“This diversity stuff just doesn’t work. We’ve been hiring women and minorities like crazy,” shared a client. “Our culture is in worse shape than it was before.”
This fellow isn’t alone in his doubts and frustration when first trying out this “diversity thing.” Unsure of what diversity really is but feeling internal and external pressure to have more of it, companies opt to simply define it as “making the numbers.” They then task HR with hiring more women and minorities, and that’s when their troubles begin.
Women and minorities dropped into an intolerant environment recognize early on that they’re just tokens, numbers on a spreadsheet. When the work environment fails to become inclusive over time, issues escalate—destructive conflict, lowered employee satisfaction, and turnover.
When these problems occur in less evolved and less aware organizations, the “diversity initiative” is labeled a failure, and the folks in HR lose their jobs, especially those who had the audacity to advocate that diversity was needed.
Have you ever worked at a company where you saw this scenario unfold?
“We’re so quick to go to make things black and white, and to put things in their box.” ~Matisyahu, aka Matthew Paul Miller, musician
Two key “gets”
However, there are organizations where none of these downsides happen after a commitment is made to having greater diversity. Why not? Because these companies do two things differently:
1) They “get” differences. They broaden the definition of workplace diversity beyond the obvious items of sex, race, ability, and age to include the less obvious but highly impactful and unseen differences of thought, opinion, and perspective. They “get” that differences don’t have to be divisive. These organizations see differences, despite how uncomfortable they are to manage, as the particles of sand that create the pearls of success.
2) They “get” paradox. Paradoxical situations involve a pair of interdependent and interconnected forces that define each other and represent a continuum of choice, such as long- and short-term or quality and quantity. The dynamic that exists between the two elements is ongoing, recurring, often complicated, and sometimes contentious. However, long-term success requires paying attention to both elements. In companies where there’s been little emphasis placed on valuing and practicing diversity, the status quo has gotten comfy dealing with only one element of a paradox. Results are preferred to building relationships. Efficiency gets the nod over effectiveness. Competition, not collaboration, is the default.
In organizations that successfully manage difference and paradox to capitalize on diversity, The B Team has identified the existence of four attributes: cooperation, individual accountability, inclusion, and respect.
For these attributes to surface as the norm, five paradoxes—cooperation and competition, inclusion and exclusion, respect and challenge, freedom and accountability, and results and relationship—have been effectively managed and rewarded.
5 leadership paradoxes that maximize diversity
Cooperation and competition
Staying ahead of the competition will never go out of style. Yet that should be an external facing mindset, not an internal one. There’s no “gotcha” when dealing with a colleague—everyone is on the same team.
In companies that “get” differences and paradox, the focus on who is in the “in-group” and who is in the “out-group” has been replaced with shared focus on achieving company goals. Everyone plays in the same sandbox; and they are expected to, and held accountable for, playing nice.
Inclusion and exclusion
This one might seem a little counterintuitive, but not everyone can be a part of everything that happens at work. In the organizations that “get” diversity, expectations, roles, and responsibilities are clearly defined and communicated before, not after, the fact.
People understand that their knowledge, skills, and abilities are directed to the work that makes the overall greater good possible. People are included where their contribution is the greatest while understanding that they, along with their co-workers, all play an important role in achieving company goals.
Respect and challenge
Conflict is a normal by-product of diversity and should be encouraged, not ignored or tamped down.
People who use paradoxical both/and leadership assure that conflict remains healthy and constructive, practicing what philosopher Theo de Boer calls epochè, which is a “temporary suspension of the truth of one’s own conviction,” as they interact with others. Values aren’t allowed to harden into dogmas that stifle creativity and innovation.
Freedom and accountability
This pair is the classic push/pull of preserving the core while stimulating progress.
In companies where diversity is leveraged for positive economic and engagement results, leaders use paradox to encourage ideas and change, acknowledging that’s the path to innovation and ongoing relevancy. They hold people accountable for making results happen, yet make room for learning from failure.
Result and relationship
Ah, the eternal issue leaders and managers face.
While effective leaders never lose sight of the bottom line, they don’t favor profits to the exclusion of all else. Rather, they foster and maintain an equal emphasis on profits, principle, and people. Additionally, they hold those around them accountable for doing the same.
Recognizing and managing differences and paradox requires time, effort, and awareness, but what a worthwhile payoff it delivers.
Ready to flex some leadership muscle to “get” difference and paradox?
What say you?
Image source before quote added: Pixabay
