think.

In other words, it isn't the same thing, but it's not as absurd as you might believe.

[oh_sigh]

But those neighborhoods aren't really that dangerous. For example, many people go on vacation to places that are more dangerous than the worse neighborhoods in their town (Jamaica and Mexico come to mind). Even the "safe" places in those countries are more dangerous than the "dangerous" places in any average US town.

[anigbrowl]

Personal safety is an extension of not fitting it - it's hard to read the cues about who or what might be a threat to you as opposed to a mere annoyance. Of course one is unlikely* to face a physical threat in the workplace equivalent to heading to a dive bar surrounded by broken bottles, but your career risk is just an abstraction of the corporal risk and can be just as stressful.

* as a man anyway.

I've also experienced a great deal of both and I disagree with your read. It's easy to think up non-racial examples as well; someone who's gay in a frat-themed work environment, or a middle-class guy ending up at a bar populated by Hell's Angels or suchlike. The differences with race and gender, obviously, are that it's almost impossible to obscure those facts about yourself so you can't even fake that you fit in.

[sliverstorm]

Come now, I've spent plenty of time as the only white person in sight, and it never felt anywhere near as uncomfortable as walking by druggies, needles out, late at night. Or going through the empty NYC subways at 4AM. Or the guy who pulled a knife on me.

Social anxiety is real, but do you really find the fear of imminent injury/death no more terrifying than social harm?

[issa]

The point is that there is this ridiculous misconception that everyone in "bad" neighborhoods is constantly being shot at. I just said go to one of those neighborhoods and do something like shop at a gas station or nightclub. I didn't say a thing about knives, druggies, or anything of the sort.

[anigbrowl]

Fear of bodily harm is certainly far more acute, but it's also concentrated in time, even though it may be encountered regularly or frequently. While social anxiety is more of a chronic issue, I think it can be just as stressful in the aggregate - I did choose the word 'stressful' deliberately above.

[thelettere]

Increasing racial diversity as a solution is a recommendation without empirical grounding. I am a white male and I work part time in ed tech. Our department is quite mixed - both my supervisor and the head of our department are black woman. However, there is little collegiality here.

And this matches the literature - the more ethnic/racial diversity in a community, the less civic engagement and trust (1). I'm not sure what the answer is, but the research suggests diversity is not a universal panacea. Like anything else, there are benefits and liabilities involved - and there are other considerations to take into account.

For example, I wonder if her co-workers had been more like her in other ways, such as matching her taste in video games, dress, attitude and so on - if her experience would have been different. In my department I suspect it's mostly these other things (work and personality styles especially) that are the reason for the lack of cohesion.

The best groups I've been a part of are those that mixed the right amount of same and different. We need to feel some commonality with others to form bonds, but we also need enough differences to challenge and stimulate us. Effective hiring practices require attention to both, else company and employee will suffer.

(1) http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

*Edited to expand on the point/add clarity.

[johnny99]

The research I've seen claims that the benefit of diversity is higher performance, not increased collegiality. They may even be inversely correlated. From a Kellogg School of Management (Northwestern) piece (1):

"The mere presence of diversity in a group creates awkwardness, and the need to diffuse this tension leads to better group problem solving... while homogenous groups feel more confident in their performance and group interactions, it is the diverse groups that are more successful in completing their tasks."

(1) http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/better_decis...

[thelettere]

Apples and oranges. The issue Erica is concerned about is her social discomfort at work, not her team's performance. Also, the study you cite was measuring gender and length of group membership diversity, not racial/ethnic diversity.

[disputin]

The last team I worked on had 2 Englishmen, 5 Indians, 2 Pakistanis, a Frenchman, a Portuguese, a Greek, an Australian, and a Kazakh. It was chaos. No one understood each other, and so heated arguments were the norm. This was not higher performance.

[pc86]

Presumably any benefits gained from diversity can very easily be lost in the mix of language and true cultural barriers. In the spirit of the article it'd be more relevant if it were a mix of genders, races, and socioeconomic standing at birth than a mix of different nationalities, languages, and workplace customs.

[disputin]

"if it were a mix of genders, races, and socioeconomic standing at birth" Clearly the latter two were the case. The gender mix was about 30% female.

[pc86]

What I meant was the language barrier almost certainly added more complication than the diversity.

[eitally]

I generally agree with you, but ... http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

There is also the "problem" of mixing professional and personal relationships. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but some individuals absolutely do. not. want. For teams where the workplace is the social hub for most but not all, those stuck at the social periphery are most likely going to suffer professionally. And this doesn't even get into class differences (as in, those protected classes, not socioeconomic) and feelings of not belonging.

[thelettere]

This is quite late, but I just want to clarify: I am not "against" diversity. I am merely contesting the idea that the answer to all issues around having employees feeling uncomfortable or discriminated against at work is not as simple as: "just add diversity". I have no idea what the answer is, but the research and my experience suggest it is a lot more complicated than that.

[stcredzero]

I think, ultimately, the best way to promote an inclusive workplace is to hire a diverse team.

I'd say that's the start. You're creating favorable conditions. The important step is to have open and honest communications, even around issues as sensitive as race.

(also, try not to ever say "binders full of women")

I don't think "try not to say" political correctness is intellectually compelling. In fact, I think it's counter-productive to open and honest communications. The implementation of hair-trigger job loss and social stigma is only going to create fear and stifle communications.

I'm not trying to defend toxic speech here. Instead, I'm trying to be clear about comprehension and motivation. Instead of a social context that mindlessly implements pattern-matching hair-trigger sanctions, I'd rather have a support group that understands me and where I'm coming from, so they understand how I would feel about this or that social situation. I'd rather be surrounded by coworkers that know me well enough, they probably won't say something that offends me, or if they happen to do that, I know well enough to talk to them constructively about that.

[eldavido]

A bit off-topic, but I hate that there's such a stigma in the American workplace around getting fired. Statistically, not every hire works out, not every job is great, some people and companies are better off without each other.

Rather than engage in this collective delusion that everything is always OK, I wish firing was a more commonplace thing. I also think how it's framed matters a lot: "this isn't working out for either of us" vs. "you aren't welcome here, don't come back".

Additionally, Slava (coffeemug) is right, personnel decisions are the loudest, most unambiguous signals about what's valued in a work culture. Posters on the walls are bullshit - look at who's advancing, who's getting the raises, titles, and what kind of person is getting hired, to know where an organization's priorities really lie.

[PeterisP]

I believe that the stigma is caused by the very real and very harsh effect of firing on the individual wellbeing and financial safety, given the lack of social 'safety net' in USA and the general lack of savings for not-the-1% of people.

In countries where getting fired doesn't cause immediate financial distress and doesn't remove you from, say, access to medical services for your kids, people don't have such a stigma and actually are willing to simply move on if it isn't working out of if their relationship with teammates matches the bad parts of the original post.

[eldavido]

I think you're right.

A bit of personal perspective: I'm a 30 year old, I earn well into six figures/yr, but I still live relatively far below my means. Concretely, this has required making some very tangible lifestyle choices that haven't always been pleasant, including living with roommates in a somewhat bad neighborhood, not buying high-end clothes, etc.

The reason I do this, and it's something which somewhat annoys my long-term girlfriend, is that I absolutely refuse to live paycheck-to-paycheck. I've done that for a while after a failed startup, and it's terrible. It takes a huge psychological toll and the idea that you have to stay at a crappy job, and be afraid every day of being fired, is something I'm working very, very hard to avoid.

[tomp]

> I also think how it's framed matters a lot: "this isn't working out for either of us" vs. "you aren't welcome here, don't come back".

Doesn't really matter how it's framed, when the reality is clear in almost all interactions: the employee is getting the short end of the stick. It's very simple, really: the ratio of employee's salary to his/her total income is very likely to dwarf the ratio of the cost of the employee to the companies total costs. Hence, keeping an employee is very low-risk for the company, while getting fired is very high-risk for an individual. Even if you say "it's not working for us", what you really mean is "I'll slightly improve my profit margins by turning your life on it's head!".

[makmanalp]

Maybe. What you're saying is a tautological conclusion of the fact that large companies tend to have a lot of employees. None of your employees cost much individually, but if you don't fire anyone, the aggregate cost is a lot.

Besides, if you thought that the point of a company was to provide you with a job and sustenance, you were delusional to begin with. The fact that they're paying you is a side effect of the fact that you're doing things for them that they need. I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm just saying that no one's really hiding that fact.

How this ties in to what the parent is saying: not everyone is fired because they inherently suck. It's possible to not suck and still not be useful to the company. So the stigma here is a bit irrational. I know a company who hired a C-level executive and then very soon realized that they didn't need that person yet, and went through many pains to keep that person onboard on the paperwork. They made it look like they left after a year on their own accord, all in order to not ruin the person's career.

[presumeaway]

> I don't think "try not to say" political correctness is intellectually compelling.

Except, that's not what the parent was doing. It was a partisan dig, thinly disguised: even worse.

[issa]

It actually was neither. What I meant was that it is painfully obvious when someone does NOT have a diverse team.

[noobermin]

I'm not sure how hiring a diverse team (only) will help. It seems like it will just create two different groups within the same company/workgroup that stick together and don't talk to one another. Sure, the minorities will feel more comfortable, but I think communication and acceptance between all parties will help overcome the "out of place" feeling in a much more enlightened way--a much more enlightened way instead of hiring people for your odd men/women out to hang out with instead of those _other_ people.

Now, if hiring a diverse team forces the old team to start realizing their biases and become more accepting, that a great way to start to overcome those barriers, but I think the understanding is far more important than just having a higher percentage of people of other races.

I discuss my opinion on this in my comment below.

[jtheory]

Agreed there's more to it than just hiring the diverse team, but that's a chunk of it.

People work together, and project assignments aren't made to put friends together, but to group the skillsets needed and to help people do the work that interests them.

Of course there's some time spent hanging out in the break room or possibly after-hours, but most socializing (in my experience) happens around work, in groupings that are work-project based.

The small talk is quite different (and honestly, much more interesting!) when you have a more diverse group, automatically.

[rmc]

Another option, if you're a straight cis person, is to go to a gay bar/club. You'll feel different.