Working With Fools

Where The Value?

Diversity and Lack of Leadership are two subjects I've posted about on previous, multiple occasions.  the experience I'm about to share with you today ties  these two subjects  together.

Numerous times - far too many to recount here -  I've asked myself the question with regard to my supervisor, "Where's the value?"  Posed another way, "Why is MyCompany paying this person an annual salary of around $100,000; what value does she provide to justify the expense of keeping  her on the payroll?"   In today's  MBA-oriented business world, which I can say since I have an MBA; expenses are justified based on their payback.  In other words, the return (value) must exceed the cost.  This doesn't seem to be the case with Ms. Gruff and some other "zeros" at MyCompany.  Unless, perhaps, intangible value is counted in the cost-value equation.  This must be the case with Gruff; there's just no other explanation folks!

The incident which brought this ying-yang imbalance to light for me happened this morning, when I logged on from home to check my work email (a bad habit I've fallen into).  One of emails awaiting me was from none other than the Gruffster.  The eminent leader wanna-be emailed me to bark out an order: prepare a status report for my area and present it at next week's "management team"  meeting to the department manager and supervisors.  Gruff's communique indicated her boss, the department manager, requested the report and that he wants the status reporting to be a once per month occurrence.  Fine, that's great!  You may be saying to yourself, "what's the problem; this is a coveted chance to get in front of the management team!"  I agree... however!

The "however" is that Gruff merely served the role of the messenger to what was an order from her boss.  If you're asking, "What's the big deal, that happens frequently in all businesses; all supervisors pass down requests from their  superiors", I agree!  the problem  with Gruff  and others like her is that  she very seldom originates orders, she only serves as an intermediary.  Gruff never has an original thought, never initiates a damned thing!  And, that's because she doesn't know what needs to be done; therefore, how can she ask for anything to be done?

So, what value is there to Ms. Gruff. what is she doing to justify her $100,000 per year salary and benefits?  If Gruff's role is merely to be a conduit through which to pass orders from her boss to underlings like me, how can that scant value justify the cost of keeping her on the payroll?  It seems to me that her boss could just as easily tell folks like me what he wants done; am I right?

Well, guess what:  there is value to keeping Gruff on MyCompany's payroll.  It's the marvelous diversity which is brought to the table.  Having Gruff in her supervisory spot as a woman means the world is a whole lot better!  Yippee!

I hope this post drives home the point that forced diversity, in this case placing Gruff as a supervisor just because of her gender, hurts organizations.  If diversity is the only value provided by such placements, then organizations are not getting enough payback.  They could do without worthless folks like Gruff.  Not only would companies save payroll and benefit costs, they would also avoid significant indirect costs these idiots inflict on organizations.

Humdinger of a Tale

As promised in my last post, I have an experience I want to share with you; it's a real humdinger, which supports my contention that this whole diversity thing that's been shoved up our corporate butts is a hoax.

A bit of additional background, beyond what I went into in the last post.  After catching a whiff of the Connecticut Minority Supplier Diversity Council, or "CMSDC" as it is fondly referred to in brief by its loyal, self-serving followers/champions, I heard they publish a electronic newsletter from time to time.  To satisfy my thirst for more knowledge about the organization, I Googled them, went on their website, and subscribed (anonymously) to the e-newsletter, News From CMSDC. Soon thereafter, I began to receive the letter on a frequency of about twice per month.  Each edition of the newsletter ends with the section, And Finally, written by a  gentleman named Dr. Fred McKinney.

In the fourth or fifth edition of News From CMSDC I received, Dr. McKinney's closing appeared as follows:

<>

<>

   

<>

<>

<>

<>

       

<>

<>

And Finally,

The photo of me with my Boy Scout troop got me thinking about that time in my life.  It is clear that there was only one White kid in our troop.  His name happened to be Murray White.  In addition to Murray there was another White kid who hung out with us, pitching pennies, collecting bottles, playing baseball, flipping baseball cards and getting into all sorts of mischeive.  His name was interestingly Jimmy Cool. And Jimmy I believe to this day was as African American as any of my darker friends, or so he believed.   So it dawned on me that the white kids who were close friends and the two families who stayed in our predominantly African American neighborhood in Washington DC were the Whites and the Cools.  If you reverse the names, the Whites who stayed in our neighborhood were the "Cool Whites".  (You can't make this stuff up!)  Now I don't believe it is necessary for Whites to know the words of every Smokey Robinson tune to be a friend to supplier diversity.  But is it not the case that majority executives in Corporate who support supplier diversity are cool?  The lesson of Jimmy Cool and Murray White to senior management within corporate America; is hang with us and you will find great friends, neighbors, customers, employees, and suppliers.                                             In your service                                             Dr. Fred

I found McKinney's message disturbing and plainly contrary to his and CMSDC's stated diversity mission.  So, I sent McKinney the followng email in reply:

Dr. Fred,
Frankly, I have been disappointed at the CMSDC eNewsletter lately.  I find many of the articles stray off course from the stated mission of the Council, which appears at the top of each issue.  You frequently use the letter as a channel to voice messages which foster divide between minorities and those you refer to as the "majority".  I particularly found disturbing your 'and Finally' column in the 10/22/07 issue, where you define your term, "Cool White".  As a white person, I take offense to your categorizations and labels.  I don't find this to be 'cool' at all.  Your column only serves to foster continuance of divide between white and non-white people.

You seem to be a man who enjoys pontificating lessons to others.  Think of finding a lesson for yourself in this.  How would you feel if you picked up the morning paper and read an article defining the term 'Cool Black' based on the degree to which Blacks support White initiatives?

Sincerely,
a White whom may not meet your definition of cool.

Well, let me tell 'ya, that response of mine ignited Dr. Fred into a frenzy.  He emailed me a nasty reply and, so began an email war which lasted for several days, with each of us replying to the other a dozen or so times.

I hope you can see the point of this post and my reaction to Doc Fred:  Here's a man who has made it his mission in life to advocate diversity.  Yet, in a very contradictory way, he is spewing prejudicial views toward caucasionns.  DIVERSITY STATED MISSION IS TO PREACH ACCPETANCE OF ALL PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, GENDER, ETC.  Is diversity only supposed to favor minorities?  No!

So, this is an example of why diveristy is a big hoax.  Its own advocates fail to practice wha they preach.They only want diveristy to work for THEM!  And, their definition of "working for them" is for them to receive special, preferential treatment!  Gee, I thought the tenant of diveristy was that EVERYONE should be treated the same.  Yeah, right!!!

The Root of Many Problems - Exposing the Diversity Hoax

Shifting gears, let's return to the topic of diversity, which I was the theme of two posts last month.  First, let me say that the timing of this post bears no relation to tomorrow being Martin Luther King Day.  My writing this piece is entirely coincidental to tomorrow's holiday, which memorializes a great man.

In my view, diversity is one of the chief and root causes for many of the problems I and many of you are facing in the white collar jungle.  To wit:  Ms. Gruff.  Without regurgitating all of the many examples I've shared with you previously in this blog, it's quite obvious the woman should not be in a position of management or leadership.  So, why is it that MyCompany has placed Gruff and many others like her in these positions?  In the case of Gruff and others, the blame must go to diversity!

In theory, workplace diversity sounds like a great thing.  I'm sure there are upsides and benefits to diversity.  However, I have seen and lived through many instances where diversity has had major negative fallout.  To place Gruff and others like her in leadership positions merely on  the basis  of their being  women  or  in some other minority group can create personal and organizational catastrophe.

And, unfortunately, diversity has spread its effect beyond the simple placement of people into leadership positions within companies.  Diversity also has lead to other initiatives within corporations.  Now, many larger corporations, such as MyCompany, have instituted "supplier diversity" programs which "encourage" (more at force), the purchasing of goods and services from minority vendors. In many states, there are nonprofit organizations whose mission it is to promote the use of minority vendors.  For instance, in Connecticut, there is a group called the Connecticut Minority Supplier Diversity Council (CMSDC) http://www.cmsdc.org/

And have I got a humdinger of a tale to tell you about CMSDC and its chief advocate, Dr. Fred McKinney.  Stay tuned!

 

More on Diversity (the Hoax)

MyCompany has policies in place to essentially force diversity.  Members of
senior management, as in most companies, receive special "executive
compensation" payments each year based on achieving defined results.  Seems
reasonable... right?  Well, at MyCompany, a portion of that executive
compensation is based on each executive's division achieving and sustaining
a targeted diversity quota.  There is some sort of formula, where they are
awarded points for each person in their division who is within certain
diverse groups, i.e. blacks, gays, women.  And if you have, for instance, a
black woman; double points are bestowed upon the executive heading up the
division where she works.  I haven't run across one yet but, if the
executive was lucky enough to snag a gay black woman, he'd be lucky enough
to be in the triple bonus round, with triple points!  Sorry, white males
are worth absolutely nothing.  Few people know about this "system" at
MyCompany -  it isn't talked about and it is reinforced in an "under the
radar screen" fashion, as it is not written into any formal policies.  I
found out about it by doing a little digging about ten years ago after
seeing several strange hirings that made no sense to me, including a few
that were for positions for which I had applied, where I was clearly more
qualified than the person chosen.

Needless to say, since they are financially rewarded based on the diversity
quotients of their divisions, executives place pressure on the HR
department and hiring managers within the company's divisions to hire
diverse candidates.  The whole structure is essentially a quota system,
although it can't be called that since hiring quotas are illegal.

My current boss, Ms. Gruff is a current, perfect example of how diversity is a joke
and has negative consequences on the organization.  Consequences which live
on, and on, and on.  Details of this example to be elaborated upon in my
next post.

I appreciate your visits to my blog, letting me vent and share my frustrations and views, and also sharing your stories and thoughts!

© 2007, Working With Fools

Diversity Is A Hoax!

OK, this post is gonna be short and sweet.  I just want to introduce you to a topic that I expect to discuss in many future posts - diversity! In case you haven't noticed, it's a farce, plain and simple.  The theory is that workplaces which promote and encourage diversity are supposed to be made better by having an "inclusive" environment - one which has a variety of people, from different religions, sexes race, sexual preferences, etc., etc.  Sounds like it makes sense, huh?  Well, it does.  The problem my friend is that it's gone overboard to the point where it discriminates against folks (like white males) who are not in one of these "diverse" groups.  Diversity is unfair to the individuals it discriminates against and also unfair to the corporations due to the many problems and inefficiencies it creates.
More on diversity later, my friends, I promise!

I appreciate your visits to my blog, letting me vent and share my frustrations and views, and also sharing your stories and thoughts!

© 2007, Working With Fools