Affinity Groups:
Leverageable Networks or
Sanctioned Segregation
A fifty-one year old
white male has requested an appointment with his company’s chief diversity
officer. He has noted, over the past few
years, that many of his colleagues, who are neither white, nor male, have had
numerous opportunities to participate in career-building workshops; have social
receptions at local bars and hotels; and attend speaking events led by
prominent business leaders. While he has
no qualms with the opportunities afforded his colleagues, he has requested the
meeting to express his desire to have access to similar opportunities. He would like to launch the “Fifty-plus White
Male Affinity Group.” How should the
chief diversity officer respond?
Although
the conditions described in the scenario above are fictitious, the question of
the appropriateness of a white male affinity group is far from rhetorical. This very question was put to me in my role
as Vice President for Diversity Strategies at The Coca-Cola Company. My response to the question may be surprising
to some. And indeed my Coca-Cola
colleague certainly seemed taken aback when I positively encouraged him to form
such a group. The reason for my comfort
with the notion of a white male affinity group was the strategic approach which
guided the formation of our Affinity Groups, or Employee Forums, as we called
them. In contrast to the historical
inward focus of such groups, we required a bilateral strategic focus with equal
weight on the groups, and the company. More about this shortly; first, a bit of background and context.
Affinity
Groups, Networking Groups, Workgroup Networks, Employee Forums and other
similarly titled groups refer to the organization of groups of people around
common interests, needs, backgrounds or cultures. Affinity groups became popular in corporate
diversity work in the 1990s as an effort to facilitate on-boarding and
retention of female and minority employees.
They have traditionally focused on bringing together groups with common
racial, gender or ethnic backgrounds to network and identify factors, believed
unique to each group, that impact their ability to be successful. Over time, organizations became concerned
that affinity groups were gradually evolving into loosely structured or
informal collective bargaining units.
Additionally, there was some concern that organizational support for
Affinity Groups was tantamount to encouraging a certain degree of segregation
in the workplace. These issues have left
organizational leaders perplexed about the value of Affinity Groups and
sometimes reluctant to give such groups their support. As a result, many organizational Affinity
Groups have become stifled in their growth and focus and experience a cyclical
pattern of participation fueled by structural changes in the organization
(e.g., mergers, downsizing, etc.). The
unintended consequence of this lack of strategy and focus is frustration among
Affinity Group members that their groups, and their organization at large, are
either incapable, or not serious, about supporting them. Ironically, despite such frustration, it is
rarely publicly noted, as each group seeks to avoid the perception that their
particular Affinity Group “can’t get it together.”
Against
this context, however, I argue that Affinity Groups are quite natural and that they
exist in organizations with, or without, management approval. As a natural course, people in organizations
seek out others with whom they share some affinity, and eventually explore how
these relationships may serve their vocational aspirations. And despite the intense focus on race,
gender, ethnicity, etc., the range of “affinities” around which people align is
unlimited: the early morning joggers;
the courtyard smokers; the car pooling groups; etc. The reality of such group formation is not
disputed. Furthermore, around many
“affinities” there is scarcely any concern.
No one worries, for example, that the early morning joggers are going to
bring litigation against the company because their need for an indoor track on
rainy days is not being met by the company.
However, the historical exclusion of women and minorities in corporate
ranks, particularly at upper echelons, creates special consideration around
these groups. And to be sure, when developed
informally, some Affinity Groups may become activist. But informal groups are also prone to
becoming sporadic, social, unfocused; even internally splintered. In other words, they’re all over the map.
So
then, from a company perspective, what is the solution? Should organizations support formal Affinity
Groups? Should they discourage such
groups? Can formal Affinity Groups
become viable entities that are active, robust, and contributing to individual
and collective success? Or will a
company supporting formal Affinity Groups inadvertently add a sanctioned level
of segregation that works against the altruistic objective of bringing diverse
groups together as “one” under the corporate umbrella?
In
addressing these questions, I return to my colleague who wanted to form a white
male affinity group. Despite my sincere
encouragement, he elected not to pursue the idea. Perhaps he never intended to. Perhaps it was
just a test to gauge my reaction.
Perhaps he simply wanted to call attention to the fact that there was no
such group for fifty year old white males.
Regardless of his motives, I believe my response is ultimately what
determined his reaction. I informed him
that the company welcomed any and all affinity groups that met our prescribed criteria
and adhered to our requirements. These
criteria had nothing to do with the demographic description of the group and
everything to do with the business of selling soft drinks. Earlier, I alluded to a bilateral strategic
approach to forming Affinity Groups: a focus on the groups and the company. This provided not only structure but
direction and focus.
Rather
than the company defining what groups would be formed, we established a set of
criteria and invited anyone who wanted to facilitate the formation of a group
to submit their application, in accordance with that criteria. The collective set of criteria and operating
requirements served as what I refer to as “corridors of operation” which
channeled the focus of the Affinity Groups; not only on the advancement of
their members, but also on the achievement of organizational objectives. Each group’s mission had to be aligned with
the Company’s mission. And the
programmatic operations of each group had to demonstrate value to the business
in order to receive company funding.
This link to company objectives became the lever in our strategic
approach. And interestingly, this
approach was welcomed by the groups as it provided direction and focus around
which the groups could mobilize.
I
close with an example from a client who successfully applied the bilateral
strategic approach. This example comes
from a company that formed several Affinity Groups, including an Asian-American
Network. In following the guidelines of
pursuing programs that benefit their members while also supporting company
objectives, their Asian-American Network developed a program to enhance
language skills for members for whom English was a second, third and in some
cases, fourth language. This was
developed in response to members who had substantial customer interface and
wanted to improve their communication skills.
Although they were proficient with the English language and passed all
company tests and screens, they desired a better understanding of communication
subtleties, slang, colloquialisms, etc. They
explained that while their native-English-speaking coworkers sometimes assumed
their quiet dispositions were culturally driven, the reality is that they felt
uncomfortable with their communication capabilities. The win-win in this example is obvious. The result of this program for the company
was more confident employees and more effective customer relations. Additionally, the Asian-American Network was
able to bring such a program to its members without offending any cultural or
ethnic sensibilities. No other
individual or department in the company could have made such a claim.
Affinity
Groups will always exist in organizational environments; formal or
informal. If a company decides to
support formal groups, both the groups and the company will benefit from
strategic “corridors of operation” which promote company as well as group
objectives.
Juan
Johnson, formerly Vice President for Diversity Strategies for The Coca-Cola
Company, is a senior fellow of the Richard W. Riley Institute at