July 5th, 2012
I spend a lot of time helping organizations come to a more applicable and activist understanding of inclusion. Inclusion is not a state of mind—it is an activist orientation toward difference. It is about the things that you do to deliberately include additional difference in a group or process.
Every time that I ask managers or leaders if their organization is inclusive, they say yes. It is an automatic response. When I ask them what specific actions they take to include additional difference in groups or processes, they often have no answer. When I ask them what proof they have that they are inclusive, they often have no answer.
Inclusion is not an idea or an attitude. It is action. And action can be substantiated.
Key evidence I ask organizations to look for: balanced outcomes. For example, is your workforce reflective of the talent pool that you have access to? If it is not balanced, if there is a disparity, something is causing it.
This does not mean that there is intentional discrimination taking place or that there is any incompetence involved. The cause may have nothing to do with your organization. But. If you want to truly understand your workforce and your talent pool, and if you want to truly be able to seek out opportunities for advantage … you might want to know what that cause is.
Retention rates different by department? Something is causing that. Do you know what it is? Are there disparities in engagement across race and ethnicity? Something is causing that outcome. Do you know what it is? Is 80% of your nursing workforce female? That is not reflective of the overall workforce. Do you know what is causing it? Is 100% of your executive leadership team male? Do you know what is causing that outcome?
Because you certainly should not be satisfied with it …
Unless of course you believe that men are inherently better executive leaders, that is. And if that is the case (and you have some evidence to support your belief), you should just say so.
But if you do not believe that, then an executive leadership team that is 100% white and male should be a red flag.
Not because there is anything wrong with any of those white men or because any of them has done anything wrong.
But if you believe that competence and talent and vision and courage are evenly distributed, you should very much want evidence that you can access competence and talent and vision and courage regardless of who has it. You should want to know that you can bring the best and brightest into your house, regardless of the packaging they come in. If 100% of your executive leaders are white males, then you do not only have a diversity issue … you have a talent problem and a leadership problem.
If your executive leadership team is 100% white males, it suggests to me that your organization can only find and acquire talent when it comes in a very specific package. And if that is not the case for your competitor, they have the advantage: They can compete in a larger pool of talent. The odds are in their favor.
Accepting unnecessary constraints (intentionally or unintentionally) on the resources that we can put into play as an organization is foolish and dangerous. It is like only using part of the football field. It is like purchasing office space without using it. It is like driving with the parking brake on. It is one of the reasons organizations do not have very long life expectancies.
“In the 1980s, Arie de Geus directed a study for the Shell Group to examine corporate longevity. He and his colleagues looked at large corporations that had existed for over a hundred years, had survived major changes in the world around them, and were still flourishing with their corporate identities intact. The study analyzed twenty-seven such long-lived corporations and found that they had key characteristics in common. One is a strong sense of community and collective identity around a set of common values. The other is openness to the outside world, tolerance for the entry of new individuals and ideas, and consequently a manifest ability to learn and adapt to new circumstances.”
-Fritjof Capra, The Hidden Connections (bolding is mine)
Do you have convincing evidence that your organization (on all levels) is open to the entry of new individuals and ideas?
Be good to each other.
“If 100% of your executive leaders are white males, then you do not only have a diversity issue … you have a talent problem and a leadership problem.” Brilliant. Made me stop and think there – I’ve never considered it from a competitive advantage perspective, but it makes complete sense. A bigger talent pool beats out a smaller one, especially in the long run.
“If your executive leadership team is 100% white males, it suggests to me that your organization can only find and acquire talent when it comes in a very specific package. And if that is not the case for your competitor, they have the advantage: They can compete in a larger pool of talent. The odds are in their favor.”
Yep. Absolutely brilliant thought. Thanks Joe.