白人都问:为什么中国人在美国都是底层,却没做官的?

原创：顾颖琼顾颖琼博士说天下 2018-07-08

顾颖琼博士说天下点击关注顾博士

中国人一直在美国以模范族裔的形象示人，低犯罪率，高收入水准，高教育水平，是中国人乃至东亚族裔的代名词。而且亚洲文化优越论常常试图验证“模范少数族裔”这个标签的合理性：亚裔美国人在美国取得成功，是美国亚裔人“工作努力，家庭稳固，重视教育”的结果。

但是美好的想法却被冷酷的现实泼了一头冷水，最近的哈佛商业评论上发表的文章表明：亚裔是是进入公司管理层最少的族裔。这里说的还是亚裔，包括了印度人，印度人在高科技领域的成功有目共睹，可以想见如果是单独统计华裔这个数据会糟糕到什么程度。大家都要看看这篇文章，不要心理上觉得洋洋自得，以为自己是成功的模范族裔，事实上我们才是被压迫最厉害的族裔。或者可以说是自我价值在社会实现上最失败的族裔。

原文链接如下：
https://hbr.org/2018/05/asian-americans-are-the-least-likely-group-in-the-u-s-to-be-promoted-to-management

在讨论文章之前，有人抛出一个论调，说中国人之所以没有在美国进入管理层，是因为因为靠留学来美国的人，早就选拔过好几次了，往往不管是经历，还是性格能力都是适合走学术技术路线的，要不然他们当初也不能来美国。甚至他们的后代，也是受到他们的家庭教育影响。中国传统的学而优则仕，不是指商业领域，事实上商业在中国是被轻视的，直到今天，一定程度上还是如此。

这一点立刻有人站出来反对，不认为是这样，如果在美国说这边程序员明显不如医生，程序员鄙视医生教授的话，我是不知道说什么，难道编程编的连简单的算术题都不会做了。有人会拿马工里自己创业做老板的比，其实医生教授里也有创业做老板的。我能想到的一个最出名的就是最近买下洛杉矶时报的那位华裔老板，他是南非生，南非长的医生。在国内就更明显了，医生教授和马工在社会上办事哪个容易。资深的医生或教授，手下一样十几个人，管理能力强的很。现在国内一切向钱看是不错，但是中国人基本上都知道钱不如权，明朝首富沈万三，清朝红顶商人胡雪岩，民国四大家族，当朝是哪些，我想多数人心里有些人选。没了权势，或者权势不如人，都是灰飞烟灭。

还有人说，这几年我在美国做HR发现是这样两个原因：
1.华人基本觉得有个高收入的工作就行了，很多人对进入管理后丢掉技术表示恐惧，情愿一辈子做技术，觉得管理虚头巴脑不靠谱。没有一技之长不行。这种心态怎么转变？
2.另外很多人对语言不自信，他们担心做了管理后管不了美国人。而且觉得做技术不需要太多语言沟通，更不需要频繁开会和各种部门交流，小富即安。

中国裔本身就给人内向、安静，不会白人的那种虚伪、也不会黑人的那种气势汹汹、没有印度人的诡辩，所以进入高层当然少了。很多亚裔觉得英语有口音是个很严重的问题，其实根本没什么，自己就更加害怕交流了。

讨论了那么多，让我们看看这篇文章怎么说的吧：

【google翻译，无删节】

Asian Americans are the forgotten minority in the glass ceiling conversation.

亚裔美国人是玻璃天花板谈话中被遗忘的少数派。

This was painfully obvious to us while reading the newly released diversity and inclusion report from a large Silicon Valley company: Its 19 pages never specifically address Asian Americans. Asian men are lumped into a “non-underrepresented” category with white men (we’ll say more about that below); Asian women are assigned to a category that includes women of all races. In contrast, the report addresses Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans as distinct categories. Ironically, the chief diversity and inclusion officer of the company remarked about its efforts, “If you do not intentionally include, you will unintentionally exclude.”

在阅读一家大型硅谷公司最新发布的多元化和包含性报告时，这对我们来说是非常明显的：它的19页从未专门针对亚裔美国人。亚洲男性与白人男性成为“非代表性不足”类别（我们将在下文中多说）;亚洲女性被分配到一个类别，其中包括所有种族的女性。相比之下，报告将西班牙裔美国人，非洲裔美国人和美洲原住民列为不同的类别。具有讽刺意味的是，该公司的首席多元化和包容性官员对其努力做出了评论，“如果你不是故意包含，你会无意中排除。”

But excluded from the report was the fact that Asian Americans are the least likely racial group to be promoted into Silicon Valley’s management and executive levels, even though they are the most likely to be hired into high-tech jobs. This was a key finding in a 2017 report we coauthored for the Ascend Foundation (“The Illusion of Asian Success”), analyzing EEOC data on Silicon Valley’s management pipeline.

但从报告中排除的事实是，亚裔美国人是最不可能晋升为硅谷管理层和行政层级的种族群体，尽管他们最有可能被聘用到高科技岗位。这是我们为Ascend基金会（“亚洲成功的幻觉”）合作的2017年报告中的一个重要发现，它分析了EEOC关于硅谷管理流程的数据。

Across the country, the results are the same. Our analysis of national EEOC workforce data found that Asian American white-collar professionals are the least likely group to be promoted from individual contributor roles into management — less likely than any other race, including blacks and Hispanics. And our analysis found that white professionals are about twice as likely to be promoted into management as their Asian American counterparts.

在全国范围内，结果是一样的。我们对全国EEOC劳动力数据的分析发现，亚裔美国白领专业人员是从个人贡献者角色晋升为管理人员的最不可能的群体 - 与任何其他种族（包括黑人和西班牙裔）相比，这种可能性更小。我们的分析发现，白人专业人员的亚裔美国同行的可能性要提升两倍。

It is easy to understand why Asian American representation in the workforce may not seem to be an issue. In some key measures, Asian Americans are the most successful U.S. demographic — more highly educated, for example, and with higher median incomes than any other racial group. More significant, Asian Americans are 12% of the professional workforce while making up only 5.6% of the U.S. population. This fact underlies the potential blind spot for many companies: Because Asian Americans are not considered an underrepresented minority, they are given little priority or attention in diversity programs. We have found that in many companies throughout the country, Asian-related programs are geared toward cultural inclusion, not management diversity.

很容易理解为什么亚裔美国人在劳动力中的代表性似乎不成问题。在一些关键的措施中，亚裔美国人是最成功的美国人口 - 例如受过更多教育，收入水平高于其他任何种族群体。更重要的是，亚裔美国人占专业劳动力的12％，而美国人口仅占5.6％。这个事实是许多公司潜在的盲点的基础：由于亚裔美国人不被认为是少数派人数不多，他们在多样性计划中没有得到重视或关注。我们发现，在全国许多公司，与亚洲有关的项目都是针对文化包容性的，而不是管理多样性。

When we were tech executives in Silicon Valley, our corporate responsibility was to grow the business by building a highly skilled and motivated workforce through hiring, developing, and promoting the best talent. The large numbers of Asian Americans in the professional workforce confirm that businesses are finding qualified Asian Americans to hire; however, the disparity between the lower ranks and the executive levels suggests either that leadership potential is disproportionately lacking in Asian Americans or — much more likely — that companies have not done an adequate job of identifying and developing Asian American talent.

当我们是硅谷的高科技管理人员时，我们的企业责任是通过招聘，发展和推广最优秀的人才来培养高技能和积极进取的员工，从而发展业务。大批亚裔美国人在职业劳动力中确认企业正在寻找合格的亚裔美国人;然而，低级和行政级别之间的差距表明，领导潜力在亚裔美国人中不成比例地缺乏，或者 - 更有可能 - 公司没有在识别和培养亚裔美籍人才方面做足够的工作。

These issues aren’t confined to the tech industry. Similar concerns were raised about the legal profession in a 2017 study coauthored by Goodwin Liu, associate justice of the California Supreme Court. Published by the Yale Law School and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the report found that Asian Americans are well-represented in law — they’re more than 10% of the graduates of the top 30 law schools — yet “have the highest attrition rates and lowest ratio of partners to associates among all [racial] groups.”

这些问题并不局限于科技行业。加利福尼亚州最高法院陪审法官古德温刘合着的2017年研究报告也提出了类似的关注。该报告由耶鲁大学法学院和美国亚太裔美国律师协会出版，该报告发现，亚裔美国人在法律中占有优势 - 他们超过了前30所法学院毕业生的10％ - 但“拥有最高的离职率和合伙人与所有[种族]群体之间的最低比率。“

A similar finding with New York banks was reported in Bloomberg Businessweek last year. As one example, Goldman Sachs reported that 27% of its U.S. professional workforce was Asian American, but only 11% of its U.S. executives and senior managers, and none of its executive officers, were.

去年彭博商业周刊报道了与纽约银行类似的调查结果。举一个例子，高盛公司报告说，其美国专业人员中有27％是亚裔美国人，但其美国高管和高级管理人员中只有11％，并且没有任何高管。

The list of industries goes on. The Ascend Foundation, a pan-Asian organization that published our 2017 paper, was established by a group of pan-Asian accounting partners. They had found that while over 20% of the associates in many of the larger accounting firms were Asian American, very few were being promoted to the partner level.

行业名单继续。泛欧基金会是发布我们2017年论文的泛亚组织，由一组泛亚会计合作伙伴成立。他们发现，虽然许多大型会计师事务所中超过20％的员工是亚裔美国人，但很少有人晋升到合伙人的水平。

And this is not just a problem in private industry: While Asian Americans were 9.8% of the federal professional workforce in 2016, they are only 4.4% of the workforce at the highest federal level.

这不仅仅是私营行业的一个问题：2016年，亚裔美国人占联邦职业劳动力的9.8％，而在联邦最高层的员工中，他们只占4.4％。

Fortunately, some companies have found ways to close the gap.

幸运的是，一些公司已经找到了缩小差距的方法。

Several years ago, one global energy company commissioned an internal task force to review the status of women and minorities in its leadership pipeline. Reporting to the executive staff, the task force found insufficient gender and racial diversity in the pipeline, including Asian diversity, and recommended specific actions. With strong CEO and executive support, the company quickly moved to identify potential leaders and significantly increase its spending for leadership training for women and minorities. For its Asian workforce, it partnered with a major business school to integrate culturally specific training into its leadership development program for Asian American managers.

几年前，一家全球能源公司委托内部工作组审查其领导层中妇女和少数群体的状况。向行政人员报告时，工作队发现管道中的性别和种族多样性不足，包括亚洲多样性，并建议采取具体行动。凭借强大的首席执行官和高管支持，该公司很快转向寻找潜在的领导者，并显着增加了对女性和少数族裔领导力培训的支出。对于其亚洲员工队伍，它与一所主要商学院合作，将针对亚裔美国管理人员的文化特定培训纳入其领导力发展计划。

This example provides the key steps that corporations can take to address the Asian glass ceiling.

这个例子提供了企业为解决亚洲玻璃天花板而采取的关键步骤。

First, it is necessary to be data-driven and to carefully review the retention and promotion rates of Asian Americans in an analysis of race and gender. Our research suggests that men and women of different races encounter progression barriers at different levels of the management ladder. Our anecdotal experience leads us to believe that it also varies across different parts of the organization (for example, engineering versus marketing versus sales), though we would need specific data to explore that idea.

首先，有必要以数据为导向，仔细检查亚裔美国人在分析种族和性别时的保留率和提升率。我们的研究表明，不同种族的男女在管理阶梯的不同层次上遇到进步障碍。我们的轶事经验使我们相信，在组织的不同部分（例如，工程与营销与销售）之间也存在差异，尽管我们需要具体的数据来探索该想法。

Second, it is essential to have open, visible, and proactive support from the CEO and the executive team. Without open support, it is difficult to get organizations to shift priorities and budgets to fund and organize new programs. Just as important, without proactive support, institutional inertia can create procedural potholes that can derail new initiatives.

其次，首席执行官和执行团队需要公开，明确和积极的支持。没有公开的支持，组织就很难转移优先事项和预算来资助和组织新项目。同样重要的是，如果没有积极的支持，体制上的惰性可能会产生程序上的坑洞，可能会破坏新的举措。

Finally, it is critical to institutionalize Asian American leadership as one of the goals and sustained priorities of the company’s leadership development process, not just as a one-time special diversity project.

最后，将亚裔美国领导层制度化为公司领导力发展过程的目标和持续优先事项之一是非常重要的，而不仅仅是一次性特殊多样性项目。

These steps would make for a diversity and inclusion report we would love to read.

这些步骤将使我们喜欢阅读的多样性和包含性报告。

扫描二维码，支持顾博士，我们来真的！

往期热文