As I
contemplated the final weeks of the Obama White House and am now more than a
little Trumped out, I can’t help but think about the recently departed power couple
as quintessential outliers. Malcolm
Gladwell certainly doesn’t need any further publicity from me for one of his
books of the same title. And are the Obamas really that exceptional? Yep. It would appear so. They just
secured a $78M book deal with Penguin Random House and no-one seems to know or
care yet what it's going to be about.
The
former First Lady was a graduate cum laude of Princeton, then Harvard Law
school where according to David Remnick’s biography it dawned on her she could
be “brilliant and black”; having probably suffered from imposter syndrome before that as someone who felt like a
“visitor on campus”. Barack Obama, as is well documented, was a graduate of
Columbia and Harvard Universities, a civil rights lawyer, quote an elegant
writer and an academic before entering politics.
Then
there’s more. He was tall, dark-haired and handsome with a baritone voice that
would keep a voiceover man employed forever. So he’s got all that unconscious
bias jazz going on. And she too, with those brains, that beautiful smile, those
arms that she let us see (shock, horror!), that commitment in her own right to
causes and campaigns like poverty awareness, healthy lifestyle and childhood
obesity... Neither is your average individual and what an X factor when you put
them together. What’s not
to admire?
And then,
being who they were and what they were, they found themselves sitting at the
crossroads of history. A black president. Taking up residence in a “house built
by slaves”. I was similarly moved when I watched Australia’s first female
Prime Minister sworn in (and definitely no voice-over career likely for that voice). In
this context, it’s not critical to me that Julia Gillard was voted in by
Cabinet and not democratically elected by voters. Don’t even assume I
necessarily support her party. It was still history and a step forward from
anything I had seen in my 20 years consulting in workplace justice, equal
opportunity and anti-discrimination even if some media commented incessantly on
her wardrobe. Sigh, still a way to go on that
old double standard.
But see
here’s the rub. We can say that everyone can try out for the team and mean it.
I could call a press conference today and declare my intention to represent
Australia at the next Olympics. I can’t tell you in what event yet. I haven’t
decided. And as far as I’m aware, there is no legal barrier to entry. (Trying
to join the Army Reserve might be a different story).
Equity of
access does not
mean equity of outcomes. And the
former is lip service to the latter.
It was
inevitable I would bring this up: unconscious
bias. Not because it’s the organisational psychologist’s version of
click bait but because conscious and unconscious bias fuel behaviour. Examples?
Direct and indirect discrimination respectively.
Direct
discrimination is intentional. I take an attribute like race, or age or gender
that the law says should be irrelevant and I apply it to deny you an
opportunity and hold you back. I know I’m doing it even if I don’t share that
fact with you. It’s not called “direct” because I tell you that’s what I’m
doing. That’s just risky and idiotic. It’s direct because your attribute/my
prejudice are the stimulus and my discrimination against you is my immoral
unlawful and direct response. But in the case of indirect discrimination, I
might, with all good intent, put a policy in place that appears to be kosher on
the surface of it, but it has an exaggerated impact on a minority group.
I have
often illustrated this legal precept with the example of the minimum height
that used to apply in the police force. Yes, the old fashioned stereotype of
the police member was that of a tall burly individual (ok, man) who might
intimidate someone out of doing wrong. Clearly no one anticipated the
irrelevance of a minimum height when it comes to dealing with the drug ice but
that’s for another time. The possibly unintended consequence of a minimum
height was that it largely kept women and people of typically smaller stature
(e.g. people of Asian origin) out of the police force. Now, without breaching
police confidentiality…. You can’t maintain cover as a member of the undercover
Asian squad… if you’re not Asian! In other words, when it comes to the access
vs. outcomes conversation, our intent is not relevant. In human rights, equal
opportunity, even drink driving, we cannot afford to judge people on their
intent. Does anyone who drinks then drives intend to maim or kill anyone? We
are and should be, judged, on outcomes.
Last
year, I facilitated some sessions in equal opportunity for the racing industry
ahead of our spring racing carnival that attracts so much overseas attention.
Yes, the Melbourne Cup is the “race that stops a nation”. But when will racial
origin stop doing that you might ask?
We were
ten minutes in when a participant stuck his hand up and without waiting to be
acknowledged, hit me with: “If discrimination is illegal (I prefer “unlawful”)
how come when we fill out forms, we’re asked if we are Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islanders so we can be eligible for extra money? Why do they get more of
a fair go than me, just coz I’m white?”
I would
like a dollar for charity for every time I’ve been asked that (type of)
question. Let’s unpack that prima facie and iconically Aussie phrase, “fair
go”. To me a fair go might start with a life expectancy that equals that of
white people in Australia and an infant mortality rate as low as that enjoyed
by white Australians. Let’s get that job done, shall we?
The
equivalent gender question might be:
“Why
can some (unnamed) Women’s Health Clubs cater only to women? Isn’t that
discrimination?” And yes it is, but it’s lawful and should be. And so should
the right of a health club to cater to men only. It’s not my fault that a few
years ago one opened in regional Victoria but went broke.
Another
chestnut. “Why can’t I swim at my local pool on a Wednesday afternoon because
only Moslem women can swim there?”
No sir,
not Moslem women. Any women who won’t swim in a public pool for reasons of
modesty if men are present. That may well include Moslem women, orthodox Jewish
women, any women who are self-conscious about their jiggly bits and any other
women who want to swim on a Wednesday afternoon. The man asking the question
can swim at any (other) time or at another pool mid-week. For the woman who
can’t do that by virtue of her religious beliefs, a reasonable “accommodation”
is made. Like a ramp or accessible toilet for the disabled. And before you
scream at me and say religion is not a disability… As reasonable an
accommodation as a fold down change table in a McDonald’s bathroom for parents
with infants. Big accommodations include spending millions redesigning tram
stops so that mobility-impaired travellers can board and alight trams easily
and with dignity. Small and relatively insignificant accommodations are
baristas providing cardboard carry trays for bulk coffee orders. In civilised
decent democracies, we respect. We accommodate. And we ask others to do the
same.
So let’s
dive back into the pool story (weak pun, I know). Just because those women can
now go to the local public pool on a Wednesday doesn’t mean they will qualify
for the Olympics. But it does mean that they can swim. Plenty of white, black
and Latino Harvard graduates may not get to the White House, but if they’re
good enough and it’s what they
want, why shouldn’t anyone get to Harvard? Or the White House?
We see
examples at law and in corporate life of such respect and accommodation for
minorities. In some states in the U.S., suburban lawyers are assigned
legal aid cases where there is a shortage of legal aid workers. In the U.S. and
in Australia, we see graduate programs with quotas for minority groups. The
Australian government pays employers incentives to hire people over 55 years of
age. Some companies establish Women in Leadership forums and specifically
mentor women in how to network because some will be a bit too busy on weekends
with family responsibilities to hit the golf course with the other power
brokers. Tangible, behavioural respect. Accommodation in action, not just
belief. A path to inclusion.
Dare I
say it, I’m talking about the opposite of racially segregated schools where in
some cases in the U.S., educational outcomes are so low that the schools are
unaccredited. If students don’t become literate, how can they break out of the
cycle of disadvantage? Or earn a living as a knowledge worker, much less get
into law, edit the Harvard Law Review or write a book in the way Obama could
about his father? Oh, and be able to afford to take a year off law to write it?
Gladwell’s
premise in “Outliers” is that those kids who are serendipitously born just on
the cusp of cutoff to be eligible to play in a (younger) year level and end up
being up to a year older than most of the others, have “the edge”. Then they
get selected for higher level teams justifiably and ironically on merit, get
better coaches, play on better pitches, train twice or more a week, enrol in
off-season intensives and the gap between them and the others widens and widens
until the others can’t compete anymore no matter how much on paper and in
spirit we insist everyone can try out for the team.
In
Australia, many of us rejoiced when our first indigenous woman was voted into
parliament a few months ago. Our federal Disability Discrimination
Commissioner, Alastair McEwin is deaf. I admit he may not even see that as a
disability and he would not be the first one. But beyond those rarified
examples of black presidents, indigenous members of parliament, deaf federal
anti-discrimination commissioners and very pregnant female newsreaders, are the
millions of people who metaphorically were just that few months younger, didn’t
get good coaches, didn’t get to play on good pitches and never got a chance to
play on the “A” team, much less represent Australia in the Olympics.
There are
other power couples but I’d take the Obamas over Posh and Becks any day. We
cannot discount the power of the subliminal message when anyone of minority
group status (defined by power not numbers) succeeds in domains where they may
not have before.
For me,
the Obamas’ unspoken even subliminal contribution is to show a loving, solid,
intact family to families in America in which children are being raised in
homes without father figures. We know some of the figures relating to black
fathers and their invisibility in parenting are patently false, some studies
are poorly conceived and reported and they do nothing to acknowledge the fine
job being done by many African American fathers in parenting their children,
whether living with them or not. We know that with divorce spiraling in both
our respective countries, the number of single parent households is increasing
in every demographic. This is not a black issue.
But when
the unusual happens, when people break the mould as the Obamas have done by
accomplishing what they have, we cannot discount the power of the symbol.
Indeed, it can become a motivating force, individually and collectively. His
presidential campaign slogan was “Yes we can” which morphs implicitly into
another message now which is: “If I can, you can”. But that’s not yet how the
world works.
If there
was ever a job in the world that required the outlier, the exceptional,
then surely President of the Free World is one of them. These are the
merit-based attributes I want them to possess. Higher than average
intelligence. I want moral courage because it’s true they have to be willing to
risk lives to save others. I want leadership credentials and a personal ethos
whether we agree with all their views or not. Speed reading ability I’m sure
would be very handy. Good in front of a microphone, pretty important. Passion
for social media? That can and should be delegated. Ability to make a good
decision quickly and also to know when to slow down and think on them a
while. I know for the sake of national security sometimes they have to
lie. But I don’t want it to be their mental default.
But wait.
There's more. I want them to be brave and I need them to cope. But brave
doesn’t mean stupid. I am reassured if they have a pronounced startle reflex in
the immediate wake of a sudden loud noise because if they don’t they’re most
likely to be a psychopath. And I’ve read enough Tom Clancy novels and watched
enough Jack Bauer 24 episodes to know about "the Football” and its nuclear
codes so I want emotional intelligence; including high tolerance to
frustration. And call me pedantic, I demand really really really good impulse control. Apparently we were so
close to nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis that staff of Strategic
Air Command in Nebraska were allowed a (final) phone call home (without being
able to disclose why they were calling). It’s good when cool heads prevail, I’m
thinking. Not everyone’s like that.
Pushing
for outcomes over access is more than trying to cross the divide between the
haves and the have nots. This is about trying to eliminate the gap between
those who can and those who can’t; helping us reach our potential. Not to be defined by a lack
of opportunity.
We can
throw up any number of outliers, of “firsts”, of ground breakers, pioneers,
mavericks and inspirational examples to demonstrate to ourselves we are making
progress. We don’t have to settle for less. We must strive for more.
If
goodwill were enough, I’d let my mother do my open heart surgery. No offence
Mum, but if it is ever required, I’d rather a surgeon selected on merit. But
how would that surgeon ever be good enough when you love me so much? What were
all those hundreds, no thousands of moments of truth? Those sliding door
instances of opportunity, those unconsciously biased opportunities given and
denied that enabled that surgeon to acquire their 10,000 hours? There’s
Gladwell again! You’d think I was getting commission!
No comments:
Post a Comment