Can you drown in shallow thinking?

Can you drown in shallow thinking?

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.

The Workplace and Mental Health – is it part of the problem or part of the solution?

The Workplace and Mental Health – is it part of the problem or part of the solution?

There are many issues of concern for society currently. In the workplace, none is more important than mental health.

When medical illness is directly attributable to the workplace, it is usually quickly addressed. Physical injury is now better controlled in most work environments, and relatively easy to identify and rectify. Mental health on the other hand is complex for many reasons. It’s arguably harder to recognise, concerningly easier to hide, and far more difficult in identifying a cause.

There are clear challenges in managing the mental health of people in the workplace. Unlike physical injury, not everyone reacts the same to circumstance. A trip hazard can be eliminated or appropriately managed. This method of rectification doesn’t exist with mental health. Our approach shouldn’t be to eliminate the occurrence of mental health issues in the workplace, but rather create the best environment possible to assist those in need. Zero tolerance is the benchmark for workplace injuries. For mental health it should be 100% tolerance.

Most people who suffer severely from mental health issues require professional help. Medication is not uncommon, but not the only factor in management. Once help is sought, and treatment is referred, people have the best chance of leading a better life.

The complexity with mental health revolves around an individual firstly recognising the issue, reaching a point of acceptance, seeking help and then embracing and acting on the advice. All these things are for the individual to address. The objective of the workplace should be to create an environment that allows, and even more so, encourages all of this to occur.

So how does the workplace achieve this? What process and procedures should be implemented? What actions should be taken? What training is required? All important and valid questions.

My experience has led me to an understanding that there is no specific set of procedures, actions or training that improves the workplace to a point where we can be satisfied mental health is well managed. But there are some principles we can instil in our people that provide the best opportunity for those with mental health issues to recognise, accept, seek help, and act.

Firstly, we must do everything possible to remove the stigma. This is most effectively achieved through leadership. Open dialogue and sharing personal experiences are the cornerstone to raising awareness and creating a sense of acceptance from all.

Secondly, the workplace should be perceived as a safe haven, even though there may be elements of work adversely contributing to someone’s state of mind. The key ingredient in addressing this is based on strong and meaningful relationships. Feeling supported, confident that you won’t be judged, and comfortable in sharing thoughts and feelings, all become critical in creating that environment.

Education for all, is the third critical principle. This involves looking out for each other, knowing what signs to look for when you suspect someone may be experiencing difficulties, having the right approach to engage with that person, or simply, knowing who to go to if you see a colleague in need.

Lastly, flexibility to create the right work arrangements. To assist in management of issues, people need flexibility within the workplace. That might be time commitments at work, workload or managing the demands of work in a controlled manner. The workplace needs, as best as it can, to accommodate each individual based on their specific requirements.

These four principles are the cornerstone of creating a work environment where people have the best chance of improving their mental health.

Rather than identifying causes within the workplace and then trying to eliminate them, let’s change our emotional mindset. We must encourage friendships, show support and understanding without judgement, and simply care for one another.

If we create these fundamental values and relationships, we will all be in a healthier state of mind.

Workplace Diversity

What does it mean to commit to Workplace Diversity?

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.