Diversity & Inclusion is more than ticking the corporate ‘Ethnicity’ box
It is probably quite controversial to commence this discussion, yet an important conversation to have. Diversity & Inclusion (DNI) has become a topical subject over the last few years across organizations. Senior leadership within companies have approved budgets to ensure their recruitment efforts are diverse, carefully selecting individuals from non-majority backgrounds, steering away from the conventional heterosexual white male employee. While it is truly beneficial to have a diverse workforce, are employers encouraging a different way of thinking within their employees? Are they open to hearing contrasting management styles, and supporting those individuals to succeed? Or are employers just ticking a box to avoid potential backlash across their current and potential new employees? This is where the real discussion begins.
Issue at hand
Unfortunately in many cases, I have seen and experienced an antiquated culture embedded across leadership teams. We promote DNI efforts on the surface, however intrinsically do not share that same enthusiasm and passion when it comes to performance and promotion. If someone lacks certain assertiveness, they are recommended to take “gravitas” training. Management is unable to realize that one can be confident, without being confrontational. We subconsciously force that specific individual to conform themselves to the challenging stakeholder/client/manager for they are in position of power. We disregard the diverse way of thinking, because it is not the same viewpoint shared across the masses. If that particular person is introverted or naturally on the quiet end, they are seen as not a leader. It is forgotten that some individuals are from different regions or cultures — and that so called gravitas may not be part of their core DNA. The notion that leaders must have an opinion to share in a room full of colleagues is reinforced - regardless if that opinion brings any value add to the conversation. Due to the fact we are constantly being watched by our peers, managers and clients, we need to differentiate ourselves from the herd. Yet, introversion and specialized skills do not receive the same amount of respect as being overly vocal and beating the corporate horse to death.
As an individual with multiple diverse angles, I also believed my management style immediately requires alteration due to receiving similar feedback mentioned above. I blindly believed I was not strong enough to handle more responsibility. I let my management guide me into a unnecessary and never-ending vicious cycle of self doubt. I forced myself to exhibit uncharacteristic behaviors to show I am worthy — attempting to bring value at the fictitious table of the inner circle. In reality, all I was doing was detaching myself from my diverse qualities, and conforming to what they wanted me to be: a carbon copy of their “ideal”employee. It was difficult to challenge because this is not an easy topic to discuss. Approaching such a notion would come across discriminatory or racist in some cases. Managers would potentially attempt to get ahead of this accusation and upfront state they were doing the opposite — only assisting and coaching by providing such feedback. However, something always felt off. Development points should not be intimidating and unattainable. In fact, they should be pragmatic with a clear step approach. If that was the case, I would have not physically, emotionally, and mentally felt uncomfortable with the feedback I received. The reality was they were not asking me to challenge myself and step out of my comfort zone. They were asking me to change my values and core beliefs to adapt to their ideology, becoming another mere soldier in their vast, unexceptional army. The diversity element became irrelevant. Inclusion rapidly evaporated.
Change the narrative
Rather than always conforming to the standard, there is an opportunity to expand our way of thinking. All scientific breakthroughs have been established because one person decided to challenge the pre-existing benchmark. Why can we not leverage the same boldness and bravery in the corporate world? Whether or not organizations are conducting a tick box exercise, they are attempting to make their workforce diverse enough — and that is a sincere win. Now it is time to perform due diligence to understand the authenticity behind it. It is time to re-define our DNI efforts, and properly give meaning to this affinity group.
Invest time and listen
The greatest strength behind true diversity is a unique perspective, that is gained along the way — not taught. Individuals from diverse backgrounds can offer problem solving and teachings from their core conditioning. Think of that individual who had to struggle to receive an education that many of us take for granted. Perhaps they had to work throughout their primary schooling and universities to pay for the costs. Imagine a person who is the primary care-taker of their family due to situational circumstances. Maybe that individual was a victim of endless offenses. There are countless permutations that make one individual diverse. The why is less important. It is more about the outcome — perspective, uniqueness, and empowerment. As leaders, it is your responsibility to appreciate and understand these strengths to add value to the overall bottom line. Invest time into these employees after they on-board and allow yourselves to learn about their experiences. Without crossing any lines of professionalism, bring your diverse workforce on a journey to solve critical business needs, rather than forcing them to adhere to the common framework. Schedule training sessions conducted by professionals who are experienced in dealing with various cultures and demographics so new business solutions can be generated, before easily providing “constructive” feedback as a gap in one’s gravitas. Allow your workforce to be themselves, so they can act upon their instincts and stop suppressing their true management styles. In order to be truly successful, we all have to realize that social convention has also conditioned us to think narrowly for ages. It’s the old saying, “Do not fix something that is not broken.” Sure, we all can blindly look away and follow along as we have done so for years. However, if I am recognizing this faulty corporate ideology, others will as well. Perhaps they will not raise their voices, but their resentment will definitely rise. Their morale may deteriorate and attrition rates may potentially be negatively affected. The cycle definitely has a way of perpetuating, yet how long is that truly sustainable?
Change the framework
It is standard (and required) to have a framework where employees are evaluated against throughout a performance year. While the intention is to ensure a guide exists to evaluate employees, majority frameworks are extremely generic. How can this sort of framework apply to countless individuals if many of them are diverse and unique? We should keep in mind that as professionals, leaders and humans, we are exceptions — and performance frameworks need to have exceptions as well. It is fine to leverage the standard language, but we should not take it for face value. We should keep it open for interpretations. For example, a framework may have attributes detailing how to meet expectations, ultimately guiding an individual to reach their goals conventionally. Let’s call this method A. Now imagine an second individual who has understood the framework, but their background and core conditioning allows them to meet the framework expectations in an unorthodox way. They may have a more subtle approach and manage their team in an unprecedented manner. We can call this method B. When it comes to both evaluations, unfortunately method B is not part of the framework and it becomes difficult to give a fair assessment. Does this automatically conclude that method B is incorrect? Does it mean that this person does not deserve the same recognition and praise as the other? The short answer: No. With this mindset, we can also tell our children that there is only one way to study for exams and get into universities. Will we do that? The short answer again: No. So, if we can encourage our children to foster creativity to reach their optimal success, why can we not do the same for our employees? Instead of dismissing method B, we all should be asking the following: Why did they reach a different conclusion? Is there a correlation between their thought process and their diversity? Can we all learn from this?
Think Long-Term
As we progress into a new age of dexterity, it becomes imperative we look after our employees. It will not be an easy task to challenge and it may not work at the first attempt. Perhaps you will fail over and over again. This issue will not solve overnight because there is no precedent that we all can leverage and adapt to, yet. Consistently thinking outside the norm, without a rigid prescription, will ultimately bring you to success that is specific to your workforce. The time has come to ensure diverse people are not being recognized solely for their exterior, but also their strong internal capabilities. Only then, we can stand by our respective DNI affinity groups, and proudly state we are doing it justice.
