By Rob McInnes
Last month’s “Hard to Go It Alone” article prompted a
reply from one of our readers on this issue as it applies to
corporate “affinity groups”. Most large companies have
affinity groups for employees who share distinct beliefs,
backgrounds and/or experiences that are related to workforce
diversity issues. There are usually affinity groups for
African Americans, Gay/Lesbians, Asian Americans/Pacific
Islanders, etc. Some companies also have active affinity
groups for employees with disabilities.
Our reader wrote: “Thanks for your article - It is Hard
to "Go It Alone". Everything you said made sense to me. What
doesn't make sense is the fact that in a company with
thousands of employees, we have a employee resource group
for people with disabilities and/or people with interests in
disabilities, that consists of a scant twelve members.
What's more, its like pulling teeth to even get our members
motivated to meet or network in any way. What you said in
your article about "...some people with disabilities... not
feel(ing) an affinity to other people with disabilities...
really hit me head on. Once a couple of years ago, at what
was I believe our last face-to-face meeting, someone
explained to me, "Just because I have a disability, doesn't
mean I want to hang out with other people that have
disabilities." After that, I quit pushing so hard.”
My first introduction to affinity groups for employees
with disabilities was almost twenty years ago, I was hosting
a workshop on the Windmills program – a training program on
changing disability-related attitudes in the workplace. This
workshop was being held in Toronto, Canada and ten of the
registrants were from Honeywell International in
Minneapolis/St. Paul. I was surprised to learn that they
were driving 900 miles to the event. Why Honeywell was
sending such a large contingent and why they were driving
for fifteen hours and not flying was a mystery to me. I was
intrigued and anxious to meet them.
I just happened to be at the front of the hotel when the
Honeywell “caravan” arrived. The first person to emerge, as
I remember it, was a man in a very sophisticated power
wheelchair – he was soon followed by nine other travelers –
some with and some without obvious disabilities. Shortly
after they checked in, I joined them for a drink and had the
opportunity to have my questions answered. I learned that
they were all members of Honeywell’s affinity group of
employees with disabilities. As an employee group, they were
charged with advising Honeywell on disability-related
employment practices, customer service and product design.
They had come to the workshop in Toronto to see if the
Windmills program could be of benefit to Honeywell – as
another means of making Honeywell’s workplace more
disability-friendly. They had decided to drive to the event,
rather than flying because, particularly for their members
that used wheelchairs, airline flights were awkward and
onerous venture s. (This was in pre-ADA days.)
I had never heard of a corporate advisory group on
disability before – and I was truly fascinated to learn
about the group’s role within Honeywell and the obvious
value that the company placed on their input and advice. I
remember being impressed with how animated and enthused they
were with their group and its goals. This encounter was the
start of my life-long interest in corporate affinity groups
of people with disabilities and my interest in learning what
forms they take, what role they play and what makes them
successful or not successful.
Lockheed’s affinity group for people with disabilities
group is charged with holding an annual disability awareness
event. Since coming in contact with them several years ago,
I am always keenly interested in who they will feature at
this event. Over the years, with financial support from the
company, they have treated Lockheed employees with
presentations from some of the most dynamic speakers in the
country – speakers like Geri Jewell, Kathy Buckley and Rich
Pimentel. More recently,
I recently met the Chair of Intel’s affinity group for
people with disabilities and was intrigued to hear how they
had initiated an active electronic discussion group that
includes employees from all its locations around the globe.
I remember hearing how, several years ago, Microsoft
placed all of its affinity groups under the “sponsorship” of
senior officers of the company. I believe that it was the
CFO that took responsibility for the disability group. To
become more informed, he decided to spend some time
“shadowing” several members of the group (with differing
disabilities). He found that experience to be so profound
that he later described his experiences in an article that
he wrote for the company newsletter.
There are many examples of how affinity groups for people
with disabilities are being successful. Unfortunately, there
are many other instances where they are not. Several
Diversity Managers that I have spoken with have lamented
that, while other affinity groups seem to thrive in their
companies, the disability-focused groups typically don’t.
(An exception to this is affinity groups that focus
specifically on employees who are Deaf. This makes sense
because of the language/culture bond that is largely shared
by the Deaf community.) So why is it that the disability
groups don’t flourish like the others?
From what I have seen, the basic nature of affinity
groups differs greatly from company to company. They all
seem to be positioned variously within a spectrum that has a
social role on one end and a corporate role on the other.
Groups that are formed primarily around a social role are
there to validate the group within the company and to give
members a structure (and some resources) to regularly
interact and support one another – based on their common
ground. Groups that are formed primarily around a corporate
role, while also validating the group, focus on using the
unique expertise of the group to develop and elicit feedback
on company policies and practices as they relate to:
• Optimizing the success of folks from that group within
the company’s workforce.
• Optimizing the desirability and user-friendliness of
the company’s products and services as they relate to that
group as a customer base.
I believe that affinity groups for people with
disabilities are most likely to thrive when the focus is on
what I have called the corporate role. Unlike the other
affinity groups, a grouping of folks with a variety of
disabilities just doesn’t share a binding culture,
background or experience. I can’t imagine what would show up
on disability food day – or what folks would wear to a
disability fashion parade. While folks do share the general
label of “disability”, there is likely few, if any, specific
experiences that they hold in common. In short, in a purely
social context, there is too little common ground to make
most people with disabilities interested in hanging out with
each other.
When affinity groups have a more corporate role, however,
the dynamics are very different. People with disabilities
will much more readily band together to help overcome the
barriers that they and other people with disabilities
encounter as employees or applicants to the company’s
workforce. They are likely to readily rally around an effort
to make their employer’s products and services more
successful within the potential customer base of people with
disabilities (estimated $220 billion in discretionary
income).
A friend of mine who worked for the diversity office of a
major bank in Canada had an experience that relates directly
to the importance of this corporate focus. In their annual
survey, the company had always experienced trouble in
getting employees with disabilities to self-disclose. He
changed the way the question was asked. He framed it in the
context of the company wanting the information as a way to
identify mentors for new employees with disabilities and to
identify employees willing to give the company advice on
disability-related policies and practices. The bank’s
self-identification rate increased significantly!
In summary, it is strange how some corporate affinity
groups for people with disabilities flourish and others
flounder. It is too bad there isn't a national group where
leaders of these groups can compare notes. As I have
indicated, I believe that most of their success or failure
has to do with the company's purpose in supporting them.
Some companies support these groups more as social
affiliations - while others see (and use) them as a valuable
sounding board for disability-related policies and
practices, a resource for input on accessible product
development/design, a resource for internal
disability-focused employee training events, and a resource
for proactive recruiting of other folks with disabilities.
In my experience, the groups most likely to flourish are the
ones in the latter companies – where their unique knowledge
base is valued as important to the overall strategic success
of the company.
© Rob McInnes, Diversity World, March, 2005
(If not used for commercial purposes, this article may be
reproduced, all or in part, providing it is credited to "Rob
McInnes, Diversity World - www.diversityworld.com". If
included in a newsletter or other publication, we would
appreciate receiving a copy.)
Link to last month's "Hard to Go It Alone" article...
www.diversityworld.com/Disability/DN05/DN0502.htm
