Diversity of thought is not enough
There’s no shortcut to making sure racial, gender and cultural perspectives are present in executive leadership. Besides, we know what really works — representation.
By Evan Frazier
When it comes to diversity, it seems like our nation is in the middle of a heated, and often contradictory, debate. On one hand, national studies such as the McKinsey & Company report on diversity, and conventional wisdom, show that companies who embrace diversity are more likely to be successful and even have stronger financial returns. Yet, on the other hand, even though every major corporation knows this, behind the scenes, there is little incentive or priority given to diversifying corporate leadership.
Take the case of Netflix. Recently, the company launched it’s “Strong Black Lead” initiative, meant to highlight and encourage black voices on the network. But this comes on the same day the company fired a major executive for repeatedly using the n-word. The fact Netflix has only one black director on its board doesn’t even seem to be up for discussion, and even the company’s CEO and founder, Reed Hastings, in a company-wide memo, admitted his “privilege” led him to “intellectualize or otherwise minimize race issues like this.”
… there is little incentive or priority given to diversifying corporate leadership.
Part of the benefit of diversity is the idea that these organizations benefit from diverse perspectives that are shared and embraced in leadership roles and across the spectrum of departments. I have been in leadership roles for numerous companies and organizations in various industries, and served on more than 30 civic and nonprofit boards, including: foundations, universities, arts/cultural organizations, and commissions. In my experience, I’ve found that despite the overwhelming evidence of the benefits of diverse boards and leadership structures, there is still significant reluctance to accept it and to make real inclusion a priority.
And yet, in recent years, I’ve been hearing various CEOs and board chairs talk about the most important thing for their organization is to achieve “diversity of thought.” This phrase represents the presence of different skill sets, perspectives, and backgrounds that will allow their team to think creatively, strategically and have the ability to make the right decisions.
On the surface, that might sound perfectly fine to some. However, I’ve found many of the organizations that came to this conclusion are in fact ones that struggle with diversity and are lacking in diverse leadership representation. In these circumstances, having white men from different countries of origin or living in different sections of town and having different functional expertise (finance, legal, marketing, etc.) is considered sufficient.
Is “diversity of thought” without actually being inclusive of other groups enough to achieve the diverse perspectives needed for their organization to compete effectively and optimize their value?
Is “diversity of thought” without actually being inclusive of other groups enough to achieve the diverse perspectives needed for their organization to compete effectively and optimize their value? Can “diversity of thought” actually replace the need for real inclusion or are these organizations simply using it as an excuse to maintain the status quo? I would argue that you cannot achieve true “diversity of thought” without “diversity of representation.”
I would argue that you cannot achieve true “diversity of thought” without “diversity of representation.”
Let’s break it down to a very practical level by looking at some specific scenarios. As a black male board member, even one who strongly supports women’s causes, can I effectively speak in the boardroom about how women will feel about new policies and then make decisions on their behalf? I’m quite sure that while my intentions are good and while I can certainly be a strong ally to women’s causes, I can’t effectively represent the female gender perspective in governance, management and product development decisions.
If you consider the Netflix example mentioned earlier, having an African-American board member allows the company to develop and implement the Strong Black Lead Initiative with confidence. Naming former U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice to their board not only brings to Netflix an international policy and global perspective, but allows her to bring an African-American lens and a broader understanding and credibility amongst key diverse stakeholders.
Without having this diverse perspective on the Netflix board, could they safely roll out a program like the Strong Black Lead Initiative? The reality is that even well-intentioned people can’t fully represent someone else’s perspective, especially not without blind spots. A person’s authentic voice is needed to insure uniqueness of perspective.
The reality is that even well-intentioned people can’t fully represent someone else’s perspective, especially not without blind spots
Does this mean any person of color, woman, or person with a disability can represent all people within their respective groups? Absolutely not. You will find a multiplicity of perspectives on the same topics and issues within each of these groups. However, having each perspective represented by an authentic voice within their representative group makes a huge difference. In fact, having multiple voices within each group whenever possible allows for even broader clarity and assurance that cultural, gender or other experiences are anchored in the right way.
Ultimately, true “diversity of thought” within organizations requires “diversity of representation.” This of course requires a commitment to diversity and real inclusion. There is no acceptable shortcut to making sure that important racial, gender, and cultural perspectives are present other than by representation of those groups in executive leadership and in governance circles.
Evan Frazier, a BMe Public Voices Fellow, is a corporate executive, nonprofit leader, entrepreneur, author and family man.
