we should ensure that people who are of equal merit can, and do get promoted.

That is true of gender, sexual orientation, or any other type of demographic constituency,” he explained.

I also wanted to know whether he is
concerned about a different, perhaps
more serious type of risk brought
upon by enumerating groups who are
disadvantaged in order to make them
the focus of affirmative action: The risk
of neglecting minorities who are not
commonly acknowledged as such (e.g.
religious minorities, ethnic minorities,
etc.), while placing focus on the ones
who do receive a lot of attention in
contemporary culture (e.g. women,
sexual minorities, racial minorities,
etc.). To this, Havelock replied the risk is
not perceived as such, because “there
is nothing to stop people who feel that
they are part of a minority, which is
substantial enough that it should have
a diversity network group of it own, to
set one up. We do work in a very global
organization, but if everyone feels that
they have something they need to share
amongst their own constituency, they
can feel free to do so, and they often do
if they set up their own network.”
Havelock did, however, point out not
all disadvantaged groups face the same
challenges, drawing upon his personal
life experience to explain his view on the
difference between visible groups (as
is the case of female employees), and
invisible groups (such as the case of
LGBT employees). “You see misogynistic
behavior in men who should know
better, and who might treat women at
work in a derogatory fashion, but they
are quite easily picked up on for that
behavior. But if people don’t know that
you are gay, they might make those
kinds of inappropriate jokes in front of
you,” he explained. Adding this leaves
the targeted individual having to chose
whether to come out to the offender or
not, and wondering if the offender might
start treating them differently if they do
come out.

This capacity for self-censorship
falling on the individual that is being
discriminated against can lead to their
social alienation, and can have negative
consequences on their well-being and
performance at work. “Anybody who is
closed about their personal life appears
distant to their work colleagues, and
the moment you give that impression
of being closed, or not being able to be
part of the team, you’re not reaching
your potential, and you’re not bringing
your whole capability to the office,” he
said. Havelock also explained delaying
his coming out at work held him back in
the earlier days of his career: “Before
coming out, I couldn’t be myself, and I
couldn’t perform as myself. And once I
could actually be, and I could actually
have the conversations about what I’d
done over the weekend, people could
get to know me, and they trusted me
differently. I was, therefore able to
operate differently.” He added the
hardest part in coming out at work might
not be having to say that you are gay, but
rather having to admit you hadn’t been
telling the whole truth about yourself to
your colleagues, or that you had been
keeping some of the most important
aspects of your life deliberately hidden
from them for a long time.

Thus, despite the risk of it being misunderstood, the protection of diversity in the workplace is absolutely essential for ensuring a thriving environment.

Technology in a Diverse World

To conclude, I asked Havelock what he
thinks about the role of IT in protecting
diversity. “Technology is a liberator, and
an equalizer,” he observed. “Companies
like IBM can’t change laws in countries,
and we don’t pretend that we can
change laws. I don’t think the technology
industry is out to change the world
from a human rights perspective, but
certainly to change the world to make it
a better place to live in. And in order to
do that, you need a diverse team, so you
need to respect diversity, and to include
it. It is important.”
Copyright held by Owner(s)/Author(s).

P h o t o g r a p h b y P e t e r H a v e l o c k