Diversity

Can you drown in shallow thinking

Can you drown in shallow thinking?

AP

Even though we’ve been talking about and recognising the benefits of diversity for decades, a great deal of shallow thinking continues to govern the conversation. Most dialogue centers around gender, ethnicity, and generational differences. Quotas still drive the decisions of many organisations.  There is advocacy for work environments to reflect society, insisting minority groups, however defined, be represented at all levels of operation. I find this thinking both confusing and concerning.

There should be no question regarding the benefits of diversity. Having a deep understanding of how to identify and implement it, and how to measure its value, are the questions to be asked.

There are some fundamental principles that govern diversity. Assumption and Bias, Majority-Minority, Us and Them, Power and Privilege, and Inclusion-Exclusion. Respecting individualism while acting and thinking in a non-bias way without assumption is fundamental.

So how do we identify diversity and what are the benefits? Improving what your organisation does, and how it’s done, should be the key benefit, and most recognise diversity of thought as the crucial element. Alternative views. Different ways to consider, approach and resolve issues. Fundamentally, there is more likelihood of choosing the best outcome, on the basis that more alternatives have been considered. Once this is understood, the next question is, what do we measure to ensure the benefits are there?

What we shouldn’t do, is pick a specific characteristic, (let’s say gender) use this as the measure and then assume if we have balanced representation, diversity of thought will be addressed.

Is there evidence that people with different characteristics think differently? Absolutely. There’s clear logic in that. However, equal numbers of males and females doesn’t guarantee diversity of thought. Furthermore, by assuming this, your assessment of each person’s characteristics is fundamentally bias. This is where shallow thinking is concerning. This is why trying to reflect society is flawed.

How can an organisation whose purpose is very specific, perform better if it reflects society when the characteristics of society are so general? The decision of who we choose to work in our organisations and the roles they play, must be based on something. It can’t be random, nor should it be based on a formula or specific number.

Addressing diversity by reflecting society, suggests to me a lack of understanding. For those that don’t have deeper regard, maybe this is the only option. The result? Rather than organisations rising to the top, they will drown in shallow thinking.

Workplace Diversity

What does it mean to commit to Workplace Diversity?

AP

Diversity…should the type of underwear matter?

When talking about diversity, too many people just think about gender. While this is a good starting point, the topic is much broader and holistic than simply focusing on the benefits of gender mix.

There is no doubt, creating a work environment suitable for both males and females is critical to any successful business. However, when it comes to diversity, there are two important points that I believe must remain the focus of all organisations:

  1. Having balanced numbers of males and females is not indicative enough of a diverse workplace.
  2. Personal characteristics other than gender are far more critical in assessing the true diversity of the group.

In relation to my first point, I see many organisations purely driven quantitatively; proudly announcing their commitment to and success in gender diversity by boasting numbers.

What these firms should be asking is not “How many males or females do we have,” but rather “What type of males and females do we have?” Without selecting people with diverse characteristics, and without creating a work environment that accommodates all types of people, you run the risk of having equal numbers of males and females that share common qualities. They may be predominantly extroverts, they may all thrive in a highly competitive environment, and they may predominantly embrace confrontation. So, while the numbers may look good, the type of people in your organisation is narrow and limiting. You’d be missing out on the introverts, the team players and the people that develop others.

To assume people will approach these things differently because of their gender, goes against a fundamental principle of good diversity management.

To address my second point – what is the value of a strong gender mix if all the people, irrespective of gender, behave, think, communicate, learn and respond in the same way?

In fact, to assume they will do all these things differently because of their gender, is showing perceived bias, and goes against a fundamental principle of good diversity management.

So for me, there are two very clear commitments to diversity that leaders should make for their organisations:

  1. Ensure there are no assumptions or biases in the selection and development of people.
  2. Ensure the work environment accommodates all people.

Do these things well, and the group will be diverse; they will feel comfortable, and they will want to stay.

Very simple statements, but profoundly powerful actions.

In some industries and professions like Engineering, the number of women is alarmingly low. In other industries, the number of males is deficient. My belief is that this is due to false and inappropriate perceived assumptions and bias. The imbalance requires addressing not because the numbers should be equal, but because these behaviours contradict the principles of managing diversity. It clearly requires attention from two perspectives:

Employers need to eliminate assumptions and bias in the workplace, and industry needs to educate the pool of talent in the understanding that the profession or type of work is suitable for all people…irrespective of what type of underwear you have on.