Present and Future

Just to refute some local online search efforts: This acceptance is necessary for global economics and business management. Yes, including corporate relationships too. Multicultural does not mean you can disregard the US Constitution and inalienable human rights! It merely recognizes and accepts our human differences without discrimination in society or within the laws.

Multicultural organization

Where employees of varied backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, and experiences can contribute freely, and achieve their individual potentials for their own and their organization's benefit.

Diversity

2.  Feature of a mixed workforce that provides a wide range of abilities,  experience, knowledge, and strengths due to its heterogeneity in age, background, ethnicity, physical abilities, political and religious beliefs, sex (gender), and other attributes.

Free Choice, Commitment, and Due Process

In a free democratic society, individuals have rights guaranteed by law along with their preferred religious practices governing how people live their lives. Much is made in America regarding race and relationships and it gets a great deal of attention. So much that fraternal agreements and understandings regulate initiation rituals to reinforce separation. During the creation of American society, recognition of some humans as property was allowed and through enlightenment and years of legal evolution the framework was amended to grant freedoms to all. Given this development, how could any ethnic group claim ownership or violation of property rights with an interracial relationship? Even further to the point within a given racial or ethnic group? Not even the heavily referred Bible recognizes adultery without a prior marriage commitment. Neither the constitution nor the Bible identifies these relations as violating the law. Any attempts to carry out punishment or restriction are themselves liable improper judgments. Trying to keep separate 300 million people is just not practical nor socially & economically desirable. Neither is the idea of genetically re-engineering an American Black race.

My experience has revealed that the admittance of liability or wrongdoing is very hard to achieve from some groups or people. Primarily, the accused or guilty party tries to mitigate the financial punishment for such actions without establishing a legal precedent. Regarding relationships, I look for compatible personalities, matching of values and goals, and partnership more than I do race or ethnicity. I do not regard matching within your own ethnicity nor pre-arranged relationships as a personal responsibility which contradicts the values I embrace as American. History is important but not determinant. There are many groups in society that make “racial solidarity” their cause and path toward success. However, separation solidarity is neither the American history lesson nor the direction of a progressing democratic society. Choices are made when people are comfortable understanding the agreement with some future predictability of the outcome. There are common interests within ethnic groups and they do not limit choices and freedoms. Community commitment and free choice are not mutually exclusive ideals.

The use of fraternal, religious organizations to create career liabilities and family hardships for anyone that does not conform to someone’s ethnic definition is a liability increasing social costs burdening the state. It limits earning potential (tax revenues to government), committed family development, and reinforces ethnic stereotypes. An even greater threat to the democracy is the delay of due process to protect the organized, fraternal violations of law in an attempt to replace with a subjugated group belonging. So, does the American democratic experiment continue to grow or do we fall victim to the separate, (prophetic) group commitments creating its own rules difficult to globally enforce and adjudicate within the legal system of equal justice?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
update: December 2013

Self-Identity Recognition Not Segmentation: Relationship between Mortgage Backed Securities Market and Segmented Assimilation Theory (My Response)

The United States of America was founded upon the principles of individual freedoms and collective interests to escape historical oppressions. On census data and most other documentation, citizens and fellow countrymen (and women) self-identify for purposes of monitoring equality, fairness, and non-discriminatory practices guaranteed in the Constitution with Amendments and the evolved, supportive constitutional laws. Given such, it is important to gather the information not for separation but for inclusion.

Segmented Assimilation Theory, in my opinion, assumes that generational success can be achieved through a self-identified community pooled interest outside the collective US society. Aside from the contradiction of terms (segmented and assimilation), my position is that humanity and citizenship are not successfully segmental. Differences such as opinions, generational origins, race, and religion at this level can coexist. It is the original vision of the United States of America and its continued progress toward collective individual constitutional freedoms. History has shown that increased integration reduces discrimination, society trends toward greater equality, and provides a check on fairness provided that constitutional freedoms are upheld. Additionally, most successful socioeconomic development requires investment and capital levels which exceed the resources of a segmented community to provide benefits for the entire country.

Pooled risk and prosperity have been essential to the development of the U.S. economy and society. Inclusion has always increased overall prosperity. This concept is found in the insurance industry, mutual fund investing, and social security. The mortgage backed securities (MBS) market initially operated on this basis and the separation-dilution of pooled risk and return created the financial crisis. Mortgages from properties across America were pooled into large securities (bonds) sold by banks onto the global market. To increase the value of the securities, the collateralized mortgages were separated into tranches (risk and return segments) thereby increasing the sales price of the MBS and providing more income to the banks. The increased return expectation (higher mortgage interest rates) attracted more buyers from around the world which increased the supply of funds available for mortgages. More mortgage backed securities (MBS) were created as more banks offered the products. The tranches increased bank financial performance without an adequate impact assessment of the proportional separation of the risk profile.

Banks and investors with the ability to properly assess the riskier securities and market conditions bought insurance (credit default swaps) with an improperly, low priced premium. When mortgages began defaulting, holders of the MBS began losing value as default rates exceeded projections. As the value of the securities fell due to excessive defaults, there were no additional buyers for securities of assured risk of loss (out of the money call option of a deflating asset). Banks with purchased insurance began calling in claims that exceeded the “assessed risk pool value” and total premiums paid. This collective call on the credit default insurance policies caused liquidity issues for the insurer(s) along with the potential reputation damage to the U.S. financial industry for investment losses of workers' savings from around the world.

Essentially, banks around the world purchased American mortgages (using, in some cases, retirement funds from their country's workers) fueling the accelerated growth and excessive investment of the housing market. The securities were segmented which diluted “risk sharing” to increase value (bank income and cash flow). This financial strategy can be effectively executed provided that necessary control evaluations and diligence are in place to properly identify the risks. The bailout of banks and insurance provider was essential due to the source of some funds used to purchase the mortgage backed securities.

The separation of pooled risk and return evidenced in the MBS segmentation crisis is similar to the issues I associate with the social science Segmented Assimilation Theory referenced in a previous post: Gatekeepers and Modes of Incorporation. Following a social philosophy of Segmented Assimilation Theory, in my opinion, will lead back to the failed separate but equal policy of the past. The common issues between the social theory and financial segmentation include:

• Equal access to development resources (capital allocation problem);
• Improper assessment of risk due to the lack of pooled interest;
• Imbalance in capital accumulation to certain investments creating market "bubbles";
• Improper capital investment decisions due to underestimated risk and return.


An economic agenda for Shared prosperity is essential for healthy societal development.

Conservatism, Innovation, and Diversity: Management Lexicon Oxymoron

I have throughout my career been exposed to many companies that have defined the organization as a conservative company. This designation at times has perplexed me for those are some of the same companies that depend upon new ideas to stay ahead of the competition. Merriam-Webster defines conservative and conservatism as follows:

con•ser•va•tive - \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\ adj.
1: PRESERVATIVE 2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: TRADITIONAL b: marked by moderation or caution (a conservative estimate) c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners.

con•ser•va•tism - \kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm\ noun
2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.

Literally based upon the definition, these companies are stating that they are committed to the historical authority structure and do not welcome challenges to the established corporate culture and business model. It is not necessary for a company to define itself as conservative based upon its decision-making because the fundamental role of business is to manage risk while ensuring its existence as a going concern. The conservative identification is more about the political affiliation and nature of the leadership than anything else.

For companies in an industry that has not had to change since its initial discovery, I can understand this conservative posture. For example, companies in industries producing commodities and natural resources have had very little incentive to change other than to improve yield and efficiency. The principal methods to remove resources from the earth have not changed. Other industries such as computer technology and consumer goods thrive on new discovery and innovation limited only by the human imagination. Value to these organizations is truly its employee base of creativity and innovation. This is completely opposite of an organization maintaining its existing views or conditions (conservative definition 3a.).

So, at this point my question would be - Does a conservative company value diversity? My idea of diversity goes beyond identity politics of gender and ethnicity although these factors are important and included. I would also add experiences, class, education, and orientation. Many of these companies are directed and managed by men due to the historical early laws of the land excluding others from participating and prospering within this economic structure. In an effort to participate, the excluded groups attempted assimilation by adopting the conservative philosophy to the extent possible for a limited overall prosperity. This conformance is counter to the individual added value of experience and culture to maintain the existing status quo. Ideas, innovation, and value get lost in the conformance.

The premise of Diversity is that all of humanity has value and should be included throughout all levels of society and organizations for enhanced prospective and performance. The oxymoron is a company committed to its conservative traditions touting diversity to prevent being a political outlier. When employees do not feel valued, they can quickly become competitors to those intransigent organizations unwilling to recognize the contributions within its human resources and unable to modify or expand a business model to accommodate a game changing idea.