Phong Siu-Ming vs. Burgers-R-Us: Cultural diversity or cultural discrimination?

Phong Siu-Ming vs. Burgers-R-Us: Cultural Diversity or Cultural Discrimination?

Kenneth Brown and Lyle Sussman

The~fblloudng case isJictional, its “testimovl_y” ,frmvl 2xpev-t witnesses’s extracted,frovn published works. But the pain, ttmnoil. and soul-searching it represents m-e reul.for the litigants inuolwd in all discrinvination suits.

U A II rise.” Joe Tapwell, president and founder of the hamburger chain Burgers-R-Us, slowly rose along with

his attorney inside District Court #2 and won- &red how in the world it had ever come to this. The trial itself hacl only lasted two days, but it had taken its toll on him and causecl him to sec- ond-guess his decision five years ago to leave Wendy‘s and start his own business. Even his wife had won&red if he had enough management experience to run 3n entire company on his own. But boldly, at the age of 35, Joe Tdpwell hacl opened the hottest new fast-food chain in the Midwest.

Of course, mistakes were made along the way. Besides early marketing and operational miscalculations, Joe had some trouble dealing with the many management issues he faced. One gut-wrenching example was the employee sitting at the opposite table in the courtroom.

He knew the young man felt unfairly passed over for the managerial opening in the Louisville market. “You need to IX more assertive,” Joe hacl told him six months ago at his performance ap- praisal when asked why the promotion had not come his way. “You need to tdke charge and be more decisive.“ Of course group teamwork was important, he had said to the young man’s defen- sive responses, but “good 01’ American drive and initiative” was what it was going to take to make it as a manager at Burgers-R-IJs. Though he could tell the young man was upset, Joe felt pretty good

about the review and his honest assessment of the young man’s future with the company. How- ever, there was only one problem. The young man was Chinese--and now he was suing Burgers-R-Us on the charge of cultural discrim- nation.

Opening arguments had

Joe Tapwell finds himself in a tough situation, considering issues that are momentous for all of us.

summed up the complexity of the situation. Joe Tapwell and Burgers- R-Us. Inc. were being sued on the grounds that I’hong Siu-Ming had been culturally discriminated against under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His attorney claimecl that Ming was being forced to abandon his cultural and professional upbringing in Hong Kong and accept a “white, Anglo-Saxon. Protestant, Americanized” version of what “good management” was supposecl to be. The only way Phong Siu-Ming was going to make it as a manager at Burgers-R-Us. according to the attorney, wds to ahanclon his culture and “fit in” with the culture of the majority--a culture foreign to him. This, according to the suit. was in violation of Title VII’s protection against cliscrimi- nation based on nationality.

The attorney for Burgers-R-Us had also used Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to defend Joe’s actions in the case. To treat Mr. Ming any cliffer- ently or evaluate him based on any standards other than those usecl to evaluate any other po- tential manager at Burgers-R-Us would also he

cliscrimination, the defendant claimed. For the next t\vo days, the courtroom seemed

more like 21 seminar in management as expert witnesses on both sides educated the court on

the cultural diversity facing the work force today. The questions and testimony from the attorneys, the witnesses, and even the judge himself had shown just how complicated this issue of cultural discrimination could be.

“Court is now in session, the Honorable David E. Yamamoto presiding.” Joe thought about the first time he heard those words and had seen the Japanese-American judge take his seat. He had panicked and asked that a new judge be assigned to this case. When pressed for the reason, Joe stated that it was because the judge “was Asian” and might be biased toward the plaintiff. Ming’s attorney almost could not contain himself from jumping up and seizing on this statement as the perfect example of the stereotyped image Joe Tapwell had for Asians. Since Joe judged people by their appearance. didn’t this imply that his client’s nationality no doubt inLIst have played a large role in his failure to move up the Burgers-K- 17s corporate ladder?

Judge Yamanmto did not care for Joe’s state- ment. When both attorneys tried to cut in, he motioned them both to take a seat, and for the next 15 minutes took over the line of questioning himself, reducing the two attorneys to simple bystanders looking helplessly on. “Would you feel better with an ‘American’ judge deciding this case?“ Judge Yamamoto hacl asked. Joe replied, “well, yes. I \\‘OLIld.”

The judged paused briefly, looked at Joe. and in a surprisingly K:arm manner asked him where his descendants had come from. For the next ten minutes. carefully at first and then as though lie \\‘ere proudly pzssing down the family’s heritage to his son, Joe spoke of the childhood stories his grandmother used to tell him, about Lvhen she was four and had come to America from (Germany Lvith her parents on an old freighter.

She had told of seeing the Statue of Liberty in the New York harbor and ho\v many of the imm- grants on the boat, including her father, shed tears of joy at seeing this majestic eml+m of a ne\\’ start \velcoming them into the liarhor. She had spoken of grooving up in the streets of :I new land and the difficult): of learning English Lvhile her parents still spoke only German. She had felt so different. at first not understanding the \vords the other children b’crc saying to her and Iatei not understanding tlie “estra“ meaning son16 bvords carried with them. She had told of being lal>eletl as an "a\Tr~lg~" stclclcmt, not IxYY1use of

her lack of intelligmce hut because of her me- diocre test grades. She‘d remembered missing a math question in first grade ahout lio\\~ man) eggs would he left o\~hr if four eggs \vere sul)- tracted from :I dozen. With no idea of \vli:it a “dozen” meant, and kno\ving that eggs \vere p;ickag,rccl by tens in Gerni:iny. she had pL1t six :is

the answer. Up to the day she died, Joe felt she never really did understand why she had missed that question.

Judge Yamamoto interrupted Joe’s warm family story with the words, “So would you con- sider yourself a German-American?” “Well, no, not really,” Joe replied. After all, three genera- tions of TapWellS had grown LIP in America since those early days. No, Joe Tapwell was a full- blooded American citizen-born and raised in the good 01’ U.S. of A. “But yet you consider me to be Asian?” the judge asked. “Well, yes,” Joe answered. After all, he thought to himself, wasn’t that ol>vious simply hy looking at the judge? Phong Siu-Ming’s attorney smiled while Joe’s attorney grimaced-they already knew what Joe was about to find 0Lit.

For the next five minutes--but what seemed like an eternity to Joe-Judge Yamamoto gave Joe Tapwell the lecture of his life: about how his great-granclparents too had come to California many years ago from Japan when his grandfather was only one year old; how he knew the feeling of being treated differently even though lie was a third-generation Amerasian; and how even three generations later he \vas still being stereotyped 21s a “foreigner” just because of his physical looks, even thoL@ he too was “born and raised in the good 01’ L1.S. of A” and was just as milch an American as Joe Tapwell was. “Therefore, Mr. Tapwell, since you already have your wish for an American judge, motion for a new judge denied! Counselor, yoLIr first Lvitness!”

Joe felt faint. He realized he had just estab lished the fact better than any attorney COLII~ have that Joe Tapwell had a stereotyp4 hias against Asians just because they didn’t look like him. It was going to he a long trial.

cc I f it please the coLlrt. yoLIr honor, we call Phong Siu-Ming to the stand.” Phong Sill-Ming ~2s a naturalized citizen from

Hong Kong who had come to the United States with his family foLlr years ago. He, his wife and children, his parents, and his \vife’s parents had all fled IIong Kong after it had heen announced that control of the colony WX~LI~~ return to main- land China hefore the tLlrn of the century. He was a harcl-working employee \~,ho never hesi- tated to stay long hours if the job called for it. He ate, livccl. and 17reatlied the I7Llrger business, and he found hnhurgers, frcnch fries. and soft drinks nluch easier to understand than American busi- ness practice.

He told the coLIrt al3oLlt his upbringing in IIong Kong. about ho\\, his parents had instilled in him tlica qualities of respect for one‘s superiors. and :II,oLlt how good Asian children do not clues- tion :iLlthority. He said that \vhen hc told his par- ents he \~.;Is going to work for an exciting:. ne\z

fast-food chain, he was told not to show off, brag, or do anything to draw attention to himself. Instead, work hard, and do your job, they had said. The Chinese work ethic his parents had grown up with in Hong Kong taught one to make oneself as invisible as possible. Even Confucian- ism promoted a non-confrontational personal style and encouraged Asians to lead a quiet life. According to Phong Sk-Ming, this is what he had been doing his first three years at Burgers-R-IJs.

But it was not enough. It seemed the harder he worked and the more he tried to instill the idea of teamwork in his decisions, the more he fell behind at Burgers-R-Us. His review a year and a half ago had noted some performance “flaws,” according to his supervisor, that needed to be worked on for future career advancement. He was told that he just wasn’t decisive enough. Instead of taking charge of a situation, he tried to get groups into consensus-just as he had been taught in Hong Kong. This led to his being la- beled as incapable of making a decision on his own.

He was told he needed to be more “aggres- sive,” although no one explained to him what “aggressive” meant. So aggressive he became- that is, until Joe told him last year he was being aggressive to the point of being defiant. So he had decided that American management was a very confusing concept, and that maybe the best thing to do was follow the management tech- niques he had been taught in Hong Kong-re-

spect for authority, a desire for harmony, loyalty to family and friends, control of his emotions, and, most important, hard work and persever- ance without complaint.

Then, when an American peer hired along with Phong had become the new manager of the Indianapolis division, things began to go down- hill fast. Six months later another managerial position opened up in Louisville, Kentucky, and Phong just knew this would be his turn. In China, businesses had adopted the Japanese principle of equally evaluating and promoting two employees hired at the same time, at least throughout the first ten years, with equal raises and promotions. Differences would occur only after that time, which reduced the tendency of employees to strive only for short-term gains and backstab their peers to look good at the expense of company unity. Okay, so his friend got the first promotion, he thought, but this one was his!

But again he was passed over, this time for someone who had been at the company only two years. In his culture, this was an insult. His performance review was scheduled for the fol- lowing month with Joe Tapwell, and when he inquired about the promotion, Joe had told him it was because he was Asian.

Now, under cross-examination, Phong admit- ted that, no, Joe hadn’t used those exact words. But it was obvious from some of Joe’s comments that he thought Asians were not capable of man- aging in an American company. Why, just the

53

week before Joe had sent around an article in Nution S Restaumnt News about Shakey’s Pizza and its agreement with an unidentified joint ven- ture in China that included the American firm’s stipulation that the restaurants be run by West- ern-trained or American managers because “the Chinese don’t understand the capitalist system.” It was clear, at least to Phong, that Joe Tapwell believed Asians were not cut out to be managers.

According to Phong, Joe had expected him to act more like an “American” manager-you know, take charge, be assertive, “come riding in from the West with guns blazing and take over the town from the bad guys.” That was not the way Phong had been brought up-it was not his style. This kind of management in his country would be looked upon as disgraceful and would show a lack of being a team player. He had tried

to adapt to the Ameri- can culture inside Burgers-R-Us for I

Thong Siu-Ming ‘s Asian styte of management was, in his mind, more productive and effective than Joe lapwell’s American version of management. *I

awhile, but it was no use-it was too for- eign to him, he didn’t understand it, and after all, according to what he had seen in his homeland and in Japan, it was wrong. America was getting its butt kicked by Japanese industries, and Phong attributed

this to the different ways America and Japan ran their management organizations. Phong Siu- Ming’s Asian style of management was, in his mind, more productive and effective than Joe Tapwell’s American version of management. And now Phong was being discriminated against be- cause he was using this management style. Phong should not have to abandon his culture for an inferior one. This was discrimination!

Joe was called to the stand after lunch to discuss Burgers-R-Us and what he looked for in its future managers. He talked about how the fast-food business today had become saturated with competition and how hard it was to find managers who could react to customers’ expecta- tions. When a customer came in the door, upset that he had to circle the building twice to find a parking space in a torrential downpour, drenched from having to run from the back of the parking lot, and mad because he almost slipped on the wet floor just inside the entrance, Joe’s managers had to be able to make split-second decisions on how to exceed the customer’s expectations and turn the negative experience into a positive one.

In reality, instead of managers, Joe needed leaders. Leaders who were willing to step for- ward and adapt their management training to

54

whatever situation they were in. Leaders who were willing to make decisions without having to consult their immediate supervisors for approval every time. Leaders who by their very presence evoked a sense of authority that told the customer and other store employees who was in charge.

And how did Phong Siu-Ming stack up against these qualifications? Well, according to Joe, not very well. Phong always looked a little unsure of himself. He was excellent at following instructions but not very good at giving them. He always wanted to discuss his proposed actions with his immediate supervisor before implement- ing any program. It was almost as if he were looking for approval from others before initiating any move. Phong preferred team relationships over individual leadership roles. He did quite well in team settings, but inside a restaurant there was no team to confer with, no team with which to discuss strategy or recommendations. There was only the manager-and the angry customer. Decisions had to be made on the spot, and any sign of a manager’s not being in control of the situation only aggravated customers further.

Had he ever promoted members of other minorities? the judge asked. Well, yes, out of the 300 managers in the Burgers-R-Us system, 25 were black and 30 were women. Yes, Joe an- swered, they were all American, and Phong was as yet the only employee from a different cultural background. No, he had not had the same prob- lems training managers of different races and gender as he had in training Phong. He had equated Phong’s difficulty with a lack of skill, not a cultural difference. Could cultural differences have played a role in his judgment about Phong? Well, Joe stammered, he guessed it could have.

He concluded by emphasizing his strong commitment to affirmative action. “Burgers-R-Us is an equal opportunity employer,” he stated. “All of our policies conform to EEO guidelines. Many of my customers are minorities. After all, it’s in my best interest to treat minorities fairly.”

T

he second day of the trial brought out testimony from the expert witnesses in the case. J.D. Hokoyama, the head of

Leadership Education for Asian Pacifies, Inc., a nonprofit organization in Los Angeles, was the first to take the stand to substantiate Phong’s claim that there is a bias in American manage- ment today against Asian-Americans. In 1984, in response to this bias, he had started Leadership Education, an assertive training course to help Asian-Americans understand the differences be- tween their traditional values and American cul- ture. Leadership Education focused on cultural differences and was being run to alert Asian- Americans to the signals they send to their fellow employees.

Business Horizons / March-April 1995

Yes, there is a cultural bias toward Asians in the American workplace today, Hokoyama testi- fied. Asian-Americans are perceived as too quiet and passive for supervisory positions and are held back because of it. They are stereotyped as hard workers but are not considered manage- ment or leadership material. One reason given is that they are not assertive enough. Asians who had tried being assertive had been labeled as aggressive. It seemed they could not win either way.

According to Hokoyama, Asian-Americans had to be taught American culture and what was expected of them in the American workplace. In his seminars, he testified, they were taught to express their opinions and challenge authority, make more eye contact, start more sentences with “I,” repeat themselves, and use more body language-all characteristics that are totally for- eign to them.

Hokoyama pointed out that Asians are taught to show deference to those in authority and to respect elders. But in the American workplace this deters them from speaking up. The resulting perception is that they have nothing to contrib- ute. They have to learn to come right out and say, “This is what I want-this is what I need.” Such “cultural shyness” coupled with American attitudes that all Asians are foreigners-even if they were born in the United States-were fac- tors keeping many Asians from reaching their career goals, according to Hokoyama. Joe cringed. The episode the day before with the judge was still on his mind.

Dr. Judy Rosener, coauthor of Work Force America! and an expert on cultural diversity, stressed the major demographic shifts affecting American companies. She testified that by the year 2000, women will make up 47 percent of the work force; Hispanics, 29 percent; African- Americans, 18 percent; and Asian-Americans, 11

percent. This, according to Ms. Rosener, left very little room for the white, Anglo-Saxon, hetero- sexual male-dominated workplace of old. This group was now just another one of the many minorities that make up the American work force today. Yet this same group was still setting the “rules” for how other cultural groups were to behave in the business environment. You had to play by their rules to get ahead.

She stressed that organizational cultures must change to value diversity. Concluding her testi- mony by stressing the double standard that mi- norities often experience as they move up the hierarchy, she said, “While such individuals can often maintain their diverse identities at the entry level, the range of acceptable behaviors narrows as one moves up the ladder.”

Roosevelt Thomas, a nationally recognized authority on diversity and corporate culture, took

the stand after lunch. He told the court that the melting-pot metaphor was no longer appropriate and that corporate America must recognize the value in differences.

“Corporate success has demanded a good deal of conformity, and employees have voluntar- ily abandoned most of their ethnic distinctions at the company door,” he pointed out. “Now those days are over. Today the melting pot is the wrong metaphor even in business, for three good reasons. First, if it ever was possible to _ melt down Scotsmen and Dutchmen and Frenchmen into an “When good managers indistinguishable focus on counseling, broth, you can’t do the same with

coaching, and improving blacks, Asians, and per fofmance, aR7rmative women. Their differ- ences don’t melt so

action and diversity easily. Second, most become moot issues. ” people are no longer willing to be melted down, not even for eight hours a day-and it’s a seller’s market for skills. Third, the thrust of today’s nonhierarchical, flexible, collaborative management requires a ten- or twentyfold in- crease in our tolerance for individuality.”

Under cross-examination, Thomas was asked whether a policy driven by affirmative action that resulted in promoting a minority simply because he was a minority was not itself inherently dis- criminatory. Everyone in the courtroom listened to his measured response.

“It is difficult for affirmative action to influ- ence upward mobility even in the short run,” he said, “primarily because it is perceived to conflict with the meritocracy we favor. For this reason, affirmative action is a red flag to every individual who feels unfairly passed over and a stigma for those who appear to be its beneficiaries.

“Moreover,” he continued, “I doubt very much that individuals who reach top positions through affirmative action are effective models for younger members of their race or sex. What, after all, do they model? A black vice president who got her job through affirmative action is not necessarily a model of how to rise through the corporate meritocracy. She may be a model of how affirmative action can work for the people who find or put themselves in the right place at the right time.”

He concluded his testimony by emphasizing that when good managers focus on coaching, counseling, and improving performance, affirma- tive action and diversity become moot issues. “The managing is more important than the diver- sity,” he stated, “because if managers are really managing, diversity will take care of itself.”

Phong Siu-Ming vs. Burgers-R-Us: Cultural Diversity or Cultural Discrimination? 55

By mid-afternoon the testi~~~~~n~ was snaking Joe appear as if he had no business running any company and that he would be better off giving control of Burgers-R-Us to Phong. He had never

known how “ignorant” he was of the cultural

- differences between

“He needed to find a wcry tu ~~~n~wledge

him and Asians, and he began to understand Phong’s frustrations.

his work force w~thaut just because another culture held a different

giving up on his god of creating a homogenous

philosophy about what constituted “good man- agement” did not make

organization, M it better. This was America, not China. Phong’s style of man-

agement would work no better at Burgers-R-Us than Joe’s style of ~na~en~ent at Sony.

After being “i-teat up” for most of the day, Joe was happy to see Chris Chen, author of the 3r- tide “Diversity Paradox” and Joe’s expert witness, take the stand later that rtfternoon. Chen con- firmed Rosen&s testimony that diversity of ace, gender, culture, and marital status was flooding the workplace today. The clays of a white-male, head-of-householc1 dominated workplace tvere no longer typical, he stated. However, Chen‘s testimony began focusing more on recognizing diversity in the workplace and the conflicts this r~c~~~nition creates. Chen spoke of how h:trcl it was to recognize the needs of a minority without opening up a Pandora’s 130x.

“The paradox,” he said, “is that ;IS WC cry ‘diversity’ from one side of our mouths, from the other we say that race, gender. age, and culture should he transparent in 3n employment situ:l- tion. However, in our quest for equd treztment we’ve cre;ited 3 quagmire of laws 2nd practices th:lt demand sitnil:ir trezttment. Today’s interpreta- tions of employment i:tws mitigate 3 firm’s :thility to recognize differences between employee groups. Corpor:itions can’t manage what they aren‘t :tllowecl to notice.”

LJnder cross-e~r;unination, Mr. Chen WLS asked about Tapwell’s cultural expectations. “Shouldn‘t Joe Tapwell have been more sensitive to Phong Siu-Ming’s basic Xtitucles ;mt1 beliefs?” askect Phong’s :Ittorncy. It w:ls obvious Mr. Chen ~~3s expecting this question. “In the initid hiring decision, minority st:ltus is :I legrllly manclatecl f‘actor,” he said. “After the employment reltltion- ship begins. however, empioyers no ktn<g!er are allowed to see women, blacks, Asians. and so on. Current interpretation of employment law forces them to see just plain employees.”

Chcn concluded that he believed Mr. Tapwell had not cliscrimin:lted :lntl w:is acting consistently

with the corporate policies apptied to all employ- ees at Burgers-R-Us and consistent with the pres- sure imposed by the “diversity paradox.” With those words and closing arguments, each side rested its case. It was now up to the judge. He thanked everyone for the expert testimony and said he needed the night to think things over before he rcded on the case. With that, the Court was recessed until 10:00 the next morning.

J

cte didn’t sleep more than an hour ~111 night. He had lain awake replaying all the testi- mony he had hearci over the last 48 hours. Some of it made sense, some of it didn’t.

But one thing was sure-he would have to change his management style concerning other cultures in the organization. Burgers-R-IJs was growing too rapidly, and more and more non- white, non-Protestant, non-Anglo-Saxon, non- males were joining it every clay. He could not afford any more trids, fin~n~i~lly or psychologi- cally. He needed to find a way to acknowledge the cultural diversity of his work force without giving up on his goal of creating a honlogenous

organization. It made for a restless night. It had obviously made for a restless night for

the judge too. As Judge Yarnamoto entered from his chamber, he appeared exhausted, and it was clear his decision had not been easy. “This can go either way,” Joe thought as all in the court- room returned to their seats. Judge Yznumoto

IXZgat1.

“This has not lteen an easy case to decide, 3s testimony from both sides has heen salient :tnd persuasive. It is obvious to the court that cultural diversity and how to handle it in the workplace is going to 1~ :m issue we will probably he:lr a lot about in the future. Businesses and managers who feel that only one culture shoi~lcl exist in an organization will soon learn that such a bias will affect their employee turnover rate, will cost the ~~)lil~ilitin~nt :tnci loyalty of employees being biased against, and Will no clouht cause court- rooms across the country to 1~ filled with cases just like this one.

“As to this c&se, the piaintiffs accus:ttions that Mr. Tapwell’s v&v-s toward Asian-Americans are biased appears to h:ive some merit. Whether this Ids is conscious or not, 2nd whether it is a result of ;I stereotyping of Asi:ins or Mr. Tap~vell’s experience \vith Mr. Ming, is not clear. However> Mr. Tapwelt’s relationships with other minorities in his company appear positive. and there does not appear to he any indicdion of hi:ls toward any other group. Therefore it appe;irs to this court that this is an isolated employer/‘eInployee incident and not ;I sigrd of prejudice on Mr. T;lpweli’s part. If a bias exists, it seems to he an unconscious one that Mr. Trlpwell is not ilw:lre he h:is nor tioes he unclerstanct.

“However, Mr. Tapwell’s relationship with Mr. Ming raises serious questions.” Staring intently at Joe, the judge continued, “The world has become a very diverse place, Mr. Tapwell. Managing di- versity is about managing people who are not like you and do not aspire to he like you. How do we build systems and a culture that unite differ- ent people in a conlmon pursuit without under- mining their diversity? You run a business for profit. And as Dr. Thomas told this court, produc- tivity is not and should not be in conflict with employee diversity. If you’re not competitive, your business will die. As this case poignantly demonstrates, discrimination is a powerful word in corporate America today. It quickly gets the attention of anyone accused of it. And as Mr. Chen testified, it causes employers to ignore the fact that people are different, fearing that recog- nizing these differences will label them as being discriminatory.

“But discrimination in this case has not been shown. Whether it is true or not that Mr. Tapwell is biased toward Asians, establishing that bias in itself does not prove discrimination or even the pretext of discrimination. In the recent U.S. Su- preme Court verdict ‘St. Mary’s Honor Center vs. Hicks,’ the court ruled that an employee’s ability to prove pretext, or a motive hiding the real rea- son for an action, does not in itself prove dis- crimination. A pretext of discrimination in the mind of the employer and its employment prac- tices must also be proven. I quote from an inter- pretive s~in~ll~~~~ of that finding.

“‘To prevail,’ said the Court, ,the employee must show not only that the employer’s reason is pretextual, as under the pretext-only approach, but also that it is a pretext for discrimination. Under some circumstances, the fact that the em- ployer dissembled or was not forthcoming in explaining its conduct may give rise to an infer- ence of illegal discrimination. In other cases, additional evidence of discrimination will be necessary for the employee to prevail. But in no case will proof of pretext without facts giving rise to an inference of discrimination . . Ix adequate for the plaintiff to prevail.“’

“A pretext of discrimination has not been proven in this court. No hidden agendas or deep- rooted prejudices inside Mr. Tapwell leading to underlying motives have been proven. What has been proven is that the cultural differences sepa- rating these two parties have caused a break- down in understanding each other. And while this may be tragic, it is not discrimination or a pretext of discrimination.

“Mr. Ming, during your testimony you stated that you felt you were having to abandon all your cultural values to succeed in the United States and that you ‘wouldn’t have to be doing all of this if I were back in Hong Kong.’ Mr. Ming, I

agree with you-you probably wouldn’t be hav- ing to do all of this if you still lived in Hong Kong. But, Mr. Ming, you are not in Hong Kong anymore. You are in the United States. And whether you think Chinese/Japanese manage- ment principles are better than the Americanized version of management does not form the basis of ~iiscrimi~tion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act is intended to protect members of a minority from the discrimi- nating practices of a majority party. And while Mr. Tapwell may or may not have a biased view toward Asians, it is not evident that the reason you leave not progressed further with Burgers-R- Us is due solely to your nationality. According to testitnony, your performance at Burgers-R-Us has not yet met the corporate standards necessary to advance your career toward the next step, and that fact would not differ no matter what culture or country you were in.

“While I do not claim to be an expert in deal- ing with cultural differences, I read some sugges- tions last night I’d like to share with Mr. Tapwell about understanding cultural differences. First, Mr. Tapwell, you must analyze your own biases and prejudices. Your testimony has shown that you may have precon- ceptions about other nationalities, espe- cially Asians. I recom- mend that you be-

“They have had to give

come a student of the cultures of your em- ployees, Ask them about the customs and traditions in their cul-

tures. Even learn a few words in their language. They have

up their culturul heritage to fit Juno A~e~j~u~ MG--- you can show by your actbns that you truly respect that sacrifice. ”

had to give up their cukurdl heritage to fit into American life-you can show by your actions that you truly respect that sacrifice.

“Mr. Tapwell, while you may be lacking in an understanding of cross-cultural management, this court finds no evidence that you have discrimi- nated against Mr. Ming in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, the Court rules in f&or of the defendant. Case dismissed.”

E ven though the verdict had gone Joe’s way, the victory was a hollow one. While his attorney was congratulating him, Joe

looked over at the opposite desk and saw I’hong Siu-Ming’s head lowered. Three days ago Joe would have thought Phong was just upset at the verdict. Now he knew differently--Phong had been shamed. I’hong had broken all the rules of his culture by questioning the authority of his superior at Burgers-R-Us. He had fought for \vhat he believed in and had put everything on the line

57

totally contrary to those words given to him by his pwznts years ago. and only victory would have lxought him honor. But he did not get it.

The judge‘s words almut trying to unclerstancl the culture of his employees were still fresh in Joe’s ears. No doubt Phong woulcl feel he had to leave Burgers-R-Us; in fact. it would 1~ the easi- est thing for everyone involved. But that did not make it right. Joe knew it would take ;I long time to repair the damage clone. hut he was willing to try if Phong W:IS. He started toward the opposite

table.

* * *

he case of Phong Siu-Ming vs. I3urgewK- I Js represents important lessons as tliver- sity in the work force Ixxomes :I reality.

The lessons our readers will clecluce from this cise are 3 fimction of die specific perceptual filters and agendx they bring to the cast. How- ever, we believe that regardless of the personal truths one might extract. there arc five lessons all orgmimtiond nienitwrs must heed.

1, When used 3s an adjective or noun, the word “American” has both denot;~tive md conno- tative referents. We often use it K) denote people \vho look and sound ~1 certain u’ay. Connotativei) it refers to ;I system of beliefs and culturd norms. As our work force hecon~es more diverse we must realize that not all “Americans” are native Iwrn; niany volunt3rily choose L1.S. citizenship. Moreover, many who don’t look “American” may have parents or grandparenrs bvho were horn in die Lnited States. Second, the values, Iwli~fs. and norms that constitute “The American Way” of doing tlhings are themselves changing. thus changing the consensu~~l interpretarion of “The American Way.”

2. Chen is corrw~. IXversity does represent 2 paradox for managers. To recognize differences iii;1)7 be sensitive and clefinitcly wq~athic. Ilob- ever, to treat one employee differently than an- other may be perccivecl 3s discriminatory IXver- sit); rr:iining programs shoulcl move Iwyoncl plati- tudes and generic video-lmiecl case studies. Man- agers throughout the organization should be given guiclelincs mcl practical tips on how to deal bitli this pxxlox.

3. The Phong Siu-Mings of the world take great risks in bringing discrimination case to court. They would not take those risks if they did not Iwlieve they wwc right or if they did not think they ~vould win. Many Phong Siu-Mings are discriminated against 2nd deserve lcgd and fi- nancial redress. I Iowever, some are not and might not pursue ;i cxx if they unclerstoocl the ~‘~xm-lcl view” of upper inanagemenL IX\wsiTy

training should enal+ employees to recognize and appreciate the paradox and prwsures experi- enced hy upper management. .Just as diversity training should help managers “wdk a mile in the e111p10yee’s shoes.” so too should the training help employees mdk ;I mile in the mmager’s sl1oes.

4. All employees must recognize that perfor- mance is customer-driven. The marketplace is the ultimate test of an organization‘s effectiveness mcl efficiency. Thomas is right. When manage- ment is driven by quality and cusfonier satisfac- tion. diversity will take care of itself. All employ- ees must internalize the value and wisclon~ of moving from affirmative action towircl affirming diversity.

5. We need to return to civility. By its ~w-y nature diversity will create tension mcl friction. Organizations must find ;t way for their members to release that tension in constructive ways. If we don’t cut one mother :t little more slack. \ve \vill mind up clc\wting energy to managing cliiwsity rather than \vhat \ve should I,c doing: providing \due to the marketplace. 0

References

Kenneth Brown is the manager of archi- tecture and design at the KFC Corpora- tion in Louisville, Kentucky. Lyle Sussman is a professor of management in the Col- lege of Business and Public Administration. University of Louisville.