General Motors has announced that Capt. Kenneth J. Barrett will become the automaker’s first Chief Diversity Officer. Barrett, U.S. Navy (Ret.), holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from the College of the Holy Cross, a master’s in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College, and an executive master’s in business administration from the Naval Postgraduate School. He also completed the Federal Executive Senior Fellow Program at Harvard and is a graduate of the Armed Forces Staff College.
“Diversity is and has been a key component of our success including diversity of work force and diversity of customer base – it can only make us a better company,” said GM Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson. “That’s why we’ve created this new position and filled it with a proven leader like Ken. His strengths and track record in diversity will help us achieve the leadership position we’re committed to reaching in this crucial area of the business.”
Barrett will report to GM Vice President of Global Human Resources Cynthia Brinkley; Eric Peterson, vice president of Corporate Diversity, will report to Barrett.
The GM Authority Take
This may seem a cut-and-dry subject to some, but increased organizational diversity is widely seen as important to success. In that regard, this is just one way that The General can gain an advantage over its competition, even if it may not be very tangible.
On a more comical note, perhaps Mr. Barrett could use his undoubtedly tactical military expertise to untie GM from its (forced) Chinese “joint venture” partners… oh heck, what are we talking about?
Comments
War and business with China are two different things!
Well they are both chaotic and fraught with risks.
Oh please, what exactly does a Chief Diversity Officer do? Sounds like something the government would create. If GM suddenly has the money for these kinds of positions, it makes me want to take my business elsewhere. By purchasing from GM, I am now in effect paying for this person’s salary instead of getting a more efficient transmission.
It’s not uncommon for multinationals to have this kind of position. The basic idea behind its creation goes something like this: HR has its hands full with EEO and other legal requirements (affirmative action, etc.). What a CDO would do is work to improve qualified diversity outside of the daily legal restrictions, allowing the company to better itself via diversity. It’s an HR method/principle, but I may have slept through that part of senior year in college to be more helpful in explaining it 🙂
Coke, Ford, Microsoft, among others, all have this role.
Aside from the legal issues that could stem from discrimination in the workplace, I firmly believe that a more diverse GM will produce products that appeal to a wider demographic.
I’d bet that a large percentage of companies in the Fortune 500 have this kind of a position and it’s not a bad idea for GM to “get with the program.” At least on paper, Mr. Barrett sounds qualified for the position (even if he doesn’t exactly look diverse himself). Another post on GMA talks about female engineers involved in all aspects of product engineering and development.
It’s a good thing that corporate America is moving (albeit slowly) away from an all-white make culture and control. The world is quite diverse and our large multinational corporations need to reflect that in order to succeed.
He has the job of making sure the gays and transgenders are treated fairly and not bullied. That muslims get hired in and nothing is said bad about them or the kuran, but they will not tolerate any Christian information, books, pictures etc. No anti socialism or anti democratic stuff will be tolerated.
Steve, I doubt we will ever agree on these things. I don’t have a problem with a diverse workplace. I like working with LGBT people, people of color and even different religions or no religion at all. Religious liberty and accommodation is a founding principle of the United States. I also find that once you get to know people who are different from you, the prejudices and preconceptions vanish.
What I do want is a workplace free from ANY religious proselytizing, but reasonable accommodation isn’t a problem. For example, I live in an extremely diverse city – Los Angeles. In my area, there are many Jews and on the main Jewish holidays, most Jewish people take the day off to go to temple. It’s not a state or federal holiday nor are they specific holidays at most companies. Many take a personal day or a floating holiday. No one cares. Same thing for Good Friday – many Christians take that day off even if it’s not a scheduled holiday. So what? The US Supreme Court had to designate Christmas as a “secular holiday” so it would qualify to be a national holiday. No one seems to have a problem with that because something like 83% of Americans identify as Christians.
I’m not aware of any big U.S.-based corporations that could in any way be classified as having “socialist” leaders. It’s more like we have corporate leaders who display characteristics of sociopaths rather than socialists. Corporations by their very nature aren’t very democratic, they are much more authoritarian (think dictator). However, our government is a republic, not a direct democracy. We elect representatives to do the work of government and to lead our nation and we have 3 co-equal branches of government. You won’t find that in any corporation like that!