I alone can’t do it. Can you?
After all, it’s hard to have diversity without people. Not even the most adept cost cutters and top-tier value engineers have figured out how to achieve diversity without people. Not to put it past some to try…but everyone needs someone to help them succeed.
Differences in people and between teams within organizations should be embraced. Awareness, adaptation, and inclusion are the catalysts through which the raw materials of diversity are set in motion. No amount of stand alone best-in-class attributes will yield an advantage for your company or organization on its own. Someone still has to put it all together. Or at least try.
Adaptive behavior has become a mode of corporate necessity. Survivors at all levels of the organization’s hierarchy continue to exhibit remarkable adaptability. It has become considerably more difficult to navigate within organizational waters. Like never before, survival out in the swirl and white water chop of Corporate America requires not just having the right set of paddles but constantly finding new ways to use them.
This illustrates both the spirit and essence of adaptive behaviors. If individuals can do it, why do many organizations come up short in this area? Maybe organizations do not automatically equal the sum of their parts?
Despite attempts to standardize, defining diversity remains a relative and subjective pursuit. Taking a closer look at diversity through a lens that sees beyond the word’s most obvious and traditional definitions is a necessary first step. The main point here is that the definition of diversity most often depends on who is defining it.
For example, Augusta National Golf Club’s diversity for years has been and perhaps still is best defined by its exclusion. With the exception of a few notable inclusions, Augusta has somewhat infamously been able to rest on its status as a private organization as it defines diversity or its lack thereof. Each and every May, TV cameras, spectators, and advertising dollars still flock to these sacred grounds of golf. Membership must have its privileges after all.
In relative obscurity when compared to our Augusta National example, business owners, organizations, and leaders within them also tend to define diversity in their own terms. I guess that’s how they know when they get it right. While they get some help from the legal system and regulatory agencies, diversity that goes beyond the tenets of the U.S. Constitution is definitionally inconsistent and subjective.
There are many aspects to diversity, inclusion and adaptability. And with these aspects come implications for organizational effectiveness and corporate life. While the Augusta example walks along the cart paths of race, ethnicity, and gender, issues of diversity in organizations are characterized by more subtle and in many cases less fundamental differences.
After all, it’s not enough just to hire people whose presence on the employee rolls allows HR to check off the necessary boxes on EEO reports. Thinking that employing the best and brightest from every walk of life and a variety of different cultures is the end is like thinking that the world’s finest food ingredients will magically assemble themselves into the perfect meal.
Obviously, it just doesn’t work that way. For as a chef must do in the kitchen, an organization must similarly take proper care and measure to achieve the successful blend of its handpicked ingredients. Without careful attention, the result ends up being something less than the sum of its parts.
Inability to Blend
It can be argued that most organizations demonstrate an inability to optimize blend. And that failing to do so hurts organizational effectiveness.
Do employees receive the right diversity cues from their organization and its leaders?
Is there organizational acceptance for sharing ideas that may differ from the organization’s conventional wisdom?
Does the organization stand by as managers consistently fill their teams with people just like them?
Are employees allowed to be themselves?
When enough of the answers to these questions or questions like these turn out to be, “no”, “never”, “not enough”, or “not really” , the resulting environment is almost certain to carry with it a real or perceived political risk associated with engaging in behaviors that can actually strengthen organizational effectiveness. It is downright ironic from an organizational behavior point of view because the enterprise essentially robs itself of basic connections needed to make its diversity current flow.
Consequently, the collective sum in organizations like these will not add up.
Some amount of diversity leakage occurs when employees feel that they are not allowed to be themselves when performing their particular work role. If employees do not feel comfortable being themselves at work, the organization loses potential contribution and connectivity. In a classic statistical sense , over-constraining variables results in suboptimization of the output variable.
If the organization does not send a message that it values some amount of constructive differences within its walls, then the individuals within these walls will be unlikely to value differences. They will become less likely to express themselves or interact with those who they perceive might be just a little bit off the corporate mark. Consequently, the connections that trigger the sparks of innovation remain disconnected.
Rolling It Up
Diversity disconnects like this very naturally and effortlessly roll up to departments, business units, and divisions. They parallel organizational structure with uncanny accuracy. If one functional discipline or business unit always dominates, the attributes of others are suppressed. The largest animals in the jungle continue to be fed while others possessing other very useful and adaptive attributes are left to compete for the scraps.
In the animal kingdom, these may include possessing lightning speed, having acute night vision, or being able to fly. In a corporate sense, these attributes may center around technology, customer service, or market adaptations. If budget dollars and other resources always flow to the department or business unit with the biggest clout or most current success, the environment becomes primed for complacency and stagnation.
Myopic self-imposed barriers become limiting factors for organizational adaptation as the big dogs keep doing the same things and fail to innovate. This becomes extremely dangerous because this is exactly when disruptive market behavior of competitors can go unnoticed. Ostriches with their heads in the sand have trouble seeing what’s coming at them. By the time they look up, it may well be too late.
Benefits of Blend
All this said, it is obviously extremely difficult to run an organization in a way that maximizes diversity through adaptive behaviors at individual, department, business unit, and enterprise levels. After all, this must be achieved while at the same doing such mundane and existential things as protecting market share and delivering required financial returns. It becomes a full-time job on top of what already is one.
For a corporate culture to even make any movement toward this idyllic amalgamic state, its leaders must nudge it forward. To do so requires some key people at the top holding the belief that the “benefits of blend” outweigh homogenous efficiencies. After all, business does not and should not see itself primarily in terms of a social mission. To be sure, business is a capitalist pursuit, and success is its imperative.
In the end, this really is what we’ve been talking about here all along – corporate success achieved through organizational effectiveness. Diversity is not an end state. What’s important is getting the benefits of blend. I alone can’t do it. Can you?