Why is Change Management Theory Absent from Tech’s Diversity and Inclusion Discussions?
This article was originally published on LinkedIn.
I think of my foray into diversity and tech as fieldwork. As the principal investigator, I have employed a number of research techniques such as participant observation, 1:1 interviews, and focus groups. During these month-long field immersions, I have attended a fair number of diversity-related events from conferences to product launches to people ops tech competitions. These live sessions have also been coupled with “desk research” in the form of reading countless medium posts, HBR articles, and exchanging ideas with eager diversity advocates. After each event or conversation, my stream of consciousness goes from having a lightbulb moment of “wow this is what Silicon Valley should look and feel like!” to a jaded and private retort “why is the ‘broken and leaky pipeline’ analogy generally discussed as the diversity problem?”
This mixture of wonder and frustration led me to return to my data. I had been so excited by positive trends that pushed the D & I agenda forward that I neglected my glaring observation of what was missing from diversity and tech discussions: change methodology. And, in particular, how it can facilitate the implementation of D & I strategies and programs. At this point, you may be wondering how I went from critiquing the extreme focus on the pipeline to change management. But, bear with me.
While I agree that unclogging the pipeline is part of a D & I strategy, I do not think it is at its core. Akin to a double-edge sword, the pipeline analogy, on the one hand, implies passivity; and on the other, is but a band-aid to an organizational wide issue. Once underrepresented candidates are in the pipeline, there is still a need to solve tech’s diversity problem create pathways and opportunities of access to ensure they excel, are mentored, and stay (this is the whole inclusion piece of the D & I dyad). And, the routine focus on how to squeeze diverse candidates into a rusty pipeline continues to treat diversity as HR-specific, yet marginal to core business operations.
In other words, diverse bodies may nip at representation issues, but it is not a workable solution to overhaul how individuals across the organization think about diversity. No matter how innovative the method of identifying a diverse hire may be, it does not revolutionize “business as usual.” And, this is where change management comes in: a true diversity revolution requires it to penetrate and alter the existing organizational structure.
In change management theory (and, there are many iterations of it), the seeds of change are planted in the minds of individuals. That is, the success of organizational change is not only dependent upon the incorporation of employees at the individual level, but also across business functions. You see, organizational-wide change does not happen in the confines of one department or through the efforts of the diversity (team) lead. And, although change theory mandates that a collective of individuals establish the need for and lead change efforts, it must include the support of management or key stakeholders to achieve success.
Think of it this way, individuals galvanize management support by creating a sense of urgency, developing clear communication strategies, and articulating a programmatic vision, which creates buy-in from others outside the team. These initial steps are critical for organizational change because it is necessary that as many employees as possible understand the strategy to accept the vision of (balanced) changes. This approach helps to preclude inertia, manage resistance before it reaches crisis-level, and encourage the adoption of new traditions, systems, and operations.
So, in everyday lingo, change management may be thought of like a grassroots effort that garners buy-in from the top; a bottom-up strategy that targets management at all levels of the organization to overhaul business functions. Therefore, change management is a structural approach that succeeds with individuals’ adoption of it that requires that they understand the need for change. Some conventional examples include a modification or expansion of the business model (e.g. acquisitions, global expansions, mergers, etc.).
But, what might examples of change management + diversity/inclusion + tech look like?
Some may immediately think of the mutiny that forms at cafeterias across Silicon Valley when subpar food becomes commonplace. Internal e-mail systems quickly light up, and it’s strategically brought to the attention of key decision-makers. The next thing you know, there is a food vendor shuffle and angst quells. Now, I do not intend to make a mockery of the food debacle because it is indeed an example of how organizational-wide mobilization that includes the efforts (or complaints) of hungry hippos from Engineering, People Ops, Design, Finance, and Business Development to get the job done. Together, individuals from various departments galvanize their efforts for a particular cause (i.e. overthrowing the chefs and vendors, right?) to reach an intended outcome (tastier food, nom nom nom).
Perhaps, the C-Suite acquiesces to this mutiny because they see value since they also eat from the same pot, or the cross-functional efforts of individual employees are enough to make clear that it is a hot-button agenda item that must be addressed. Addressing this issue may not necessarily be a matter of empathy, but more so an action-oriented solution to prevent employees from defecting to other companies in an industry where Millennials are known to make their rounds from company A to company B to company C, and so on. In other words, the impending mass exodus of employees certainly helps to create urgency, build initiative, and galvanize support from leadership to change how food is prepared.
Now, with this example in mind, let’s turn to a diversity-specific example. D & I efforts have arguably occurred from the ground up (just think about the fact that Salesforce, a 10K+ person company, hired its first Chief Equality Officer in September 2016), but has not been able to galvanize the same organizational-wide support from individual employees across teams. So, the question becomes: how do you galvanize support from employees whose job description is absent of diversity-related tasks? And, then how do you use this collective to get leadership to see the value of diversity when diversity changes occur s l o w l y overtime despite the fail-first ethos of tech? Now, my answer to this question might be a bit controversial. But, controversy pushes the envelope…and, that’s exactly what technologists do, right?
Let me preface by saying that I am speaking from the outside looking in. Though, it would seem that the outsider perspective has currency as the public release of quantitative data is used as a tool to communicate (selected) internal affairs. However, a cultural change involves more than moving the quantitative needle. In fact, organizational change is profoundly qualitative; it affects the way employees experience the workplace and perform their jobs. Organizational changes at the macro level, for example, renaming or launching new company values affects what happens on the ground: how employees communicate, power dynamics between managers and their teammates, and employee morale. Yet, these qualitative experiences are overshadowed by a hyper-emphasis on the quantitative trends of diversity reports.
While diversity reports offer some semblance of transparency, we all know data interpretations can be skewed by incongruent categorical distinctions and researcher bias, to name just two. But, on a more proactive note, they are also a tool that can be used to create an urgency for change and win the support of leadership by demonstrating the paucity of diversity hires. A change management approach, however, goes beyond these foresighted wins to include short-term wins. For example, there may be gains made related to inclusiveness that include managers creating space to discuss real-world events as we saw in the aftermath of the 2016 Election, monthly check-ins on the state of diversity from the perspective of employees, or developing an internal resource book for managing cultural variation + business outcomes, new business with diverse suppliers, etc.
Thus, using change management theory to create more D &I opportunities in tech would go beyond fulfilling People Ops quotas because its purpose is to create a well-planned, systematic, and balanced agenda that will smoothly transform the internal workings of the organization. Think of it as diversity and inclusion turned inside out: change management begins with the internal component, the inclusion piece. While meeting People Ops diversity targets are on-going goals, a change management approach to D & I requires a revision of every aspect of the business case.
For example, Julius Pryor, a leading Innovation, Diversity, and Innovation Expert, successful sales career at a pharmaceutical company makes clear how leveraging D & I to drive organizational objectives can yield lucrative outcomes and create new sales targets. He innovated the marketing plan for prostate cancer medicines by targeting Black Urologists — although a nominal percentage — to sell the life-saving medicines. Amidst speculation and reluctant support of key leaders, he reasoned that although fewer Black Urologists, they treated a disproportionately higher proportion of patients with prostate cancer (i.e. Black men). Not only did he increase revenue and market share, but he created new business with an association of doctors that overwhelmingly serve an overlooked population that is most at risk for prostate cancer. With this case study, we see once again the way change management starts with individual efforts to reshape the frames of existing employees, develop new strategies, and revise SOPs.
The outcome of this case study reveals how disrupting traditional business operations (in this case, a marketing plan) creates necessary organizational change. Or, in the form of an “if-then” statement, the logic may read like this: If D and I initiatives are cultural changes, then cultural changes are organizational changes. If this is so the case, then organizational changes must be stewarded not by a dissenting individual or the “diversity hire,” but systematically through a Learning and Development (L&D) Team. Learning, leadership and development coaches should be utilized beyond onboarding by leveraging talents to write, design, and implement a training curriculum that is aligned with business objectives. One way to do this is to add diversity professionals to the L & D team. And, since the practice of change management is built on cross-functional collaboration, it will help to make D & I less of an HR-only issue and more of an organizational-wide need. Having D & I as part of the organizational structure also says something about employees’ readiness for change. It connotes that they understand the new process, will adopt it, help to support it, and ultimately encourage others to do the same.
So, perhaps there isn’t a lot of discussion at the nexus of change management + D/I because it is not yet considered a part of the larger organizational structure. Rather, it is by and large, but a pocket of the business case. As D & I heads are hired and teams (hopefully) formed, two critical questions that are at the heart of change management strategy must be considered: 1) Where is D & I’s site of intervention? And, what intervention will have the greatest impact on core business functions?