My thoughts on diversity and inclusion ...

I must admit that much of the narrative in the news media about this subject has left me a bit confused. Raising questions is at one’s own risk. You may be labeled racist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobic, fascist, or worse. At my age, I don’t have much to lose and a great deal to gain from a much-needed dialogue.

Let me start by saying that I support both notions. Much richness can come from diversity of ideas, philosophy, and approach. Similarly, inclusion ensures the encouragement and support of diversity. However,  not everyone is on the same page when it comes to what these two words mean.

Diversity

Merriam-Webster defines diversity as “the quality of being composed of many different elements or types.” Without diversity, sameness leads to boredom and lack of excitement.

There is ample organization research that highlights the benefits of groups and teams with different thinking and learning styles. Groups and teams diverse in thinking and learning can be more productive and produce more creative and perhaps more innovative solutions.

David Kolb created the well-known model that describes and measures the cycle of four learning elements: concrete experience, observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts, and testing in new situations.

The celebrated Johan Wolfgang Goethe was quoted to say:  “thinking can be more interesting than knowing but less interesting than looking.” Robert Bramson identified five thinking styles: Synthesists, Idealists, Analyst Thinkers, and Realist Thinkers.

Kolb and Bramson suggest that the more we know somebody, the better we can adapt our style.  Each of these styles makes a unique contribution to group and team problem solving. A team or group that lacks one or more of these learning and thinking styles will often produce less creative and innovative solutions. In my 30 plus years of practice as an organization consultant I saw this principle in action numerous time.

The great Albert Einstein reminded us that politics is more difficult than physics. I could not agree more! The Politically Correct have morphed these concepts to include team or group members’ color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and religious background. I have yet to see empirical studies that prove the notion that these factors by themselves make a group or team more productive, more creative, or more innovative.

Statements and pronouncements by academics and corporate leaders that these factors contribute to better results are not supported by any studies that I have read. I would welcome someone to point them out to me, if I have overlooked them.

Diversity

Diversity, in my view, is primarily an issue of legal compliance. That is, it measures the extent to which an organization is socially responsible when it comes to hiring, selection, promotion, and the distribution of rewards. It is common for corporations to have a management position responsible for monitoring the corporation’s demographics and taking actions to remedy low representation in any of the EEO categories.

The law requires equal opportunity. I wholeheartedly support the law. The government will penalize lack of compliance. Managers or leaders that are suspect of discrimination can be punished or dismissed.

Inclusion

Inclusion to me is more than a compliance issue, it is a cultural issue. The legal justification, if any, might be to encourage equal access. Company strategy encourages and supports a harmonious work environment where people of all kinds work together collaboratively to achieve company objectives. Management commitment and dispensation of rewards reinforce this notion. It is then about teamwork, collaboration, and trust, essential ingredients to candor and openness in communications.

Inclusion is pursued not in the name of productivity or improved quality of problem solving; instead it is encouraged for its own intrinsic value and contribution to employee satisfaction. As a result, inclusion can produce better employee retention. High turnover has many undesirable consequences ranging from higher costs, disruption, and possible quality glitches by replacement staff.

Implications

Doctor Martin Luther King encouraged us to judge one another not on the basis of the color of our skin, but on the quality of our character.  I fear that corporate practices can drift to the opposite direction where emphasis is not on merit, but on color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, and religious persuasion. If my observation is correct, we are moving backwards not forwards.

By focusing on external variables such as the demographics we risk dumbing down the organization. If we de-emphasize performance, capability, and motivation, we risk the benefits that come from competition.

Social and cultural experiments can have unintended consequences. Professor Jerry B. Harvey, in one of his popular books The Gunsmoke Phenomenon warns us about groupthink and the mob rule. Groups, when locked in this mode, can drive out folks with differing ideas and perspective by labeling them racists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and worse.  Purging folks who disagree with us is totalitarian and the opposite of what our pursuit of inclusion implies.

I fear any kind of police in the work place. I have seen the cultural police and EEO police in action in several client companies. They devastate candor, openness, and trust, and they leave behind a trail of devastation in people’s career path.

What are your thoughts on this subject?