If You Want More Diversity in Your Office, Test Yourself with This

Can you see two sides to every issue?

Not everyone can. A lot of people see things as either my way or the wrong way. And studies are showing that we’re getting a lot more divided in our thinking. 

The Atlantic and Predictwise took a look at the political divide by county–but instead of saying “this county is red, this county is blue” they looked at “partisan prejudice.” They found that

In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves. This finding aligns in some ways with previous research by the University of Pennsylvania professor Diana Mutz, who has found that white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity. They don’t routinely talk with people who disagree with them; this isolation makes it easier for them to caricature their ideological opponents.

You’re not going to have true diversity in your business if you only listen to people who already agree with you. 

To keep reading, click here: If You Want More Diversity in Your Office, Test Yourself with This

Related Posts

11 thoughts on “If You Want More Diversity in Your Office, Test Yourself with This

  1. It’s a mistake, in my opinion, for businesses to take political stands, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with that stand, because it almost inevitably results in their losing more customers than they gain. And, frankly, who cares what fast food chicken or pizza restaurants — for example — think about same sex marriage, healthcare coverage or any other controversial issue? It’s also a mistake, by and large, for employees to spend a lot of time at work discussing politics, or religion, or similar topics that we old fogies were taught not to raise in mixed company merely because they could be so divisive. I work for a US Government agency, where the Hatch Act prevents us from getting too political at work, and — frankly — it’s a blessing, as it avoids a lot of unnecessary controversy. All of this being said, there are some situations in which there simply aren’t two equally valid positions, such as: racist, sexist, hateful, bullying or violent actions or speech. No amount of playing the Devil’s Advocate — or other such mental contortions — will ever make those things acceptable at work.

  2. Wel said comment by Grannybunny— businesses need to stick to their functioning—which is making the business work. If the individuals who work or run the company have a specific affiliation for certain politicians, then they can use their personal money to support their choices but not the company’s.
    My biggest argument with my union was how they spent the money put into the funds for the union, mainly because we, the individual workers, had no control over the way they spent money “supporting “ politicians who they deemed to be helpful. The reason I mention this has to do with the amount of the “donation”. Companies that use company money to influence politicians aren’t using their money so they really don’t care about the method used by the politicians, as spending someone else’s money is extremely easy because it doesn’t affect their personal lives financially.
    I am going to give you an example of this —AOC, the new “star” of Congress, who claims she won her position by small donation not PAC donations, has been exposed as having several big secret PAC donators who pay her to get taxes raised to 70% of income, knowing full well that the top 10% earners will avoid this by the loopholes written in the law, paid for by her secret PAC donators. Why else would her mother suddenly move to Florida from New York unless she knows that her income is going to be overly taxed.
    If you are a worker in a company that supports socialism like this, you will be paying the tax not the top positioned people whose income will be sheltered. Politics has no place in business.

  3. Agreed on the political arguments at work. But I took EHRL’s discussion of politics as just an example of a heated, polarized argument like the sort of arguments that happen at work about work matters. Whatever the subject, when an argument escalates, the business can accomplish more if people on both sides of the question can see a way to understand and appreciate the viewpoint of their opponents even if they don’t share it. Did I read that right?

  4. “If you can make a coherent and well-supported argument for the other side, then congratulations–you are open-minded and accepting. If you can’t, go back and start over again.”

    Or the other side IS completely unhinged. Three examples just off the top of my head: Q-Anon, Flat Earthers, and Anti-vaxxers.

    1. There’s a difference between debating an idea and debating science.

      The earth is round is pretty settled. That vaccines work is also settled. But, you can certainly debate whether they should be mandatory.

      1. So, leave off science. Can you give me a coherent and well-supported argument supporting Q-Anon? Or that the moon landings were staged? Or that Elvis is a space alien who is still alive? Or FOX News is Fair and Balanced?

        This post buys into the “All points of view are valid” mindset. All points of view are not valid, some are just batsh!t crazy.

        1. We can play this game all day. My recommendation is that if you have friends or co-workers who believe these things, seek to understand where they are coming from.

          I am not saying all points of view are equal, but I am saying that it’s generally worth it to consider other points of view and not automatically dismiss the people who hold them as stupid or evil.

          You never have to agree with everyone, but you should understand where they are coming from.

          (And if I wanted to sell to Q Anon people, you bet I’d want to know what they think and why.)

  5. Conservatives don’t debate with liberals because liberals accuse conservatives of bigotry, sexism, intolerance, etc. If we disagree with anything on the left, they assume we’re racists.

    1. Aren’t you engaging in a little bigotry yourself right now: automatically assuming in advance what straw man “conservatives” and “liberals” might do?

  6. > In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves.

    Curious about what “whitER” is. These other variables, as presented, are continuous, but last time I checked, “white” is part of a categorical variable.

Comments are closed.

Are you looking for a new HR job? Or are you trying to hire a new HR person? Either way, hop on over to Evil HR Jobs, and you'll find what you're looking for.