Observations on racism
The boss never cracks a racist joke and his vocabulary is impeccably politically correct - and yet, members of the team who rise under his patronage are white, while those shunted on to the no-hopers' track invariably are not. The black employees might truly lack talent or, perhaps, a personality clash has occurred. But who's to know? How to judge whether a boss is guided by professionalism - or prejudice?
Reports commissioned by local government's Improvement and Development Agency, published this month, offer suggestions. A research team, led by Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe, professor of leadership studies at Leeds University, covered 1,540 white managers and 408 black and ethnic minority managers - the latter being on average more highly qualified. All the managers were asked to rate themselves on 42 criteria, as were their bosses, peers and subordinates.
Black and ethnic minority managers were generally rated significantly higher by their peers and subordinates than by their (white) bosses, who rated them poorly. However, the black managers (like the white male managers) rated themselves more highly.
The author of the report, Juliette Alban-Metcalfe, suggests that this disparity is the result of insufficient feedback from bosses, poor supervision and few training opportunities. Staff may thus become frustrated, marginalised and demoralised. This may help to explain the findings of other studies which show that the turnover of black staff in both the public and private sectors is generally at least twice that of white staff and that (as a government-commissioned review showed last month) only 1 per cent of directors in the top 100 British companies come from black and ethnic minority groups.
In the US, the corporate world has recognised that an ethnically diverse workforce attracts and retains talent; and that, when the staff ethnic profile reflects that of a company's customers, profits rise. But the answer, suggests Alimo-Metcalfe, may lie not in race awareness courses but in a greater understanding of leadership.
Leadership studies began in the US in the 1930s. Influenced by the military, the Big Chief was characterised as daunting, authoritarian and driven. He issued objectives, dictated his vision, demanded obedience. By the 1980s, this model was failing to produce significant profits. In less hierarchical, less stable, less ethnically homogeneous times, a different style was required. The new leader worked collaboratively, encouraged constructive criticism and was open to ideas.
Alimo-Metcalfe's team, after research in 600 private and public organisations (and including women, blacks and minority ethnic groups), drew up leadership criteria now adopted by the Cabinet Office for the public sector. Valuing others - seen in the US as the third most important quality for a boss - was judged in the UK as the most important. Also important were being decisive and accessible, encouraging potential and delegating.
"Study after study," says Alimo-Metcalfe, "tells us that improved staff motivation, customer satisfaction, performance and profits require a boss who is a partner in a team not a solitary charismatic hero. If this style becomes more universal, racism will still exist, but it won't be allowed to impinge in such a devastating way on the careers not only of black and ethnic minority managers but on white women and the disabled, too."
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
