Reference no: EM131136069

A number of years ago, I worked at a different organization - please, note that it was a totally different organization. This organization actually had an entire department called the Department of Diversity. No kidding. For real. It is a real department. After an inservice for a modified approach to an illness we dealt with, we had the "option" (translates requirement - don't you just love management lingo?) of attending a lecture on diversity by one of the members of the department. Oh, my word! It was a disaster! Enough of us complained that upper management finally stopped the lectures. We were basically told that we were racist by the non-Caucasian presenter. I'm not sure there was anyone who attended who wasn't offended. Your position, your job title, how you were dressed, the color of your eyes or the color of your skin, didn't make any difference. We were told that we were racist. An interesting aspect of the lecture presentation was he used sound with his PowerPoint presentation - his most common sound? Machine gun fire as each letter "shot" into place spelling the words on the slide! Some irony, huh? That organization was in California. Even more ironic.

Speaking of California; an incident occurred a number of years ago that brought the state legislator to another knee-jerk action. Legislation was passed that required members of my profession to sit (endure) a three-hour lecture on ethics and pass an exam (pay money to the state). I was a member of an advisory board for a local college at the time and, along with several other members argued against such a lecture and exam. We weren't so much against lectures on ethics but totally against the requirement and charge for exams. And the whole process has to be repeated every so often. We saw it as an excuse by the state to charge fees (taxes if you want). Requiring a lecture and exam in no way makes one ethical. If it did, we would require such things of all politicians at every level, every level. A person will practice ethics or they won't. Much of it goes to how we were raised by our parents and influence of mentors and how willing we are to sell our souls for what we think we want.

In the organization I currently work, diversity seems more natural than by any choice or mandate. It is a large organization and, I would say, by default, reflects the diversity of the community it serves. In the department I work in and in other departments, I observe a very broad diversity. If there is a dominant force in one of the departments, it is gender and the gender is female. Yes, the female line of the species dominates this department from top to bottom. Ethnic diversity in the department reflects the community. If two people applied for the same position and had identical education, experience and skills but were different in ethnicity, which one would be offered the position? I have no idea. It is a fact that such a possibility is virtually impossible. Does that make sense? That sounds a bit like an oxymoron. Even two employees working in the same organization for the same department hired at the same time will still have different experience simply by each having different personalities. While some believe that certain population should always be given preference when applying for the same position, should not the position be offered to the best qualified person?

Many Human Resource (HR) departments have much more authority than in previous eras. HR departments can say no to hiring a prospective employee and can direct that an employee be fired, and depending on the state, with cause or without. Hiring reflects least on the ethnic background of the applicant and more on the education, credentials and a small degree on experience. New graduates are hired with regularity. Most states require licensure of professionals so a person must have the education, credentials, license and whatever experience. The experience aspect is the basis for placement on the pay scale. Some places target new graduates for primary hiring as a cost saving measure. Truly the risk lays in the actual experience, or rather, lack thereof. Skills and knowledge develop and sharpen with experience. There is no shortcut to developing skills and expanding knowledge. It simply takes time. And patience. That statement is profound enough that I'm sure someone somewhere else has said it before me but it did just pop into my mind. I did a search of brainyquotes.com and found one that is pretty close. So here is the reference, (Bennett). No year awarded for the statement though.

Reference:

Bennett, B., https://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=there+are+no+shortcuts+to+success

I Need Substantive Input on This . This MUST be Original Information. NO Plagiarism! All Citings Must be Referenced!