Facade of Harlem Hospital Center at 506 Lenox Avenue at 135th Street in Harlem, New York, USA.
During a recent conversation, someone living in an affluent New York suburb mentioned their concern about traveling into midtown Manhattan using the Metro North system, and having to switch to the subway at the Harlem station on 125th Street. Their fear was that, as older white people, they could be an attractive target for would-be muggers.
Having lived in Harlem for a decade, I have become accustomed to people’s surprised reaction when I tell them where I live, and the inevitable questions about whether—being a white man—I feel safe living there. I can attest that these concerns and negative perceptions are misplaced: Harlem is a great place to live and it is very safe. I have never been mugged or felt threatened by anyone, have never had anything stolen, and can walk around safely at any time of day or night.
After the recent conversation mentioned above, I became curious about the actual risk of being the victim of crime in Harlem relative to other parts of Manhattan. Luckily, in 2013 the City of New York launched an interactive crime map where you can visualize NYPD crime data from all five boroughs while drilling down by time period, crime type, location and a few other criteria.
Regardless of the date range you enter, and for virtually every type of crime, you may find it surprising that the area with the greatest criminal activity is the Manhattan South police precinct, which forms the core of midtown Manhattan. Even if you don’t know Manhattan, you’ll recognize some of the world-famous landmarks found in this precinct, including the Empire State Building, Times Square, the Broadway Theater District, Bryant Park, Madison Square Garden and Grand Central Station. In 2021, this precinct saw 2,869 crimes, which comes to an average of 139 crimes per 1,000 residents per year. By comparison, the 25th precinct, which covers east Harlem and includes the aforementioned Metro North station, saw a total of 1,226 crimes, an average of only 26 crimes per 1,000 residents per year. Hence you are roughly five times more likely to be the victim of a crime in midtown Manhattan than in east Harlem.
We can of course find ways of rationalizing these statistics, such as the fact that thieves might be more likely to travel to an area full of tourists, but the fact remains that if safety is your concern, you should be much less worried about transiting from Metro North to the subway in Harlem, and much more worried if your final destination is in midtown Manhattan.
What is more concerning than the biased views of some individuals, is the fact that these misperceptions, which are based partly on old information and partly on purposeful misinformation, continue to spread in the media. For example, a website for tourists features a blog discussing tourist safety in New York, which erroneously states that “When crimes occur they usually don’t take place in tourist-heavy areas around Manhattan. For example, most sightseers are unlikely to visit Harlem, the Bronx, or other boroughs where crimes are most likely to occur.”
Leaving aside the egregious inaccuracy of this statement, what is disturbing is that a blog like this, reaching thousands of readers, has the power to perpetuate a negative stereotype, which in turn can lead to societal harm and economic harm: societal harm, because it reinforces the association between people of color and crimes; economic harm, because tourists will be discouraged from visiting areas like Harlem, in spite of their being quite beautiful and boasting numerous attractions.
The perpetuation of negative stereotypes, unfortunately, is not limited to tourism in Harlem. In fact, it is mirrored in some of the problems that plague corporate America. As an example, in our work measuring inclusion for corporations, my colleagues and I are hearing increasing complaints, primarily from white, male employees, about women or people of color being given preference in job interviews, raises and promotions. Members of historically underprivileged groups are also often assumed to be “diversity hires,” meaning that the primary reason they were hired is because of their race, gender or other demographic trait, rather than being hired because of their skills and potential contributions.
In reality, virtually every corporate and academic study has revealed that, as a demographic group, white men are significantly more likely to be interviewed, hired and promoted, while being better paid, more respected and better treated than employees from any other demographic group. And yet, there is growing misperception on the part of some white employees that underprivileged groups are actually doing better than they are, and that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are unnecessary and potentially discriminatory against them.
Sometimes these misperceptions are based on simple ignorance, while other times they may be based on having seen (or heard of) one woman who earns more than a male colleague, or one Hispanic man promoted ahead of a white peer. But just as I suggested that publishing misleading information about Harlem in a tourist blog is much more damaging than the opinions and comments of a single tourist, it is also the case that companies sometimes allow—or at least fail to prevent—the spreading of racist, sexist, ageist, ableist and other bigoted perceptions. For instance, in some cases we have heard about managers who openly criticize DEI initiatives, or HR departments that complain to their colleagues about having to “check the box” in hiring and promotion decisions. As I have suggested in a recent post, biases in processes within organizations are typically much more harmful than individual biases. In the case of spreading inaccurate perceptions, the problem is less about a biased process, and more about the absence of processes that would prevent the spread of biased perceptions.
How can a company avoid the spread of misguided and unfounded perceptions about employees from underprivileged groups? Blaming managers and HR departments is unlikely to solve the problem, and fails to place any responsibility on the organization. A better solution is to do what the City of New York has done: track meaningful data and share it with all employees. And just as the NYC crime map allows drill-down by a variety of factors—such as geographical area and type of crime—a company’s DEI data must go beyond measuring overall representation by key demographics. At a minimum, the company should provide representation data by rank, job type or other meaningful classification levels.
Companies should also move beyond representation data, tracking variables that reflect key aspects of an employee’s level of performance and success in the organization, such as compensation, promotion rates and retention rates. Additionally, companies need to start tracking metrics that accurately portray the experiences of employees from different identity groups. For example, my colleagues and I have developed a way for companies to track inclusion data reflecting actual workplace experiences that influence an employee’s sense of inclusion and satisfaction, which in turn have a direct impact on performance and retention.
Unfortunately, most companies either do not collect this type of data systematically, or they are terrified to share it, internally or externally. This is a problem first and foremost because the data would help leaders understand how better to manage their employees—who, after all, are the most valuable asset and most expensive budget item of every company. Moreover, sharing this type of data will provide a strong counterpoint to workplace misperceptions and stereotypes, and will dispel the flawed notion that DEI initiatives are useless or even create bias against white men.
In summary, leaders would be wise to begin or expand their efforts to collect and share DEI data. Creating a more complete and detailed picture of the current state of affairs makes it much easier for leadership to understand what exactly needs to be done to create an increasingly equitable, inclusive, diverse and successful company; and it has the added benefit of ensuring that employee perceptions about their colleagues are a more accurate reflection of reality.
