This paper presents a practical supervisory strategy for addressing potential cultural insensitivity in a police workplace setting. Using Sussman's model of prejudice and behavioral archetypes — grounded in the Johari Window framework — the paper outlines how a manager might evaluate whether an employee's problematic comments reflect genuine prejudice or simple cultural naivety. The approach prioritizes informal, two-way communication, constructive feedback, and targeted training interventions. Rather than a punitive response, the paper advocates for a developmental strategy that preserves employee potential while establishing clear expectations for respectful conduct in a multicultural work environment.
Before speaking with John, I would like to gather a little more information regarding the incidents reported. What exactly did John say, and under what circumstances did he say it? Having a clear picture of the specific behavior in question is essential before any constructive conversation can take place.
From the outset, I would work from a set of charitable assumptions: that John has the potential to become a valued employee who can work cooperatively and effectively with all people in the police station, and that he is not overtly prejudiced against any group of people. These assumptions allow the situation to be approached developmentally rather than punitively.
My next step would be to conduct an informal interim evaluation with John about how his transition into his new job is going. This would serve several purposes. As we proceed through the discussion, I can gauge John's overall reactions to open discussions of skills and constructive criticism.
I would choose an informal setting — perhaps lunch — so that the environment reflects my goal of two-way communication rather than a top-down approach in which a supervisor talks at an employee rather than with one. When discussing interpersonal communication, I would ask John how this job compares to previous positions he has held.
It is possible that this is John's first experience working closely with people from other cultural backgrounds. If that is the case, he may not realize that some of the things he has said are not acceptable in a multicultural workplace. I would draw on Sussman's model, based on the Johari Window, to consider whether John is truly prejudiced or simply naive about how to communicate in multicultural settings.
For example, he may be mildly prejudiced and make remarks such as "Why don't foreigners learn to speak proper English," but only around people for whom English is their first language — suggesting a lack of cross-cultural awareness rather than deep-seated hostility. Understanding the distinction between cultural naivety and genuine prejudice is critical to selecting the right response.
If it appears that John is significantly prejudiced, I would direct him to cultural sensitivity training. However, if he is simply culturally naive, I would give him a few pointers so he can avoid developing a reputation for prejudice among colleagues who have not yet had the opportunity to get to know him well.
By addressing the issue within the larger context of an overall performance discussion, John would receive substantial positive feedback, allowing him to receive this one point of criticism constructively. This approach protects both the employee's development and the workplace environment.
Kunigis, Allan. 1997. "Ten Steps for Communicators to Boost Organizational Diversity." Communication World, April 1, 1997.
"Tailor response based on prejudice or naivety diagnosis"
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.