Whoa, that is a very very controversial statement. Intelligence is not the sole criterion for achieving the rank of CEO. Are you diminishing the accomplishments of all CEO's on account of racism? Are you saying racism is directly responsible for CEO's rising up the corporate ladder? That is highly insulting to many people, and frankly ignorant.
Well you are implying that our society is racist and doesn't allow blacks to become CEO's. But we allow them to make millions to play sports?
I remember hearing on "This American Life" that the Dutch Santa is carried into town by a bunch of black elves who were his servants. Only recently have the Santa-servant relationship been revised to "friendship." Is this true or did I not hear the radio program correctly?
Give me a break. If you've ever worked for a sucessful company, Fortune 100 company, you would understand that 1 major hurdle of becoming CEO is networking and political alliances. If all of your peers are just like yourself, you have a lot higher success probability - and race and culture are definitely 2 components of commonality.
This is an excellent point - but after a great deal of thought - I do not agree with you. The problem is this: the vast majority of media out there portrays the white male in a positive light. White men are the richest, most dominant, and most powerful slice of society. Mocking certain white men doesn't affect the overall perception of white men. However, blacks suffer from negative sterotypes without many positive or even accurate portrayal of middle class black america. Let's face it, we live in a racist country - where being black comes with a whole bunch of preconceptions (or any race for that matter). Minorities are extremely aware of these conceptions, because even though an individual is very different, they are viewed as having certain attributes which aren't true especially in their eyes. So naturally there are very sensitive to caricatures of their race. For white people, no one takes a satire of a white person to be damning of the whole race. No says "haha - those white people are all dumb hicks". I'm just saying, there's a balance. What these girls did wasn't wrong - just insensitive. No one should condemn them for being naive. Dressing up as an african american isn't a big deal - but the black paint was probably going a bit far...
Oh yes, an example of an African American CEO refutes my contention. Are you denying that upper management is often dictated by who likes you and who is power to help you move up and what business contacts you make with your partners and customers? And the majority of time, the people who can help you attain the better position is the middle aged white men. That will change in time, and has been changing, but right now, it is what it is.
You're partly right - culture, networking, and political alliances all play a hand and that's why one of the most powerful American companies - American Express, has a black CEO. Race is immaterial. In high stakes business - no one gives a damn about color anymore - it's a pretty sizable fallacy. But culture does play a role - a black man will never make it to CEO if he has a ghetto style.
Since you don't fit the middle aged white man description, do you constantly debate yourself each day as to the merits of even going to work? After all, it's hopeless for you, right? What people don't realize with the whole 'business is racist' comment is that they are being incredibly insulting to white people by labeling them racist. Despite the many black CEO's and the affirmative action programs in place, it is never enough. They will always cry racism. A good question was asked earlier in this thread. Why do people accept blacks' achievement in sports, yet reject their underachievement in other fields on the grounds of racism? Why not acknowledge the achievement of others, as opposed to trying to explain away the underachievement of a minority group? Is Bob McNair racist in his energy industry dealings, but open-minded when it comes to who plays running back for him? Hopefully this points out how absurd your argument is for you.
October 31, 2005 Marilyn Gardner - Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor During her years as an attorney for one of the top international law firms in the United States, Angela Williams looked forward to defending clients. But sometimes she was not given the chance. "When it came time for an opportunity to represent Fortune 500 companies on huge cases, even though I might have had trial experience over and above my white male colleagues, they were chosen," says Ms. Williams, who is African-American. In an age of diversity, when many companies point with pride to their multicultural workforce, a sobering reality remains: Minority professionals often find their career ambitions thwarted by hidden bias - what workplace experts call the new face of discrimination. "Acting white," they say, can be the price of promotion in a business world where white men account for 98 percent of CEOs and 95 percent of top earners in Fortune 500 companies.Diversity does not always extend to the executive suite. "Minorities are getting stuck in the early stretches of career structures," says economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, whose study of minority professionals appears in the November Harvard Business Review. "They are not getting promoted and advanced at a rate commensurate with their weight in the talent pool." In a survey of more than 1,600 minority professionals, Dr. Hewlett and Princeton professor Cornel West found that sterling credentials can be overshadowed by personal and cultural traits. Everything from cornrows, ethnic jewelry, animated hand gestures, and certain manicures can leave colleagues thinking, "You're different." Forty years ago, it was very easy to see prejudice, Hewlett notes. "People wore it on their sleeve and enshrined it in law. Today, it's much more subtle, but it's pervasive. Whether it's a tone of voice or hairstyle or accent, the cumulative impact can be brutal and can derail a career." The study comes just weeks after Neil French, the creative director of WPP Group, reportedly explained the small ranks of female advertising directors by saying that "they don't deserve to make it to the top" because of their family obligations. He resigned over the flap. While the proverbial glass ceiling remains one obstacle for women and minorities, Hewlett identifies another barrier - a "Jell-O floor" that keeps them mired in negative stereotypes. Over 40 percent of minority professional women in large corporations say they feel excluded and constrained by "style compliance" - the need to blend into a corporate culture dominated by white men. More than a third of minority men feel the same way. "The pressure is added for minority professionals because we don't necessarily come from the same background as those in leadership positions, and we haven't had the same experiences," says Williams, a vice president of Sears in Chicago. A quarter of minority businesswomen worry that they are perceived as "affirmative action" hires. In addition, nearly a third of minority female executives are concerned that their speaking style labels them as lacking leadership potential. "Asian women executives were convinced that they weren't commanding enough in their tone of voice, and were not assertive," says Hewlett. "African-American managers were quite sure they spoke too loudly, were too threatening." One woman, a native of India who works as an IT executive at a Fortune 500 company, learned that colleagues regarded her as quiet. "There are people who talk just to be talking," says the woman, who asks not to be identified to protect her job. "That's not my style. People said, 'She's quiet.' Management perceived that I didn't have leadership quality. Eventually people said, 'But when she says something, it's valuable.' The last few years, I haven't heard them talk about this 'quiet' thing." Both whites and minorities must adapt, she says. "People like me coming to Western society and working here have to figure out that there are certain things you have to do, that you have to project certain things. That becomes part of the norm of being a successful professional leader." Referring to Americans' views of professionals from India, she says, "There's a stereotype that they're very good technically, you can rely on them, but they're not really the leaders of tomorrow." Yet she is encouraged by changes at her firm. "They're looking for diversity candidates like me who can grow." Invisibility - not being heard or seen - remains an issue for women of color, says Ella Bell, an associate professor of business at Dartmouth. "If a woman of color speaks up to make her point, it will just plop. A white male will pick it up and all of a sudden it's bells and whistles." White women might have similar experiences, she adds, but not to the same degree. Professor Bell also notes a reverse challenge: "You become visible when they need an affirmative action poster child to show that they're making a good attempt to connect to minority communities. That kind of visibility doesn't contribute to the bottom line, so it doesn't help when it comes to promotions." Another form of invisibility occurs outside the office. To a much greater degree than their white peers, minority professionals spend off-hours doing charitable work. One-quarter are religious leaders. Nearly 30 percent are mentors to needy young people. Forty percent engage in a variety of social outreach activities. Yet many remain silent at work about this service. "The work they do in minority communities, which is leadership, is very important, but their corporate managers never know about it," Bell says. "It doesn't get counted. Meanwhile, John Doe, who happens to be Caucasian, is on the United Way board or the arts council. It's a big deal." Hewlett tells of a young woman who formed Girl Scout troops at homeless shelters in Washington, D.C. She received an award at the White House for her work but had not told her boss about it. "She was afraid to," Hewlett says. "She thought it would imply that a homeless shelter was the kind of background she came from, and she didn't want to be stuck with that label." Being open about outside activities can bring rewards. When Sears hired Williams as chief compliance and ethics officer, she was told that part of the reason she was hired was because she was both a successful lawyer and an ordained Baptist minister. "The general counsel said to me, 'Who better to be the conscience of the company than a lawyer and a minister in one person?' If people really felt free to let corporate America know the things they are involved with outside their 9-to-5 jobs, that can be an enhancement to their performance on the job." Williams, who counts fewer than five minority CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, sees progress. But, she adds, "We still have a long way to go." Eral Burks, CEO of Minority Executive Search in Cleveland, also finds bias camouflaged. "Companies talk about bringing on more minority board members and senior executive staff, but they're always finding excuses why they won't hire a prospective candidate," he says. "They weren't really interested in hiring, but it looks good that they brought people in. A lot of companies don't think there are qualified minority candidates." Some firms are designing strategies to combat hidden bias. These include benefits that serve extended families. Pointing out that minorities have spending power, Mr. Burks says, "They're going to be buying your product or service. They're starting to look at companies and say, 'Why should we spend our money here if your senior staff looks a totally different color?' " Some CEOs, he adds, "are becoming aware that it makes good business sense to get senior-level staff on their team. They're very positive about wanting to hire more executive minorities and women candidates." Source: Copyright (c) 2005 The Christian Science Monitor.
Don't you think it's different when they are dressing up as an actual specific, modern person and not a caricature of a race? I do.
I have already explained the difference. Being a professional athlete is based on a clear objective standard. Can this person throw the ball farther, is he faster, is he taller, is he bigger. You have a unique skillset that is unequivocal. Being a CEO relies on skills that may be easy to define but difficult to distinguish among candidates. When upper management is also your same race, your same culture, and share your same viewpoints, your chance of becoming a CEO is much greater. And those who are in power to help you, are white males.
How is the standard of an NFL cornerback more clear than that of a CEO? Interceptions and passes defensed are easier to measure than shareholder wealth creation? Are you seriously this confused on the subject? I don't know about you, but when I look at my investment portfolio, I don't have a hard time deciphering which ones are performing well and which ones aren't.
So you think it's easier to evaluate the contribution of 1 man's work in a corporation of thousands than 1 man's work among 10 other people? So was Ken Lay a good CEO in 1998? Hilarious. Your analogy would be much more on point if you compared CEOs with a general manager or team president whose success is dependent on scouts, assistant coaches, coordinators, and players.
Did you not see what I posted in response to TJ's comment about "White Chicks" earlier? movie with the same basic concept was filmed in 1986 called "Soul Man" where a white teenager takes pills to transform himself into a black person to get a scholarship and that film and that film also has many African-American stereotypes in it. So a movie with the same concept on black people has been made before without much noise being heard.
RIET, You obviously aren't grasping the concept here, as you must resort to trotting out Enron references. For every Ken Lay refence you dredge up, I could throw out a washed up, tainted sports player. It is tangential (at best) to the true argument at hand. Let me simplify things in hopes of you understanding things: Are boards of directors and shareholders interested in making money? Would they place their racial preferences ahead of this intersest in profit creation? Why would a sports owner place his preference for winning ahead of his alleged racial preferences and a board of directors would not? How can you call the same corporations that implement affirmative action policies racist when it comes to promotion practices? Simply put, you are inconsistent in your argument. Perhaps you are frustrated by a system that you think doesn't reward your own racial profile? I'm just looking for any way possible to explain how you are thinking here.
1. Your first argument is really really dumb. As you know (or should know) the board of directors are often a bunch of disinterested 3rd parties who gather together for a cushy meeting with no knowledge of how a corporation is really doing other than reports from management. That's why they all have those indemnity clauses alleviating them of liability because they don't know jack about what's going. And now with all these lawsuits, they're scared shi*tless. They only "fix" problems ex-post facto. Shareholders are even more clueless. How the heck do shareholders have any insight into political power swaps over who gets top management positions? Are you serious? 2. Hilarious you try to draw me in with personal attacks when your analogy failed miserably. Apparently, I have been succesful "acting white". Sad but true.
I love threads like this. White people are stupid. Incidentally, Kickingstallionsims is pretty light skinned so the photo is not accurate:
You obviously have not attended many board meetings if this is your perspective. Don't you sell insurance? In today's SarbOx world, board meetings have taken on a much different tone, with increased scrutiny. And do you believe the market is so incredibly inefficient that they will tolerate high level management ineptitude without punishment in the form of a lower stock price? No shareholder I've ever spoken with would prefer a white management team to a high stock price. You are clearly out of touch with reality, or reading from a 1940's textbook, one of the two. With a large portion of employees' bonuses, stock incentive plans, and retirement plans linked to profitability of the corporation, do you believe for one moment that their own financial well being is of secondary importance to their racist promotion preferences? Do you honestly believe that? Even when these same companies adhere to affirmative action policies? You must be nuts. With boards of directors becoming more diverse, especially at the larger firms, do you honestly believe that boards are still inclined to promote based on race? Honestly, as someone who has extensive business experience at the highest points of contact in corporations, I can tell you that you are completely out of touch with reality.
