Why understanding diversity is like unravelling a tangled ball of string

Social reality is infinitely complicated, confused and puzzling…. Society can be thought of as a ball of tangled strings…. All of the explanations are true but they are also partial and therefore in a way untrue, because they do not comprehend the complexity of the ball of strings.”

- John Isbister

Most companies think of diversity primarily in the context of race and gender.

They create metrics/KPIs and quotas to get to a number which is supposed to mean they are now more diverse.

Understanding the dynamics of diversity

Let’s come at this from a human center — If race or gender is thought of as a form of social organization premised on a sense of belonging, it can then be understood to be a mechanism for self propagation i.e. groups with a common sense of belonging will grow based on that common thread and because that common thread creates a social network from which they self select. This should not necessarily be equated with exclusion, but as how societies organize. This self propagation based on belonging is a natural human condition, which can often be seen in the clustering which occurs in transplanted populations, like emigrant enclaves in most major cities.

How do groups propagate?

Groups propagate on the basis of belonging; a sense of being part of something more. In the case of any organization, the leadership team consciously or unconsciously sets the tone for how the business grows.

Once a leadership team is established it will self select to grow — akin to what happens in playgrounds across the country — trying to pick the best team. Best teams are picked based on a motivation to win — who in my experience can make us win or displays characteristics or attributes that I associate with winning?

Two factors emerge here: one is adding value (“winning”) and if we believe that there is a value that accrues from being a more diverse organization, then any intervention based on diversity should target the core (value creating) areas. Why? Because cultures reproduce the best examples of themselves. This is why if the approach is one of simply making up the numbers, for example through support functions or non-core areas, it often will not self propagate, so managing the quota becomes an annual exercise and often, a futile one.

Secondly, the organization must be welcoming, because self propagation will only be achieved if these diverse elements/groups are welcomed and become ambassadors of your organization. This hastens the development of a self sustaining model, because these groups will be able to reach into their networks and self select the best and brightest. This only works if these evangelists feel genuinely welcomed, are doing well and feel valued for their contribution. Decades of a focus on quota-fulfilment has bred a lot of cynicism among the top talent within the same communities that are in demand.

In global organizations this is even more applicable because their diversity strategy should not be based on factors which exist in only one geography as the roadmap for everywhere they operate — in other words, a US diversity design should not be applied to India or Europe based on the same criteria but based on the understanding of how groups organize and propagate in those countries.

Why does it matter? — A business perspective.

A compelling business case can be made for the strategic impact of diversity. Regardless of how it is defined, diverse organizations have the opportunity to access talent from many other subgroups within the larger population simply by showcasing the existence and successes of such underrepresented folk within their community. This is the “if that person can do it, so can I” effect.

However you think about it, this impact is undeniable — the power of available role models is inherent in the decisions talented people make about the opportunities they decide to access.

What organization would not want to benefit from such an advantage? While in most cases it is discussed in the context of bringing different perspectives and social equity, at a macro level it allows access to the best and brightest out of the population by opening up new perceptions of possibility and identity — an optionality which would not have previously been considered.

Think about it another way — If you are creating and selling products for sale to the US population is it likely that your organization will be more successful if it is made up solely of gay SE Asian women from middle-income SoCal households who all pledged kappa kappa theta at their colleges?

That would be derided as a ridiculous thought, but substitute straight white Christian males from the country club set and you’ve just described the non-Jewish investment banks of the 60s/70s. Or Madison Avenue in the 60s. It didn’t seem so ridiculous then. Those organizations changed because they realized that the world was changing and there was a value in evolving to suit. As it was then, so it is today.

Applying it to the business

Diversity however it is defined (race, gender, religion, sexuality, is premised on belonging; because something about you, in some cases external to you, either results in your perception that you belong to a particular group or creates the perspective that you are a member of a particular group. This is important because self propagation begins here, and while there may be the core facets of belonging as identified in the center of the Diversity Wheel (see figure below), individuals may opt to belong to one or multiple groups and this may change at different times in their career.

The Diversity Wheel

(Source: Loden and Rosener)

At the same time, the interaction of diverse teams also creates alignment around new themes of belonging. One will be based on value creation (the best example of themselves) but others would be social — sports, religious beliefs, nationality, etc. Just as important as diversity is the commonality that reinforces such a sense of belonging. This is one part of the conversation that is missing — companies that aspire to be more diverse often find that without achieving a “fit” at some level; their candidates resign and look for work elsewhere. That “fit”, that commonality, helps make businesses more diverse.

What should a business do?

Be clear on the drivers behind meeting their diversity challenge. This perhaps is the most important step — are we trying to avoid risk or enhance value?

Make it easier to start having the conversations. Reframing the challenge around mechanisms of social organization and a sound business case and enrolling the organization in solving this challenge creates the opportunity to make it more constructive, reduces the fear of saying the wrong thing and allows it to be less emotional. This only works if we recognize that every solution will be a partial solution.

Recognize the existence of the different groups and the fact that people may belong to more than one group. Understand the current state — the who and the what as well as the prevailing perceptions. Be conscious of the dominant groups and the under-represented groups in your organization.

Build a pathway that can be followed; with guide posts along the way. Very much like sporting organizations, it is not sufficient merely to identify the need, for example — a more diverse population of coders. What is also required is an understanding of the journey it takes to get there successfully — not just for those who are selected (“the golden ticket”), but for every child who has a dream of becoming a technology titan, whether as an employee or as a CEO. Imagine if every child from those under-represented communities understood how to make that happen, the way they all seem to know how to get onto a professional league sports team.

Create interfaces between groupings that allow for a second level of commonality to develop. The key here is to open up the opportunities to create a “fit” on a different level. This will not happen naturally; organizations often do a good job of having group identities emerge but often fall short on mechanisms for creating a sense of belonging beyond the external perceptions which define most groupings.

What should we measure?

Instead of “how do we get more diverse numbers?”, the questions we should be asking ourselves are:

• “How do we articulate the value that diversity brings to the organization?”
• “How can a diverse population be best deployed to realize that value?”

Again, if we take it as read that there is a value to ensuring some level of diversity, we now have to figure out how to realize that value in the the optimal manner.

What are the tangible benefits that we can expect, or hypothesize, from a diversity strategy that is more evolved than quotas and that optimizes our pipeline development? What happens if we get this right?

• More value created where it counts, even with the same numbers of diverse individuals
• A higher level of performance from those traditionally under-represented as they see themselves (and others acknowledge them) as value-adding and not as window dressing
• A marked increase in the ability of the under-represented to powerfully articulate their experiences at the evolved organization, thus better able to entice the best and brightest of their set to come on board (self selection)
• A re-balancing of the proportions of the under-represented in non-technical vs. technical areas — which boosts morale, undercuts the perception that it’s all a numbers game and eradicates the unofficial caste system
• A new culture at the organization which can be creatively quantified to change the conversation as to what diversity can really mean — being a thought and practice leader as opposed to struggling to meet quotas and hold on to the best under-represented talent
• A sustainable, virtuous cycle of happier, more fulfilled employees; an organization perceived as more equitable, with an increased openness to deeper, different conversations (no more walking on eggshells around the ‘other’) — now we can discuss openly and agree. Or not.
• HBR article and HBS case study: “Company X cracks the diversity conundrum — and guess what? The answer wasn’t as simple as quotas or more training!”

In conclusion, a new interpretation is required — a reframing of the conversation and the measures/indicators of diversity. Furthermore, we may want to consider a framework which recognizes that diversity and group dynamics have as one of their foundational elements, commonality.

Diversity is a very complex issue with which many organizations struggle. It requires extensive discourse. It is not the intention of this article to be an exhaustive exploration of this topic — it is an attempt to reframe the conversation and to identify useful starting points for a journey.

Let’s start tugging at the strings.

www.bridgeone.co

References:

Loden, Marilyn and Judy Rosener. Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource. Ed. Jeffrey A. Krames. United States: Irwin Publishing, 1991. Print.