You have to hand it to David Thomas from Harvard
University. He has a lot of courage. He took on a problem
few other researchers would tackle: race relations in the
workplace.
Thomas is black and he noted, with obvious concern, that
he was one of only a very few researchers studying this
issue. He also noted that previous research has detailed
some troublesome problems: blacks, tied irrevocably to a
history of oppression and slavery at the hands of whites,
bring distrust with them to the workplace. Whites, as the
oppressive majority now hammered with affirmative action,
bring varying amounts of antipathy and guilt to black-white
relations, too.
Past studies have documented the negative effects of these
tensions. They showed everyone losing, including the
employer. But rather than alarming us by adding further
documentation of our problems, or speculating about causes or
solutions, Thomas searched for and found people who had
solved the problem. He studied them in the hope that what
they have discovered is something the rest of us would profit
by knowing, and he was right.
The best relationship in an organization is a mentor
relationship. These occur when older, long-tenured managers
(usually of high rank) select young, bright, short-tenured
people of lower rank for special attention. They give these
younger people substantial support and assistance in the
organization, shamelessly favoring them over other employees.
They arrange promotions and challenge them with increasingly
difficult career assignments. They provide biting feedback,
counseling, coaching, friendship, and affirmation. These
relationships are similar to a coach and his/her star player,
or a parent and child. Seventy percent of the CEOs of
Fortune 1,000 companies have had a mentor at one time in
their careers.
David Thomas began his study by identifying
African-Americans who had had mentors. He worked primarily
in the WRL corporation, and found 22 people. Next, he
interviewed them and obtained their permission to interview
their mentors, all of whom were white. Thus he had 22
cross-race relationships to study.
His interviews centered on two questions: how did they
manage the racial difference between them and how did these
differing strategies affect the quality of the resulting
relationships?
Thomas had a surprise when he closely examined the quality
of the mentor relationships of his subjects. Most of these,
in fact, were not mentor relationships, at all. They lacked
the emotional attachment characteristic of mentor
relationships, yet they certainly demonstrated ample
instrumental career support. Thomas labeled these
sponsor
relationships and realized he had an opportunity to explore
the factors leading these cross-race pairs to develop either
mentor or sponsor relationships, so he studied the factors
surrounding these relationships.
The first factor he examined was the strategy each party
selected to manage their racial differences. Of the 44
people he studied, their preferred strategies fell neatly
into 2 groups: denial and engagement.
People selecting a denial strategy preferred not to speak
of race. They avoided the subject and pretended racial
differences didn't exist, or if they did, weren't important.
People selecting an engagement strategy preferred to
openly discuss race.
Thomas expected a close parallel between strategies and
the quality of the relationships that resulted, but he got
another surprise. The tendency of engagement strategies
leading to mentor relationships and of denial
strategies leading to sponsor relationships was certainly
there, but there were also significant exceptions. Of 14
pairs who preferred denial, 6 of these evolved into mentor
relationships. Of 8 pairs who preferred engagement, 5
evolved into mentor relationships.
Something else was going on.
Next, Thomas examined individual-level factors and
learned . . .
So age had something to do with it.
Next, he considered their attitudes about race. These
also fell neatly into 2 groups: 1)
liberal assimilation,
and 2)
pluralism.
Thomas found people who held liberal assimilation
attitudes believed racial minorities would eventually develop
the tastes and sensibilities of the majority and blend in.
This is the famous
melting pot
attitude of racial and ethnic integration. The ideal
attitude is color blindness which finds race no longer being
a real difference between people. This attitude carries with
it an implied criticism of those with an interest in racial
differences. It suggests this interest causes divisiveness
among people and it's best to keep the subject out of
interracial work relationships.
Thomas found people who held pluralistic attitudes
believed racial minorities should develop a positive racial
identity and feel connected to their race. They should also
adopt some aspects of the dominant culture, especially ones
which allow them to function effectively in it. The best way
to handle interracial work relationships is to acknowledge
and appreciate racial differences and to work toward
eliminating inequities.
Not surprisingly, people holding liberal assimilation
views of race preferred a denial strategy in dealing with
race in interracial relationships. Those holding pluralistic
views preferred an engagement strategy.
The final factor Thomas studied was the matching of
strategies between the two parties of the relationships, and
this factor solved the puzzle. Thomas learned when the
preferred strategy of the senior person matched the preferred
strategy of the junior partner (the African-American), then a
mentor relationship would evolve. But if it did not match,
only sponsor relationships evolved.
That was not what Thomas expected to find, but there it
was: It is only best to openly discuss race when both
parties want to do it. When both parties
don't
want to discuss it, then it's best
not
to discuss it. And when one party wants to discuss it and
the other doesn't, Thomas found a denial strategy being
adopted and a limitation on the relationship at the sponsor
level. (All of these cases involved senior whites not
wanting to discuss race and junior blacks wanting to discuss
it.)
Thomas, and other researchers he cited, hold decidedly
pluralistic attitudes toward race and believe
African-Americans holding liberal assimilation views are
younger and "naive about race and organizational
politics." They believe both blacks and whites should adopt
pluralistic views and they believe the young
African-Americans with assimilation views will eventually
adopt a pluralistic attitude once they've gained more work
experience.
Thomas' research provides a splendid opportunity for
whites to gain a perspective on the black experience in the
workplace and the things we might do to manage the
interracial realities in our businesses.
To the first, most pressing question,
"How do you learn the preferences of your African-American
employees for dealing with the subject of race?"
Thomas suggests you ask your black employees to explain how
race affects different ways they see things. From these
open-ended questions you can learn of these differences and
you can also gain a perspective on the person's comfort
discussing race. You can sense if the person prefers
engagement or denial, and this will guide you in the strategy
you select in managing this person.
Thomas also offers a number of insights whites can keep in
mind as they work with blacks:
Supervision Findings, by James Larsen, Ph.D.
Managing Race Relations
Researcher explores a hot topic.
Thomas has provided a real service to the business community with this research and has clarified the tasks that face us in managing our businesses. We must assess the preferences and strategies of our African-American employees and colleagues and adapt ourselves to match the needs they present. We must engage their minds to learn of their perspective and we should expect to devote a considerable amount of time to this task. We should take the initiative in addressing the needs of our African-American employees and strive to make them feel comfortable. And finally, we must strive to eliminate inequities and prejudice.
Reference: Thomas, David A. (1993) Racial Dynamics in Cross-race Developmental Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (September), 169-194.