However, as I pointed out in a letter to the editor which HISPANIC published the following June, these four criteria are not sufficient and require deeper examination. For example, we may agree that targeted recruiting and hiring in an organization where Latinos are underrepresented is a good indicator of a progressive employer. However, we need to be careful to inquire whether the statistics indicate that Latinas are being recruited and hired only at entry-level jobs. Especially in flat organizations with no internal job ladders, hiring at entry levels means little opportunity for advancement and, thus, dead-end jobs.

In other instances, the recruitment and hiring of Latinos occurs for only specific jobs or areas leading to what's been called ghettoization, a type of job segregation. A common ghetto for Hispanics in today's organizations is "ethnic marketing." But we all know how hard it is to get out of the ghetto once we are in it!

My reading of the magazine's assessment indicates that the editors used two other unstated criteria:

• Marketing and latinization programs, and
• Hispanic representation at all levels in the organization, including executive level and board of directors.

The first of these two requires careful analysis. While Latinos are greatly underserved in terms of services and products, we must be careful to notice which programs are targeting the Latino population with unsafe or unhealthy products that can no longer be sold to the white and affluent population. A prime example is the increased marketing of cigarettes in Latin America, and to Latinos and Latinas in the United States.

Another instance is the use of advertising, which is offensive, particularly to Hispanics. I recently visited San Juan. One night I was appalled to see a TV beer ad that portrayed a young beautiful woman sitting in a bar across from her male companion-who was barely visible to the camera. She was caressing the neck of the bottle as if it was a penis, her lips and tongue seductively positioned-get the picture? Such sexually explicit and degrading advertising, which not only exploits us but also reinforces negative stereotypes about us, would not be tolerated today in the United States.

So let's be careful to assess not only the existence of "latinization" programs in a corporation, but also their content and impact.

Further, the six criteria identified so far are too limiting. They are good criteria when we think of organizations that need to take positive action to increase the numbers and representation of Hispanics internally, and that are trying to expand the services they provide to Latinos externally. But when we think of a good organization for Latinas as one in which we feel included, valued, and fairly treated, we need to add criteria that identify the existence of conditions that encourage Latinos to stay, and allow them to advance, in the organization.

For example, what programs exist in the organization to support Hispanics' career development? Are Latinos considered in leadership succession plans and are they mentored as they move through the organization? Since the higher we go in the corporation the fewer Hispanics there are, there is a greater need to establish cross-mentoring relations, that is, relations with members of other racial groups and probably across gender. It is important to determine if the organizational culture is one that encourages, or even tolerates such cross-mentoring, which has been proven to be a lot harder than same-race, same-sex mentoring.

Are performance appraisal systems fair and based on multicultural norms that reward leadership styles and skills likely to be found in Hispanic employees? Many Latinos have a different approach to conflict than Anglos, are more "people-oriented," and have a more flexible attitude toward hierarchy. These differences may lead to styles and skills that are just as effective as those of the dominant population, but may not be recognized as strengths.

Further, are Latinos' unique skills, like their bilingualism and biculturalism, considered in their performance appraisals and remuneration? Many times Latinas are placed in positions that specifically require them to interface with Hispanic clients or with Latin American counterparts, but are those skills rewarded? As a result of a diversity initiative in an insurance company I consulted to, its performance and compensation system were revised in order to reward all the Latino representatives who continually used Spanish in their daily interactions with clients, but who had not been previously compensated for that skill set.

The culture of an organization determines to a great extent whether the values that Hispanics bring to the workplace are seen as a contribution or a deficit. For Latinos, a non-hostile working climate starts with the need to respect any cultural patterns that may be different from those of the dominant culture, such as a tendency to place a primary focus on family priorities, even at the expense of work. While not all Hispanics value family more than work, this emphasis tends to be a cultural norm. Organizations that are responsive to this difference have policies that support flexible work arrangements and health packages that benefit a variety of family configurations, not just the traditional nuclear family. In this way Latina employees can take care of a variety of family needs without having a conflict with their job.

But a working climate is also made by the informal rules and norms that expect that people behave in certain ways, and support them in those behaviors. Successful organizations I have known seem to pay attention to three specific aspects of this working climate in the way that they impact Latino workers. First, they foster an environment where the more overt forms of racism and sexism in the workplace, such as racist remarks and sexual harassment, are not tolerated. In the case of Latinos, for example, racist remarks may be more often about language and accent than skin color.

Second, an atmosphere is encouraged where Latinas are not made invisible as a social group or as individuals. Hispanic names are not misspelled, Latinos are not excluded from the working group's activities, Latinas are not subtly stereotyped as madonnas or whores, and diversity is not defined narrowly as a black-white issue, positioning African American employees and Latino employees against each other.

Third, there is support in the organization for different affinity groups to meet and feel legitimate, both as intact groups and with each other. For example, sometimes the pressure to present a united front is so strong in Hispanic support organizations that important differences between Latinos such as class, nationality, and race, cannot be explored. Instead, I've seen managers who contribute unwittingly to an atmosphere of intra- and inter-group hostility with comments such as, "Oh, those [Latino] women can't even understand each other and are always fighting even when they're supposed to speak the same language," or "those Latinos and blacks can't get it together." Why or how could they, when the organizational culture is one that encourages divisiveness and competition among groups?

Many of the criteria for assessing the best corporations for Latinos are similar to the criteria that should be used to assess the quality of working life for other groups of employees. Nevertheless, the specific examples and the content that gives meaning to each of these criteria is different when we explore and inquire into the particular experience of Hispanics in today's organizations.

Thus, to more thoroughly assess what it means to provide the most opportunities for Hispanics in the work environment, I recommend that individuals and organizations interested in assessing fairness and inclusion for Latinos in the workplace add the following criteria to the six already mentioned:

• Fair performance appraisal systems
• Career development and mentoring opportunities
• Work-family programs and policies to support all types of families and their needs
• Competitive and fair compensation and rewards for Latino employees
• Recognition and support of knowledge of the Spanish language as a unique skill when appropriate
• A non-hostile working climate, and working relations among all employees that support Latina workers
• An organizational culture that demonstrates appreciation for Latino culture and the many contributions of Hispanics
• Positive relations with and contributions to the Hispanic community, especially the immediate community, and
• An organizational mission that is non-exploitative of Latinos in their communities and as a people.

It is the combination of all the above criteria that makes for a healthy and inclusive organization where Latinas can contribute and feel valued. Sadly, most organizations fall far short of this ideal.

The key ingredients for a fair process of collecting assessment information

The process by which organizational information is collected is as important as the criteria used to collect the information. A fair data collection process will help to ensure that corporations are providing accurate information.

A quick telephone call to the manager of human resources of the corporation is not enough to ensure that complete and non-biased data has been gathered and that a clear picture of the situation of Latinos in the organization can emerge. Unfortunately, many times the affirmative action function, the diversity office or the human resource department is called on to give assessment information as if it was a matter of good public relations. When this is done both the corporation, individual employees, and the public suffer, because no real knowledge about the status of Latinos in the organization is surfaced.

In one company to which I consulted, the collected data was of little use because it had not been broken down in meaningful ways. In my consultation to the corporate diversity team I suggested that, as a first step in improving their effectiveness, they disaggregate data by diverse racial groups and gender, so as to be able to identify the status of Latinos and Latinas compared to other groups.

A diverse and representative sample of employees at different levels of the organization must be approached to gather information. Care must be taken to ensure confidentiality for those who provide information, especially in the case of Latino/as, where so few are found at the top, and where anything that could be interpreted as "bad" may compromise their professional future.

I also suggest that corporations that really want to know how they are perceived in the Latino community send out reputable teams to interview community members and leaders of Latino organizations. For example, while many corporations pride themselves on their philanthropic contributions, it is well known among Latinos that less than two percent of this money goes to the Hispanic community.

Leveraging Latino organizational assessments to support organizational change and community empowerment

Gathering and publishing accurate information on the status of Latinos in organizations today is a most important endeavor. But it must be done well and with full awareness of the political implications. Though it will not be easy, leveraging such assessments can serve many good purposes. For example, it can help the formal leadership of an organization get a clearer picture of how they are serving and how they are being perceived as serving the fastest growing "minority" in the United States. Since this "minority" is already thirty million strong and has a buying power of $350 billion this may not be a small point.

Accurate and thorough information can also help individual Latino employees and professionals as well as the internal Hispanic support organizations now common in many corporations assess the working climate and their own opportunities for success in their workplaces. It will also help them, and their allies, identify important changes needed if the workplace is going to become more inclusive and diverse for all employees.

And finally, knowing which corporations are "best and worst" for Latinos can provide all citizens and community leaders with more ways of making organizations more socially responsible and accountable. Such knowledge can help raise the level of awareness and the standards used to assess corporations, not only giving credit to those organizations that are really working for and with Latinos, but also unmasking those who are only interested in exploiting our growing consumer and labor power.

In summary, developing a sophisticated set of criteria, an unbiased process of collecting information, and creative ways of using assessments of "the best and worst" corporations for Hispanics can provide powerful tools to support organizational and social change. Let's do it well.