Equity Monitors March 2013 ACTIVITY Rules: Do not open papers - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Equity Monitors

March 2013

ACTIVITY

 Rules:

 Do not open papers until told to do so  Do not allow anyone to see what is on

your paper

 Close the paper when told to do so  Remain silent during the activity

Respectful Communication Guidelines

R=

take RESPONSIBILITY for what you say and feel without blaming others

E=

use EMPATHETIC listening

S=

be SENSITIVE to differences in communication styles

P=

PONDER on what you hear and feel before you speak

E=

EXAMINE your own assumptions and perceptions

C=

keep CONFIDENTIALITY

T=

TRUST ambiguity because we are NOT here to debate who is right or wrong Have Fun!

Agenda

 Overview  Diversity Sensitivity and Bias

Lunch

 Finding What Works

Break

 Equity Monitors and Committee

Process

Why Equity Monitors?

Benefits of Diversity

 Heterogeneity in problem solving groups

produces more creative responses. Diverse teams are more effective and creative

 Classroom discussions are richer, and

students’ positive perceptions of the campus climate are higher

 A diverse workforce with good working

relationships attracts talented applicants

 Creating an affirming environment where

each student and employee is valued and respected and where all employees and student can contribute to their fullest is the right thing to do!

Employment Regulations

 Federal

 1964 Civil Rights Act  Americans with Disabilities Act 1990  Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

 State

 Fair Employment and Housing Act  California Code of Regulations Title 5 53024 (f)

 District

 BP7100: Commitment to Diversity  BP3420: Equal Employment Opportunity  BP7120: Recruitment and Hiring

District Procedure for Recruitment and Hiring

 Administrative Procedure 7120

 (a) Academic and Classified

Administrators

 (b) Classified and Classified

Confidential

 (c) Full Time Faculty

California Code of Regulations Title 5 53024(f)

“Whenever possible, screening committees shall include a diverse membership which will bring a variety of perspectives to the assessment of applicant qualifications”

AP7120 Search Committee Composition

“Due consideration will be given to diversity and equity.”

Review EEO Demographics

District Service Area Workforce Profile Recruitment and Hiring Profile

Race and Ethnicity of RCCD Service Area *

Ethnicity Service Area Avg W orkforce RCCD MVC NC RCC DO American Indian/ Alaska Native

.8% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Asian

11.3% 7% 6% 9% 7% 7%

Black/ African American

11.9% 9% 9% 13% 8% 3%

Hispanic

58% 20% 20% 22% 19% 21%

White/ Caucasian

36.4% 58% 58% 52% 61% 60%

Two or More

5.9% 5% 6% 4% 4% 7%

* Corona, Eastvale, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, Riverside

Monitored Diversity in RCCD

(Fall 2012)

Race/Ethnicity Classified Staff Administr ators FT Faculty PT Faculty District American Indian/Alaska Native 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Asian 4% 7% 7% 9% 7% Black/African American 15% 10% 5% 6% 9% Hispanic/Latino 32% 24% 15% 14% 20% Filipino/Pacific Islander 1% 0% 0% 0% <1% White/Caucasian 41% 51% 67% 67% 58% Two or More 6% 6% 4% 3% 5%

Race and Ethnicity of RCCD Service Area

(2010 Census Data)

2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0

 Asian/ Pacific-Islander

5.6% 5.7%

 Black/ African-American

9.6% 10.5%

 Hispanic/ Latino

51.2% 41.7%

 Native American

0.4% 0.4%

 White/ Caucasian

28.3% 38.8%

 Other

4.9% 2.8%

Service area includes Corona, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris and

• Riverside. Listed cities account for 75% of enrolled students.

 A partnership between Diversity and Human

Resources and Screening Committees to fulfill the district’s commitment to diversity

 An awareness and skill building course that

prepares screening committee members to identify and address barriers to diversity and equity in the screening/ interview process

 A strategy to assure that due consideration

to diversity and equity is maintained during the applicant screening process

What is the Equity Monitors Program?

Perception Videos

 This 1999 study by Cognitive Psychologists Daniel

Simons and Christopher Chabris identified the "inattentional blindness“ effect – Missing details when one is not looking for them

 In the follow-up experiment “Monkey Business

Illusion” only 17% of those who knew of the Gorilla were able to spot other changes to the scene

 According to Daniel Simons, the second

experiment “… shows that even when people know that they are doing a task in which an unexpected thing might happen, that doesn't suddenly help them notice other unexpected things."

The Role of Equity Monitors

 Participate in discussions as a

member of the screening committee

 Counter any misinformation,

assumptions, bias or automatic thinking

 Identify and address any cognitive

errors that may occur

 Help maintain a discussion focused

• n job related criteria

Preventing Organizational Dysfunction

 Overloading and rushing the process

 EM help maintain an appropriate pace

 No coaching or practice for committee members

 EM receive initial and follow-up coaching and

coaches committee members

 No ground rules

 EM assists HRS and committee Chair establish

committee ground rules

 Absence of reminders and monitoring

 EM raises questions and challenge statements

 No debriefing and lack of systematic improvement

 EM will provide DHR and DEC with feedback

DIVERSITY SENSTIVITY AND BIAS

Glossary of Terms

 Words are important  Vague or multiple meaning  Definitions change over time  Basis for effective communication

The Iceberg Analogy

What is visible, what is apparent and sets us apart from each other? What is not visible, what is not apparent and sets us apart from each other?

Dimensions of Personal Identity

Educational background Geographic location Income Marital status Religion Work experience Citizenship status Military experience Hobbies/Recreational interests

Historical moments Eras

Age Culture Ethnicity Gender Language Physical disability Race Sexual

• rientation

Social class

Diversity Wheel

 Diagram illustrates the various levels at

which diversity impacts both the private and public spheres of our lives

 Dimensions of Diversity create a

kaleidoscope

 Each pattern is unique to the individual,

even though a dimension is shared with

• thers

 This is where the term “world view” is

derived

Ladder of Inference

 Provides a model for how

assumptions are created

 Key objective is to make the ladder

“visible”

 Critical questions at the “Data”

stage

 Reflective loop provides opportunity

to check intent and to share impact

Automatic Thinking

"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. “

Findings from the IMPLICIT PROJECT

 Under time pressure, many Americans tended to

group negative words, such as “failure” with faces of color, while they grouped positive words, like “joy” with white faces.

 88 percent of white people had a pro-white or anti-

black implicit bias

 83 percent of heterosexuals showed implicit biases

for straight people over gays and lesbians

 Over 67 percent of non-Arab, non-Muslim

participants displayed implicit biases against Arab Muslims

 Majorities showed biases for Christians over Jews,

rich over poor, and men’s careers over women’s careers

 Results contrasted drastically with what most people

said about themselves – that they had no biases

Resume Bias Test

Shankar Vedantam. “The Bias Test” The Washington Post Magazine. January 23, 2005

 MIT and University of Chicago sent out 5,000

resumes to employers

 Applicants were given stereotypically “white-

sounding” names or “black-sounding” names

 Resumes with “white-sounding” names received

50% more calls.

 These results varied sharply w ith statem ents

by hum an resources m anagers at those firm s – that the em ployers w ere eager to em ploy qualified m inorities and w ere aggressively seeking diversity.

The Impact of Bias

 Bias can be intended or unintended

but in either case it has wide impact

 Bias can be negative or positive  Effects produce cumulative

disadvantage or advantage

 Everyone is prone to predictable flaws

in thinking and decision-making -- Cognitive Errors

 Old “cognitive habits” can be changed

Cognitive Errors

by Dr. JoAnn Moody

 Types of Cognitive Errors

 Stereotyping  Loyalty to the Clan  Distorting and Ignoring Evidence

Cognitive Error Stereotyping

 Negative Stereotyping  Positive Stereotyping  Raising the Bar  Elitism  First Impressions

Cognitive Error Loyalty to the Clan

 Longing to Clone  Good Fit/ Bad Fit  Provincialism

Cognitive Error Distorting and Ignoring Evidence

 Extraneous Myths and Assumptions

 Psycho-analyzing the Candidate

 Wishful Thinking

 Rhetoric not Evidence

 Self-Fulfilling Prophecy  Seizing a Pretext  Character Over Context  Premature Ranking/ Digging In  Momentum of the Group

Scenarios Discussion

• I just don’t have time for all these
• meetings. Let’s schedule all the

interviews for one day.

• It’s going to be impossible to find a

qualified minority candidate. They have the pick of any college they want.

• Look at how qualified this person is,

why would they want to work here?

• We will apply tough standards to

everyone, we objectively choose only the best.

Scenarios Discussion

• Look at these letters of reference, they

are from people I’ve never heard of!

• I like this candidate, they remind me so

much of Alice. She was great and we need someone just like her.

• This candidate is clearly much more

qualified, did you see where they got their degree?

• I don’t know…

I like that candidate but I’m not certain they will “fit” in our department.

Scenarios Discussion

• Look at that background, that’s exactly

the kind of experience we need!

• This candidate is the best person and

I’m finished talking about it!

• There are no women in this
• department. We need to hire a woman

for this position.

• This candidate’s reference mentions she

is a “delightful” person with a great deal

• f “tact” and “cordiality.” I think those

are code words for lightweight.

Equity Monitors

Discussion Facilitation

 Facilitation is a process in which an

individual intervenes to help a group improve individual and group awareness, knowledge, skills and behaviors that increase the group’s

• verall effectiveness by enhancing

how group members work together.

The Art of Listening

 Look at the person, and suspend other things you

are doing

 Listen not merely to the words, but the feeling

content

 Be sincerely interested in what the other person is

talking about.

 Restate what the person said  Ask clarification questions once in a while  Be aware of your own feelings and strong

• pinions

 If you have to state your views, say them only

after you have listened

Barriers to Effective Listening

 Not really listening, thinking about

what you are going to say next

 Immediately evaluating what is

being said in terms of what it means to you.

 Failing to clarify content – making

assumptions about the speaker’s perspective

 Jumping on silence

General Facilitation Skills

 Practice Active Listening skills  Be Sensitive to Subtle Cues and

Body Language

 Intentional Use of Questions  Create Opportunities for Everyone to

Participate

Facilitation Techniques

 Adapt your language and demeanor to the

participants

 Be aware of what is happening in the group

 Restlessness  Silence  Are people looking at one another

 Is everyone participating?  Model expected communication and behavior  Test Assumptions  Give Feedback

Fostering Dialogue

 Effective Dialogue Depends on Trust

 Trust is the foundation of great

• dialogue. It’s trust that allows people,

who each have different views and frames of reference to engage in productive dialogue

 Dialogue is what makes a

conversation effective

 Dialogue Creates Commitment

Dialogue versus Debate

Debate



Assuming that there is a right answer, and that you have it



Combative: participants attempt to prove the other side wrong



About winning



Listening to find flaws and make counter-arguments



Defending our own assumptions as truth



Seeing two sides of an issue



Defending one’s own views against those of others



Searching for flaws and weaknesses in others’ positions



By creating a winner and a loser, discouraging further discussion



Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position Dialogue



Assuming that many people have pieces of the answer



Collaborative: working together toward common understanding



About exploring common ground



Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement



Revealing our assumptions for reevaluation



Seeing all sides of an issue



Admitting that others’ thinking can improve one’s own.



Searching for strengths and value in

• thers’ positions



Keeping the topic even after the discussion formally ends



Discovering new options, not seeking closure

Interrupting Offensive Comments

 Four Step Model

 Repeat the Offensive Comment  Identify Your Concern  Make a Clear Request for the

Behavior to Change

 Inform the Speaker of Potential

Consequences of Continuing to Make Offensive Comments

Five Step Process for Giving Feedback

 Assume positive intent (or at least no ill

intent)

 Determine an appropriate relationship

building response

 Signal that you would like to five the

speaker some feedback on the comment.

 Using “I” messages, clearly communicate

the impact on you as the receiver

 Be prepared to help the speaker see more

appropriate ways to communicate intent

Three Step Process for Receiving Feedback

 Pay attention to your intent  Apologize, ask for clarification if you

don’t understand, then paraphrase your understanding of the feedback

 Restate your intent and, if

necessary, ask for help in formulating a more appropriate way

• f communicating your intent.

Equity Monitors and the Committee Process

Upon Assignment to a Committee

 Contact assigned HRS and

Committee Chair and confirm your participation as an Equity Monitor

 Discuss and distribute “tasks” for pre

screening meeting

 Confirm your availability  Read Job Description and become

familiar with department issues

Pre Screening Meeting

 Clarify your role as a committee member and

Equity Monitor

 Facilitate discussion and determine ground rules  Discuss department and past hiring EEO

demographics based on information provided by DEC (if available)

 Discuss department needs – define in terms of

what a skills/ knowledge/ experience the successful applicant should possess – Write them out for everyone to see

 Introduce sample interview questions and

facilitate discussion of possible questions that will probe for the information regarding the identified departmental needs

Pre Screening Meeting

 Encourage committee to continue

developing questions

 Review screening process and

necessity to thoughtfully complete screening sheets

 Circle applicants interested for

interview and return to HRS

 Schedule at least two Screening

meetings

Pre Interview Meeting

 Facilitate discussion of each applicant on

“interest” list

 Strengths, weaknesses, keep on list?  Repeat until the list is a manageable size

relative to amount of time committee is available to interview candidates

 Discuss and finalize interview questions  Role play questions and test whether

responses will provide desired information

 Schedule blocks of time for interview and

a post interview meeting

Interview Meetings

 Committee should schedule to meet 30

minutes prior to 1st scheduled interview

 Review departmental needs list  Review and assign interview questions  Remind committee that all electronic

communication devices are “off” and put

• away. No checking until scheduled break.

 Committee members complete interview

record for each candidate during period inbetween interviews

Post Interview Meeting/Discussion

 Review list of department needs;

desired skills/ knowledge/ experience

 Review District commitment to

diversity

 Discuss all candidates  Develop a list of “acceptable to hire”  Debrief process and evaluations

Wrap-up

 Questions and Answer  Handling problems  Quarterly Check-ins  Please complete and return the

evaluation