Hindsight is 20/20. What is an oft-used phrase to convey the clarity time and space away can provide, I use here as an opening remark to underscore how this new year of 2020 also brings opportunity to review past practices, offer creative solutions, and reconsider the policies and procedures that shape the norms of our personal and professional experiences. The 'DIBBS' (Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging Blog for Starters) topic of review today is that of organizational bias training and prevention. Specifically, I draw conclusions on strategies universities can pursue to usher in comprehensive inclusive excellence by exploring how the National Football League has engaged matters of organizational equity among head coaches over the last 20 years.
Matters of organizational culture, equity, and inclusion are topics of conversation from the C-suites of Fortune 500 companies to administrative cabinets and advisory boards of the non-profit, educational sectors. Despite the myriad of settings in which these conversations are held, a common thread exists: diversifying the workplace and creating inclusive systems and cultures. Can institutions of higher education learn from the NFL experience? In this inaugural blog post, I employ one of the more popular organizations in the United States, the National Football League, as a case-study that institutions of higher education can glean some wisdom on how (or how not) to create a truly diverse workplace.
As media outlets, such as these on NPR and ESPN, recently cover, the National Football League is currently experiencing one of the worst seasons in the past two decades of minority coaching hires. Adding more complexity to this dynamic is the presence of the almost two decade old "Rooney Rule," intentionally established seventeen years ago to racially diversify the coaching ranks in a league with over 70% African-American players. While the Rooney Rule has led to an increased number of minority coaching hires since its inception, few would have imagined, then, that seventeen years later only three minorities will be head coaches of the 32-team league. Moreover, over the last three years only two African-Americans have been hired, out of 19 openings, for head coaching positions. Given the spirit and intent of the Rooney Rule policy, why has there been little-to-no actual progress on the racial diversification of NFL head coaches? A recent article published in Forbes magazine provides insightful commentary on how policies, such as the Rooney Rule, may temporary address issues pertaining to unconscious bias, yet fail to address the more pervasive systemic bias prevalent in many-an organizational culture.
Types of Biases
Although the practice of unconscious bias and systemic bias share many surface commonalities, they differ at the root. While the former tends to focus on the uninvestigated blind spots individuals bring into the workplace, the latter shifts perspective on how organizations and institutions themselves perpetuate the status-quo. Concisely put, the focal point with unconscious bias is people, whereas with the systemic kind, the focal point moves to the organization. Since organizations are made up of people, the delineation between the two can be a blurry one, hence my desire to to place concept into context through a deeper delve into the bizarre case of the NFL and the Rooney Rule.
Unconscious bias prevention training is both good and necessary, although incomplete without intentional efforts against systemic bias. The current plight of minority coaches in the NFL is a sobering realization of how practitioners of inclusive excellence (such as myself) often fail to address both varieties of bias. Whereas unconscious bias training needs practitioners to encourage employees to engage in reflective exercises and to consider alternative approaches or ideas, the eradication of systemic biases requires more than a knowledgeable practitioner- it requires an organizational anthropologist, capable of addressing biases of people and places.
The NFL and Systemic Bias
The Rooney Rule was supposed to solve the racial inequity present among coaching hires in the NFL. Evidence from the first week of the year in 2020 suggests not much ground has been made. Could it be the Rooney Rule is a prime example of policies that aim to address the unconscious bias found in people, yet neglect the systemic biases of the NFL itself? The Rooney Rule, in large, was a response to the firing of two prominent and successful African-American head coaches in the early 2000's. Buttressed by a provocative study suggesting minority coaches are less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than white coaches (with poorer winning margins), the Rooney Rule squarely placed head coaching vacancies in the center of NFL efforts towards creating and maintaining an inclusive and diverse workplace.
The issue with the Rooney Rule is not found in its intent but rather with its scope. Any policy meant to encourage the hires of minority employees will only produce minimal results without addressing the systemic D.N.A. of the organization itself. The racial inequities found in the NFL coaching ranks are not solved by enforcing rules about who team personnel must interview (emphasis on minority coaches and those that interview them- people) and more about understanding the network of franchise owners through time.
Taking a look at the racial profile of NFL franchise ownership and length of ownership time can help better understand why the Rooney Rule has failed to live up to expectations. While overwhelming focus has been at the coaching levels, the systemic network of franchise ownership is untouched by policy or procedure to enhance diversity. As the illustration shows, 30 of the 32 NFL franchises are owned by non-minorities, and 75% of owners have held majority ownership rights for over 20 years without transfer. As the coaching carousels spin their wheels to ensure minority candidates receive opportunities, the systemic backbones of the franchises remain the same.
In 2017, the opportunity to diversify the ranks of franchise ownership opened up when the Carolina Panthers became available for sale.
Sean "P-Diddy" Combs, a successful, African-American entertainment entrepreneur voiced interest in becoming the NFL's first black owner but it is unclear whether Combs made an official bid. In 2018, the Carolina Panthers were sold to billionaire David Tepper, who is white. At the time, the coach for the team, Ron Rivera, who has since been fired and is now the coach of the Washington Redskins was one of the few minority head coaches in the league. To replace Rivera, on January 7, 2020, the Carolina Panthers hired Matt Rhule, former collegiate head coach, who happens to be white. Quoting team owner Tepper on the Rhule hire,"He dresses like me, so I have to love the guy. I was a short-order cook, he was a short-order cook. Nobody gave him anything, nobody gave me anything." On a surface level, Tepper's comments can merely be seen as an owner voicing support for his new hire. A critical view of Tepper's comments, however, reveals a more concerning issue at play.
Biases Left Unchecked Matter
Well, of course they do! Uninvestigated biases and predispositions can reproduce systems and patterns of inequity. Here, however, the distinction between unconscious and systemic biases matters just as much! If one part of the NFL system — coaching — is working to eliminate unconscious biases among its members, but another part of the NFL system —owners — are not, then inequity in coaching ranks and further marginalization of diverse candidates, despite the Rooney Rule, is likely to continue, and it has! I imagine Tepper meant no harm with his commentary on the Rhule hire. Nevertheless, when (the majority white) owners of the franchises commissioned to act upon the Rooney Rule openly express preferences for coaching candidates because they are reminded of themselves in the hire (and if 30 of the 32 franchise owners are doing the same thing), systemic biases are clearly in play. As a university administrator, I'm tempted to draw corollaries between bias prevention methods in the NFL with that of institutions of higher education. We often pay large sums for diversity consultants and administrative personnel to help us overcome issues of bias through training and developmental workshops that hopefully generate increased diversity employee hires, their retention, and improve overall campus climate. These strategies alone may succeed at bringing awareness about the temporal unconscious factors preventing equity in employee and student profile, but fail at truly investigating the systemic and organizational norms that often precede these surface realities.
Similar to NFL franchise owners, university administrators and trustees (the systemic stakeholders) must be a central piece of bias investigation and training for true progress to occur. Alongside the genuine intentions behind bias exercises, policy reformulations and reconsideration, inclusive excellence is best achieved with a healthy dose of anthropological investigation into past and present organizational norms and culture. As organizations such as the NFL and institutions of higher education pursue equitable outcomes, sustained transformation is more likely when we shift from the unconscious and delve into the systemic.
Matters of organizational culture, equity, and inclusion are topics of conversation from the C-suites of Fortune 500 companies to administrative cabinets and advisory boards of the non-profit, educational sectors. Despite the myriad of settings in which these conversations are held, a common thread exists: diversifying the workplace and creating inclusive systems and cultures. Can institutions of higher education learn from the NFL experience? In this inaugural blog post, I employ one of the more popular organizations in the United States, the National Football League, as a case-study that institutions of higher education can glean some wisdom on how (or how not) to create a truly diverse workplace.
As media outlets, such as these on NPR and ESPN, recently cover, the National Football League is currently experiencing one of the worst seasons in the past two decades of minority coaching hires. Adding more complexity to this dynamic is the presence of the almost two decade old "Rooney Rule," intentionally established seventeen years ago to racially diversify the coaching ranks in a league with over 70% African-American players. While the Rooney Rule has led to an increased number of minority coaching hires since its inception, few would have imagined, then, that seventeen years later only three minorities will be head coaches of the 32-team league. Moreover, over the last three years only two African-Americans have been hired, out of 19 openings, for head coaching positions. Given the spirit and intent of the Rooney Rule policy, why has there been little-to-no actual progress on the racial diversification of NFL head coaches? A recent article published in Forbes magazine provides insightful commentary on how policies, such as the Rooney Rule, may temporary address issues pertaining to unconscious bias, yet fail to address the more pervasive systemic bias prevalent in many-an organizational culture.
Types of Biases
Although the practice of unconscious bias and systemic bias share many surface commonalities, they differ at the root. While the former tends to focus on the uninvestigated blind spots individuals bring into the workplace, the latter shifts perspective on how organizations and institutions themselves perpetuate the status-quo. Concisely put, the focal point with unconscious bias is people, whereas with the systemic kind, the focal point moves to the organization. Since organizations are made up of people, the delineation between the two can be a blurry one, hence my desire to to place concept into context through a deeper delve into the bizarre case of the NFL and the Rooney Rule.
Unconscious bias prevention training is both good and necessary, although incomplete without intentional efforts against systemic bias. The current plight of minority coaches in the NFL is a sobering realization of how practitioners of inclusive excellence (such as myself) often fail to address both varieties of bias. Whereas unconscious bias training needs practitioners to encourage employees to engage in reflective exercises and to consider alternative approaches or ideas, the eradication of systemic biases requires more than a knowledgeable practitioner- it requires an organizational anthropologist, capable of addressing biases of people and places.
The NFL and Systemic Bias
The Rooney Rule was supposed to solve the racial inequity present among coaching hires in the NFL. Evidence from the first week of the year in 2020 suggests not much ground has been made. Could it be the Rooney Rule is a prime example of policies that aim to address the unconscious bias found in people, yet neglect the systemic biases of the NFL itself? The Rooney Rule, in large, was a response to the firing of two prominent and successful African-American head coaches in the early 2000's. Buttressed by a provocative study suggesting minority coaches are less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than white coaches (with poorer winning margins), the Rooney Rule squarely placed head coaching vacancies in the center of NFL efforts towards creating and maintaining an inclusive and diverse workplace.
The issue with the Rooney Rule is not found in its intent but rather with its scope. Any policy meant to encourage the hires of minority employees will only produce minimal results without addressing the systemic D.N.A. of the organization itself. The racial inequities found in the NFL coaching ranks are not solved by enforcing rules about who team personnel must interview (emphasis on minority coaches and those that interview them- people) and more about understanding the network of franchise owners through time.
Taking a look at the racial profile of NFL franchise ownership and length of ownership time can help better understand why the Rooney Rule has failed to live up to expectations. While overwhelming focus has been at the coaching levels, the systemic network of franchise ownership is untouched by policy or procedure to enhance diversity. As the illustration shows, 30 of the 32 NFL franchises are owned by non-minorities, and 75% of owners have held majority ownership rights for over 20 years without transfer. As the coaching carousels spin their wheels to ensure minority candidates receive opportunities, the systemic backbones of the franchises remain the same.
In 2017, the opportunity to diversify the ranks of franchise ownership opened up when the Carolina Panthers became available for sale.
Sean "P-Diddy" Combs, a successful, African-American entertainment entrepreneur voiced interest in becoming the NFL's first black owner but it is unclear whether Combs made an official bid. In 2018, the Carolina Panthers were sold to billionaire David Tepper, who is white. At the time, the coach for the team, Ron Rivera, who has since been fired and is now the coach of the Washington Redskins was one of the few minority head coaches in the league. To replace Rivera, on January 7, 2020, the Carolina Panthers hired Matt Rhule, former collegiate head coach, who happens to be white. Quoting team owner Tepper on the Rhule hire,"He dresses like me, so I have to love the guy. I was a short-order cook, he was a short-order cook. Nobody gave him anything, nobody gave me anything." On a surface level, Tepper's comments can merely be seen as an owner voicing support for his new hire. A critical view of Tepper's comments, however, reveals a more concerning issue at play.
Biases Left Unchecked Matter
Well, of course they do! Uninvestigated biases and predispositions can reproduce systems and patterns of inequity. Here, however, the distinction between unconscious and systemic biases matters just as much! If one part of the NFL system — coaching — is working to eliminate unconscious biases among its members, but another part of the NFL system —owners — are not, then inequity in coaching ranks and further marginalization of diverse candidates, despite the Rooney Rule, is likely to continue, and it has! I imagine Tepper meant no harm with his commentary on the Rhule hire. Nevertheless, when (the majority white) owners of the franchises commissioned to act upon the Rooney Rule openly express preferences for coaching candidates because they are reminded of themselves in the hire (and if 30 of the 32 franchise owners are doing the same thing), systemic biases are clearly in play. As a university administrator, I'm tempted to draw corollaries between bias prevention methods in the NFL with that of institutions of higher education. We often pay large sums for diversity consultants and administrative personnel to help us overcome issues of bias through training and developmental workshops that hopefully generate increased diversity employee hires, their retention, and improve overall campus climate. These strategies alone may succeed at bringing awareness about the temporal unconscious factors preventing equity in employee and student profile, but fail at truly investigating the systemic and organizational norms that often precede these surface realities.
Similar to NFL franchise owners, university administrators and trustees (the systemic stakeholders) must be a central piece of bias investigation and training for true progress to occur. Alongside the genuine intentions behind bias exercises, policy reformulations and reconsideration, inclusive excellence is best achieved with a healthy dose of anthropological investigation into past and present organizational norms and culture. As organizations such as the NFL and institutions of higher education pursue equitable outcomes, sustained transformation is more likely when we shift from the unconscious and delve into the systemic.
