The Human Equity Advantage

Beyond Diversity to Talent Optimization

Trevor Wilson

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781118458402
• eBook ISBN: 9781118458495
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Leadership
• Index: Business

A fresh approach to the old problem of "diversity fatigue"

Trevor Wilson, global diversity strategist and visionary leader, presents a fresh, new management model that goes beyond the traditional diversity debate towards inclusion and building human capital. Featuring case studies and practical diagnostic tools and assessments, this book will benefit anyone who is interested in improving their business by building on the unique talents of employees' innate strengths, unique abilities, personality, attitude, life experience and virtues. The agent of this change, the driver of the process, is the equitable leader.

This important book outlines 8 core competencies that will guide leaders to create equitable and inclusive work environments where employees are valued because of, not in spite of, their differences and each person can be recognized and developed to strive for their highest potential.

• Includes a new paradigm for diversity initiatives and finds new solutions
• Reveals the core competencies that help leaders create an equitable and inclusive workplace
• Shows how companies can improve hiring and retention, reduce turnover, increase productivity, improve teamwork, and ultimately increase the bottom line

The Human Equity Advantage gives you the tools to tap into the unique talents and strengths of each employee.

Part One

Beyond Diversity to Human Equity: The Required Shift

Chapter 1

Diversity Fatigue and the Unfulfilled Promise of Diversity

A couple of years ago I met with two dozen leading diversity practitioners to identify some of the toughest challenges they were facing. Among the usual responses, such as lack of leadership buy-in, no effective outreach strategies and challenges empowering employee network groups, there was a new theme. It was a theme that eventually seemed to dominate the entire discussion, yet none of us could quite put our finger on it. Finally someone said, “Our organization is facing diversity fatigue.” That was it: diversity fatigue.

What, you may well ask, is diversity fatigue? It encompasses several things, including the Herculean effort required by diversity practitioners to keep the momentum going amid the toughest economic crisis since the Depression. It is trying to repackage and sell the business case for diversity by showing specific return on investment at a time of limited dollars for any corporate imperative. It is trying to figure out how to creatively communicate diversity in an extremely time-scarce environment when people struggle to do more with less. It is maintaining the gains with front-line managers (the so-called frozen middle) who ask, “When will this diversity thing end? Have we not handled it by now?” It also involves the endless task of breaking down silos among groups that have interest only in their particular dimension of diversity. All this is what we call diversity fatigue.

In July 2007, a leading North American human resources publication called Profiles in Diversity Journal ran a fascinating series of essays entitled “The Pioneers of Diversity.” I was honored to be asked to join the group of 30 leading thinkers to comment on the state of the diversity industry at that point. Each pioneer was asked to write a short essay on where diversity came from, where it is now and where it needs to go next.

Not surprisingly, the pioneers agreed on where diversity came from—that is, when the concept first arose: the 1987 Hudson Institute's study Workforce 2000, which accurately forecast several dramatic changes to the North American workforce. Interestingly, most of the pioneers also agreed on where we are right now: most felt we are at a stalemate, one we've been stuck in for at least the last decade. At the very least, diversity needed a face-lift, if not a transformation. The most intriguing aspect of the essays, however, was the question of where we need to go next. There was virtually no alignment on this important question.

I decided to use this opportunity to formally introduce and write about human equity, which I had started thinking about in 2001. I called the pioneers' essay “Diversity: Ready to Evolve.” I argued that it was time the conversation about diversity evolved from a preoccupation with superficial variations of gender, race and sexual orientation, to focus on the many characteristics that make every person unique. I argued that while the demographic dimensions of diversity could inform who a person is, they could never define that person. I concluded that it was time for human equity, a concept that focuses on maximizing the diverse talents of your total workforce.

It was just recently, on a coffee break from what, until that point, appeared to be a typical diversity executive briefing, that a senior executive of one of the most powerful global Fortune 100 companies turned to me and said: “Diversity is dividing our people. We've got blacks over here, Hispanics over there, gays in one corner, lesbians in the other. It's not working! And we don't know how to fix it. How do I get everyone on the same page when they're only concerned about their own issues?”

Being in the diversity consulting field for over two decades, I might be expected to be frustrated by the executive's comment. Au contraire! I was encouraged—and relieved. Finally, someone in a corner office was waking up to the fact that something is broken in the diversity arena. Two or three years ago, you would not have heard this level of candor, even in a private conversation—political correctness would not allow it. Diversity was a sacred cow, and any criticism of it by executives had the potential of leading to accusations of not being committed, not “getting it” or, heaven forbid, being one of those old boys from the white, privileged, sexist, racist, homophobic power network. Thankfully, it would appear that things are changing and some courageous executives are finally willing to move beyond political correctness and confront the brutal truth about corporate diversity.

More and more, C-level executives are asking those responsible for diversity and human resources, “Are we really making progress?” “What has been the return on investment of all this activity?” and “What difference have you actually made?” The truth is, anyone who has been in the field for more than 20 years has quietly been asking himself or herself the same questions and wondering what we should be doing next.

The best leaders know that in today's demanding market they will have to reinvent their organizations at least every three years. In 2010, the IBM Global CEO study found that almost 70 percent of global CEOs think their current business model is sustainable for only another three years; the other 30 percent believed it may be usable for as long as another five years. As the bestselling author Jason Jennings says in his excellent book The Reinventors:

Today a combination of stagnant Western markets, former third world nations embracing technology and becoming manufacturing powerhouses with middle classes larger than that of the US, technology that makes everything increasingly transparent and customers who believe that they can get exactly what they want when they want it at a price they're willing to pay[,] all add up to a game changing business environment. Anyone who thinks that they'll get a free pass and that they don't have to constantly reinvent their business has their head in the sand.¹

After three decades of diversity, important lessons have been learned about how to do it the wrong way. We are now at a critical juncture in the journey and need to make some tough decisions about which road to take. The diversity industry has clearly hit a wall and needs to reinvent itself. It needs a breakthrough if it is going to be relevant to the business agenda over the next decade.

What are the current problems with diversity? Let's borrow from the David Letterman School of Analysis, counting down from 10.

The Top 10 Problems with Diversity Today

10. Diversity cannot be achieved simply by focusing on improving the representation of women.

9. There is a hierarchy of inequity in diversity that breeds inter-group competition.

8. Success in diversity cannot be measured simply by tracking cosmetic changes in demographic representation.

7. Diversity has been dominated by an American-specific agenda and mindset, despite it being a global issue.

6. Diversity is too focused on “superficial” differences such as race, gender and sexual orientation.

5. Diversity in practice is about equity for some, rather than equity for all.

4. Diversity virtually ignores the importance of leadership behavior.

3. Diversity has not moved beyond awareness education about race, gender, culture and sexual orientation.

2. Diversity is based on a deficit paradigm.

And the last—and most significant—problem with diversity today (drum roll, please) . . .

1. Diversity focuses on groups rather than the individual.

Let's take a closer look at these problems.

Problem 10: Diversity Cannot be Achieved Simply by Focusing on Improving the Representation of Women

In 1962, research scientist Felice Schwartz created Catalyst, which soon became the leading not-for-profit gender research think tank in the United States. Today, this impressive organization works globally with offices in the United States, Canada and Europe, and has more than 400 preeminent member corporations looking to Catalyst for research, information and advice about women in the workforce.

Catalyst is based on a hypothesis Schwartz put forward, also in 1962. She believed that the reason women had not made it to the executive positions in the Fortune 500 multinational corporations was not rooted in mal intent. Rather, it was simply an issue of ignorance. Maybe, she hypothesized, the leaders of these organizations were unaware of the appalling state of affairs surrounding gender representation. That is, they just didn't have all the facts.

In 1993 Catalyst conducted the first census of women in board positions and three years later introduced the Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners. These annual counts are based on the belief that if a credible census of the executive boardrooms and positions were conducted and the numbers were shown to the male executives, they would surely act. These leaders of conscience would be “shamed” into fixing the problem if it was indubitably proven to exist. Thus, the annual Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners, which will soon celebrate its 20th anniversary, was born.

I first attended the very prestigious Catalyst dinner about a decade ago as a guest of one of our international clients, who joined almost every other Fortune 500 company at this impressive event. I had the pleasure of listening to the then global president of Catalyst present the data from the think tank's latest census. She explained that really what she was about to present was the report card on gender issues in the North American corporate world over the past three decades.

“Let's start with the CEO office,” she began. “How many women are currently CEOs of a major Fortune 500?”

I thought to myself, “By now it's got to be over 10 percent,” so 50 women, I figured.

“One!” she announced with relish. “Not 1 percent,” she emphasized. “One. Carly Fiorina at HP. ”

She continued by asking about the level just below CEO. “How many women are direct reports to the CEO?” She was referring to those at the executive vice president level.

Okay, this has to be about 10 percent, I reasoned.

“Four percent!” she announced. She continued to work her way down level by level—5 percent, 7 percent, 9 percent . . . not reaching double digits until the director level, and not reaching close to gender parity until the senior manager level. At this rate, she noted, it will take us 250 years to get to gender parity in the executive offices of the Fortune 500 companies.

If I wasn't already totally shocked by her research, I was by what she said next: “We've just got to work harder.” My head began to spin, and all I could hear was Dr. Phil's voice in my head asking, “How's that working for you?”

“You're telling me that after more than 50 years of researching this issue of gender representation in corporate America and almost 20 years of presenting the representation numbers, the best answer you've got for us is Do more of the same, but just do it harder?” I thought about Einstein's wonderful definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. “Don't you get it, lady? Something is broken!”

In the diversity field, gender is considered the crucible. It was reasoned that if organizations could overcome the attitudinal and systemic issues that lead to the gender representation disparities illustrated by the Catalyst numbers, then they could apply these solutions to all the other underrepresented groups in the workforce. So here we sit, 50 years after Schwartz hypothesized that women were underrepresented at executive levels simply because of ignorance, almost 20 years of credible, comprehensive, bulletproof Catalyst research and almost nothing has changed. In fact, at a recent Canadian Catalyst dinner, I heard the global CEO and president make a virtually identical presentation—only this time she had it recorded on video.

Improving gender representation was always the hope for other underrepresented groups in organizations. If the glass ceiling was broken for women, it would not be long before it was broken for other equity-seeking groups. However, as we can see from the annual Catalyst numbers, progress has been glacial and it may be time to look to another strategy to diversify the workforce.

Problem 9: There is a Hierarchy of Inequity that Breeds Inter-Group Competition

Years ago, when I was in government pushing for the kinder, gentler Canadian version of Affirmative Action, which we called Employment Equity, I watched an impressive presentation about the discrimination faced by gay men in the workforce. The group presenting had done an admirable job of collecting enough data to prove that homosexuals were in fact facing as much discrimination in the Canadian workforce as any other equity-seeking group. Thus, they argued that they too should be considered a designated group under the proposed employment equity legislation.

Now, this was more than two decades ago, so the likelihood that any politician in his or her right mind would make homosexuals a designated group under affirmative action was “snowball in hell” territory. It was a compelling presentation nevertheless. Yet, I sat in the audience, having a different conversation in my mind.

“You know, that's mildly interesting about homosexuals,” I said to myself, “but frankly what they have to say doesn't affect me. Women have got theirs and I want mine. You gay guys will get yours right after my group (i.e., visible minorities). If it's between your group and mine—mine comes first.”

Years later, my hero, Nelson Mandela, would name this interesting condition “the hierarchy of inequity,” whereby my inequity is more pressing or more important than your inequity—a very human but counterproductive mindset. More on that later.

Many of the leading Fortune 500 corporations have created internal networking groups for women, ethnic minorities, gays, people with disabilities, Aboriginals, and so on. At least one major global corporation boasts more than 100 internal advocacy groups, including one for straight, white, able-bodied males (SWAMs). What, you may ask, are these groups up to? Are they working on improving the bottom line of their company? Maximizing shareholder value? Identifying productivity inefficiencies? Nope. By and large, these groups are concentrating on their own agendas and how to get the corporation to pay more attention to their issues—which ultimately means paying less attention to the issues of the other groups.

Recently, an “inclusiveness change agent” in a major Fortune 500 company confided to me that she had been chastised by her head office's executive champion for gender issues about los...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Foreword by Lamarr Lark
• Foreword by Gerry Bouey
• Part One: Beyond Diversity to Human Equity: The Required Shift
• Part Two: Implementing Human Equity
• Part Three: Measuring Human Equity
• Conclusion: The Why of Human Equity
• Afterword: My Why of Human Equity
• Appendix
• Glossary
• Special Offer!
• Index