When More Diversity Could Actually Mean Less Inclusion
…and what each one of us can do to change that
A group of smart people does not make a group smart1. Organizations are steadily realizing that when a homogeneous group of smart people conforms to a specific line of reasoning (or groupthink), decision making can be suboptimal and that diversity can help alleviate this groupthink.
Significant strides have been made in this march towards greater diversity. A record number of women CEOs are running the largest 500 global companies, all Fortune 500 boards have at least one woman (notwithstanding the fact that a small group of prominent women are directors on multiple boards in the so-called “golden-skirt phenomenon”), Dalits and government ministers of African descent are being elected to office in India and France, same-sex marriage has been legalized in some countries and police behavior is under far more scrutiny than in the past in relation to the treatment of Black people in the US.
However, as organizations embark on their journey to improve diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I), merely focusing on recruiting diverse talent can often lead to a “Noah’s Ark” view of progress - where you get two of each in the ark and say you have accomplished the mission. The arc of progress, though, is not that straightforward.
When diversity ≠ inclusion
Increased diversity efforts might suggest that an organization is truly fair. Ironically, implementation of diversity initiatives may work against the goals of these initiatives, creating an “illusion of inclusion” as Professor Cheryl Kaiser, a professor at the University of Washington, states. This can (and does) happen in several ways:
1. A keystone of diversity is differing experiences and perspectives. But inclusion doesn’t work if the workplace does not encourage and reward exactly those differences.
Trying to judge vastly different people against identical metrics is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
For example, I have often been coached by mentors belonging to a vastly different demographic than me to “speak up and just demand the promotion, or just state how good you are”. Having grown up and worked in the early years of my career in India, some of this has been easier said than done (and may not have always translated seamlessly into actionable desired outcomes). No culture is monolithic, but typical ways of conducting yourself professionally are very different in India as compared to the US. My years in India ingrained in me a “we focused”, “the boss is always right”, and “feedback in the form of implicit suggestions” mentality. Translating that to a professional context in corporate America meant that I often shied away from explicitly and directly talking about accomplishments in an “I did this” manner. A more nuanced and less individualistic approach to claiming credit where it is deserved should not necessarily translate to a worse outcome - but it often can.
Further, even if a minority does flex to behave like the majority, the exact same behavior might not be perceived as equally acceptable coming from different groups. I have several mentors, colleagues, former classmates and female friends echo that they are constantly walking a tightrope - between promoting themselves versus promoting others, stating accomplishments and credentials versus being humble, having career goals versus being seen as overly ambitious, and portraying themselves as self-assured versus seemingly arrogant or overconfident. They often frame it as a choice between being seen as nice or competent, which is not a dilemma that the majority, or dominant group, in the workplace usually faces.
2. Mandated unconscious bias training often does more harm than good - the increased awareness often heightens biases, and several may start walking on eggshells for fear of offending others.
To become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive, many organizations have turned to unconscious bias training for their employees. By raising awareness of unconscious biases, or mental shortcuts that lead to snap judgments about people’s abilities or character (often based on race and gender), such training strives to make recruitment, retention and promotion fairer and improve interactions among different people in the organization.
However, such training often ends up framing the discussion in a way that does not necessarily encourage the participants to take ownership for their bias and be proactive in taking steps to manage it. They can very easily end up feeling like tedious non-voluntary politically correct sermons and cause greater confusion about how one is supposed to behave in diverse company. For example, the majority of male managers may be less inclined to mentor or sponsor women, out of fear that they may make a wrong move or become a target. Not only does this perpetuate the glass ceiling for women, but also denies men the increased access to information and broader networks in their own organization (a benefit often espoused by the few who do mentor women).
3. Diversifying can often feel like a juggling act: increased support to underrepresented groups can leave members of priorly advantaged groups feeling at a disadvantage, resulting in less-than-desired inclusivity.
Data shows that white men are the least committed to diversity - in fact, 15% think their gender will make it harder for them to advance. A Harvard Business review article builds on this, “We found evidence that it (i.e., diversity policies) not only makes white men believe that women and minorities are being treated fairly - whether that’s true or not - it also makes them more likely to believe that they themselves are being treated unfairly.”
Much closer to home, I have friends half jokingly say that their white male toddlers will not get into college in 2040 because they will “just be straight white men from New York City”. This burden of perceived (or real) reverse discrimination can lead to an unhealthy workplace dynamic where formerly advantaged groups feel threatened and excluded by the organization’s push for diversity; and are hence less likely to work towards building a more inclusive atmosphere.
Ways to ensure greater diversity fosters true inclusion
Ensuring that increased diversity translates into commensurate inclusion requires that we collectively reframe our thinking, learn more about others, and readjust how we lead.
1. Pursuing better ways to embrace and understand our differences can unlock greater inclusion.
As we actively seek difference, we need to ensure that it does not leave us culturally challenged in the process. Every person in an organization wants to be seen, understood, and valued for the sum total of unique lived experiences that they bring to the table. However, the more different people are from one another the longer it takes to develop a meaningful working relationship based on trust and comfort with the abilities of the other.
Laura Liswood, leadership and diversity thought leader and author of The Elephant and The Mouse, summarizes the differences between the Elephant (the dominant groups at a workplace) and the Mouse (the minority) very eloquently. Talking about the Elephant, she says:
“The Elephant pretty much goes where it wants to go and is seemingly less concerned about what others think or do because it feels a primacy of being. It trumpets loudly and without edit, focused on what it has to say rather than the impact it might have on others. It seldom appears in doubt or lacking in any sense of self. If there is conflict, the Elephant feels confident it will be victorious, rarely doubting its abilities.”
At the other end of the spectrum, she describes how the Mouse behaves:
“The Mouse has developed some strong skills in looking out for the “other”. It has to be concerned about what the other thinks; it has to hone its telepathic sense with a strong awareness of, if not empathy for, the other. The Mouse can be quite sure it knows a lot about those in its orbit if for no other reason than to get along, outwit, or to be in harmony. Conflict is not its friend. The Mouse develops creative ways to multitask. It can eat and still keep an eye out for what the Elephant is doing.”
It pays off for both the Elephant in the room and the Mouse to get to know each other better - each has a rich perspective based on their lived experiences and can teach the other. In my personal experience, I’ve seen that the best teams know when to utilize the traits of the Elephant when those behaviors best fit the moment and the traits of the Mouse when those are better suited.
The most effective Elephants that I’ve encountered demonstrate interest in and respect approaches that are different from the status quo and ensure that individuals with different styles are included and heard. As the Mouse, I have realized that getting into the habit of sharing your point of view (even if it challenges the collective) and growing comfortable with a healthier balance of “I” vs “we” can help refine your personal brand and maximize effectiveness.
2. Building empathy by putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and having a diverse “personal board” of mentors and allies can go further in fostering inclusion than pointing out inherent biases that each of us might have.
What is easy for one person to do or say might not be as easy for another. Having it pointed out that we are inherently biased often does not make this realization any easier.
Reverse role play or trying to see the world through someone else’s eyes is often more effective. I’ve had a well-intentioned manager who felt that he was helping me in meetings when I was new to a role and team. He’d do this by explaining every time after I had spoken with a “What Opu is trying to say is…”. After this happened several times, I suggested to him that the support he was offering was not what I actually needed - it was not helping develop my credibility with my new stakeholders. We agreed that I needed to drive the conversation myself to build that credibility. We’ve since had a much more nuanced tag-team in tackling even the trickiest of stakeholder interactions.
Taking that a step further, cultivating a diverse panel of mentors and allies that extend beyond employee resource groups (matching like-with-like minorities) and mandated training can often foster greater inclusion and career advancement. Having a supporter who is different from you on multiple parameters batting for you is far more effective.
3. Steering clear of a “diverse/non-diverse dichotomy” and acknowledging that privileged groups also face their own challenges can help protect against a feeling of reverse discrimination.
Stating that an organization is looking to increase its pipeline of “diverse” people implies that there are also “non-diverse” people. By using the term “diverse” as code to describe minorities, more privileged groups can understandably feel that they do not belong or have room to grow in cultures that encourage diversity. This is not only counterproductive to laying the groundwork for a more inclusive organization, it also unfairly assumes that those from privileged groups are monolithic and do not have their own share of, albeit different, challenges.
Reframing these conversations as every individual together contributing to a diverse group can help protect against this harmful perception of reverse discrimination and underscore that we are all responsible for making our places of work diverse, equitable and inclusive with everyone feeling a sense of belonging.
Scott E. Page (Professor at University of Michigan), The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies
(Hustle Fuel represents my own personal views. I am speaking for myself and not on behalf of my employer, Microsoft Corporation.)