Race. Gender. Religion. National Origin. Color. Age. Disability. Veteran Status. These are just some of the federally protected classes. Add in sexual orientation, and it is easy to see that a diversity training that focuses on one only one of these classes is not capable of addressing the increasingly complex employee makeup in today’s workplace.
Practically by definition, diversity training also focuses on our differences. While that is understandable, it has its limitations, as social psychology tells us we like those who are similar to us. Given that, perhaps a better approach would be to focus on increasing civility in the workplace. By working to increase civility in the workplace, the focus would be on our similarities, not our differences. Focusing on civility can also avoid the feeling of “witch hunt”, in which a certain group is told that they are “privileged” or that they are responsible for how their ancestors may have treated others. Instead, taking a civility approach encourages employees to discuss and agree upon behaviors that all consider to be appropriate within our workplace.
Moreover, diversity training usually involves content on what not to do. In other words, training in behaviors employees should avoid. By focusing on avoidable behaviors, there is little to no direction on what is appropriate behavior. In contrast, providing guidance on what to do is the primary focus of civility training.
In order to move beyond diversity training, organizations should focus on defining what it means to be civil in the workplace. Perhaps not surprisingly, being treated civilly, and treating others in a civil manner, is strongly related to job satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover, and job performance. But how can an organization focus on increasing civility in the workplace?
First, it must be recognized that there are very little, if any, truly universal agreed-upon civil behaviors in each and every workplace. Consequently, organizations need to have their employees determine what is appropriate, and inappropriate, in the workplace (not the other way around). In fact, those agreed-upon civil behaviors may even be different within an organization. For instance, employees in an oncology department may determine that some behaviors are out-of-bounds compared to those in the financial office of a large hospital. So, clearly defined workgroups must determine, themselves, what constitutes appropriate behavior in their work unit, and everyone within that unit must agree to adhere to those appropriate behaviors. With this understanding of what is appropriate behavior, workgroup members also can identify when inappropriate behavior occurs and can quickly and confidently address it with those who violate such agreed-upon behaviors.
Second, assessing civility can go a long way in determining issues of civility (or incivility) within an organization. It may be that employees perceive that their peers treat them in a civil manner, but their supervisor, or those in the upper organizational levels, or their customers/subordinates, are a perceived source of uncivil behavior. Once that source (or those sources) are identified, more focused actions can be taken to address uncivil behavior. Likewise, an assessment of civility can also be used to identify pockets within an organization in which civility is low. Once action is taken to address these pockets of incivility, organizations can use the same assessment to track progress made towards a more civil work environment.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, civility training is not confined to a certain race, a specific gender, or a distinct protected class or group. It is, essentially, directed towards all of us, so that all of us can feel respected in the workplace, regardless of race, gender, religion, national origin, color, age, disability, veteran status, or sexual orientation. In that way, civility training is far beyond diversity training in the workplace.