![]()
1 Dismantling diversity management
To me, it really seems visible today that ethics is not something exterior to the economy, which, as technical matter, could function on its own; rather, ethics is an interior principle of the economy itself, which cannot function if it does not take account of the human values of solidarity and reciprocal responsibility.
āPope Benedict XVI
If the future is to resemble the past less, if diversity inertia is to be overcome, and if better social justice outcomes are to be achieved, then we need to lay a stronger foundation upon which our diversity management strategies can be created and built. In order to do so, institutional transformations have to take place. This requires courage from senior executives and leaders. The time to develop this courage is now. Now is the time to dismantle traditional diversity management frameworks, to make informed judgments about which elements are best left in the past and which are best to carry into the future, and to determine what novel approaches are required to meet the demands of the twenty- first-century business environment.
We may be doing ourselves, and others, an enormous disservice, to say nothing of wasting an inordinate amount of time and resources, if we ignore the detrimental impacts that unhealthy, unethical organizations can have on an individualās sense of self-worth, hope for the future, and belief in business leadership. While the journey to social justice is epic, and often frustrating for people still working toward social justice, we can be using our time more wisely. This chapter outlines several reasons examining why it is time to dismantle traditional diversity management frameworks.
Short-termism and shareholder primacy
Diversity management theories and practices are positioned within the wider model of the business economy. Traditionally, behavior in this economy has been fueled by short-term profit maximization. This mentality is very much represented in current diversity management thinking and discourse. Organizations are looking for economic āquick winsā and āsilver bullets.ā
In his article, āThe fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities,ā Mike Noon (2007) states:
Employers take a short-term focus for business reasons; not least the requirement in the private sector to satisfy the needs of financiers and shareholders ā¦ If the benefits of equal opportunity initiatives are only realizable five to ten years in the future, they are considerably less persuasive for managers required to produce short-term benefits for their shareholders and who might themselves have performance bonuses based on short-term targets.
The setting of short-term numerical targets to improve demographic representation of underrepresented groups is widespread. However, it is an approach that is unsustainable, unenlightened, and unhelpful.
Diversity management strategies are most effective when they are based upon strong data linked to business performance. Within the tradition of diversity management, there is an established practice of collecting demographic data related to legally protected characteristics. These characteristics include race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status/civil partnership, pregnancy/maternity, and gender identity. It is considered best practice for organizations to capture this data. Nonetheless, because there is often a lack of clarity and leadership around the diversity management agenda, many organizations express insecurity when it comes to collecting such data. This data, however, is what makes it possible for diversity and inclusion researchers to conduct their work, and to draw conclusions about organizational effectiveness.
Frequently, diversity management initiatives are focused upon improving organizational demographics. For instance, it is often said that organizations need more women on Boards, or that we need more women in the tech industry. Clearly, measurements need to be in place in order to demonstrate whether or not diversity objectives are met. If thorough disciplined data collection is not achieved, diversity management is relegated to a quasi-scientific profession. Strong data is required in order to prove points. If practitioners are prevented from collecting this data, then it makes it impossible for them to legitimize their practice.
Demographic data alone, however, is not the only, or best, measure of effective diversity management. We also need data that explores the ethical climates that can be analyzed in relation to demographic data. Organizations may do well achieving short-term wins, and increasing the number of people from underrepresented groups, but the organizational cultures within which these people have to work may still be riddled with prejudice, poor decision-making, corporate corruption, and a variety of other ethical issues.
Achieving greater social justice for all people, through diversity management, is no quick fix. Many of us who are committed to social justice embarked upon an epic journey several decades ago. It has been, and continues to be, hard work, requiring much more than just soft skills. We are faced with an intricate and delicate puzzle that demands leadership, diplomacy, vision, endurance, patience, and fortitude. Having strategic business skills is not enough; getting diversity management right is a fine balance of leadership and participative governance.
Confusion about the diversity management agenda and what it seeks to achieve
Diversity management has a long-standing history of focusing on equal opportunities for certain historical minority groups. This focus has created opportunities for individuals who are members of those groups protected by anti-discrimination legislations, for example women, minority ethnic groups, people with disabilities, etc. This singular focus within an organization can been seen as contentious and divisive, as creating an unfair advantage, or as setting up different standards of behavior or performance for certain protected characteristics, such as women, people with disabilities, people from minority ethnic groups, etc.
This often results in a lack of buy-in to the legitimate rights of minorities to be on the receiving end of affirmative action (in a United States of America construct) or positive action (in a United Kingdom construct). This is a difficult reaction, particularly when people who belong to a historically privileged group, legitimize inequalities and de-legitimize the differences between them and those who have been less advantaged and underprivileged.
Organizations that do not properly communicate the reasons, and the needs, for this equalities approach, are running the risk of creating a culture of perceived exclusion and favoritism. This can result in fractious internal employee relations, and an overall dissatisfaction with an organizationās diversity management position. In order to avoid this, it is essential that the leaders within an organization have a fully-formed holistic approach to diversity management, an approach that balances out the needs of all individuals while, at the same time, addresses the unique circumstances of those for whom equity and social justice has not been achieved.
In addition, diversity discomfort, the inability to speak openly and freely about differences, and of how they can be of enormous benefit, remains high for many. This is especially true in environments that give weight to being politically correct. In such circumstances, it is difficult to value and to respect diversity. But, if it is not possible to value difference, then it is also not possible to create inclusive cultures. The challenge of executive leadership is to help people unpick and debunk false notions of equality, diversity, and inclusion, and to understand how to utilize and apply the concepts of diversity, and inclusion strategically and systematically.
Too little engagement
The worlds of human resources and organizational development are predicated on the importance of employee engagement. According to a Harvard Business Review report, in 2013,1 employee engagement has become a top priority of senior executives. It is widely understood and appreciated that high levels of employee engagement yield better business performance and bolster growth. Furthermore, literature on employee engagement points to the importance of engagement in enabling organizations to be effective. There is much less research on the concept of leadership engagement, which is the key ingredient to diversity management absent for a majority of diversity management strategies.
Most companies have far from healthy levels of employee engagement. Gallupās State of the Global Workforce Report 20132 shows just how dire employee engagement is. Of the worldās workforce, only 13 percent of employees are positively engaged, which means that up to 87 percent of the worldās employees are disengaged in their work, and in their organizations. What are they doing when they turn up for work? On top of that, the same report shows that 89 percent of the worldās executive leaders are disengaged. That means only 11 percent of the worldās executives are engaged in their organizations.
What leads executives to believe that their organizations can be effective without their engagement and participation? Why is it that the onus is usually put upon the staff, and little responsibility and accountability finds its way into the C-Suite? Is this thinking a hangover from the traditional command and control models of managerialism that may be impeding development and progress? The traditional view of engagement is seriously flawed.
When everyone is paid by the same organization, when every individualās name is on the payroll, does that not by definition make everyone a member of the same workplace community? I have always been stupefied by how some senior executives do not see themselves as employees, and hence divorce themselves from those to whom employee engagement pertains. The C-Suite apartheid from staff must not be carried into the future; it needs to be abolished. Senior executives need to make themselves visible and accessible as individuals.
Fear among senior executives
The full willingness of senior executives and leaders to engage in diversity education, dialogs, strategy-building, and initiatives is paramount to successful and effective diversity management. They are the ones who have to lead diversity management initiatives. Doing this convincingly and effectively requires personal exposure of imperfections. This is difficult to do if there is an overwhelming fear among executives of appearing weak or losing face if they acknowledge and show different dimensions of themselves. How many senior executives are brave enough to state publicly their own personal prejudices, and the myriad of ways in which they discriminate, either explicitly or implicitly, for and against others on a regular basis? Who in their right mind would make such an admission, in climates that are insulated by fear of punishment, political correctness, and human denial?
Roger Jones articulates what it is executives are paranoid about, and the impact of these fears and their consequences. He states:
ā¢ The biggest fear is being found to be incompetent, also known as the āimposter syndrome.ā This fear diminishes their confidence and undermines relationships with other executives.
ā¢ Their other most common fears, in descending order, are underachieving, which can sometimes make them take bad risks to overcompensate; appearing too vulnerable; being politically attacked by colleagues, which causes them to be mistrustful and overcautious; and appearing foolish, which limits their ability to speak up or have honest conversations.
ā¢ The five top fears resulted in these dysfunctional behaviors: a lack of honest conversations, too much political game playing, silo thinking, lack of ownership and follow-through, and tolerating bad behaviors.
ā¢ Asked to think about the fallout from those dysfunctional behaviors, the executives mentioned more than 500 consequences. Those mentioned most frequently were poor decision-making, focusing on survival rather than growth, inducing bad behavior at the next level down, and failing to act unless thereās a crisis.
This may well account for the lack of engagement that we see from senior executives within the context of diversity management. Fear of exposure is very real. What may happen as a consequence of it is that there is a distinct lack of senior role modeling and leadership, which in turn alienates the wider workforce, and creates cynicism and disbelief.
In many organizations, diversity and inclusion training is rolled out to middle managers and below. Senior executives, if they do not exempt themselves, will allot themselves a very small amount of time, perhaps an hour or two, to be trained as a group. Often little or no time is given to individual senior executives for their personal development. This too must change.
A flawed concept of diversity champions
There are three types of diversity champion. The first supports an idea or cause publicly. The second is an expert, a virtuoso, someone who has dedicated time and energy into a subject area, and who is adept in a chosen field. The third is a combination of the first two, someone who wields organizational power and diversity knowledge and expertise.
Many organizations fall into the trap of selecting the first type of diversity champion. They give executive and senior leaders with positional power, but little expertise, the title of diversity champion. These champions are not experts, and often are just figureheads. Their influence is symbolic rather than substantive.
Senior executives cannot be effective leaders of others if they, as leaders, have not taken the time to clarify the diversity agenda for themselves. Their lack of knowledge, clarity, and conviction transmits to others in the wider culture, making it difficult to define clear leadership and ownership of the diversity management agenda. Without this leadership and ownership it is almost impossible to effect long-term, sustainable improvements in social justice outcomes through diversity management. Their power may even block the effectiveness of diversity experts within organizations, thus making it challenging for diversity virtuosos to truly succeed in helping their organizational cultures transform.
Labeling anyone who lacks the knowledge, skills, or ability in the field of diversity management as diversity champions could be seen as a trivialization of diversity management, and as an affront to skilled experts. This is one practice of the past that has to be questioned and examined more fully.
We need more people in the C-Suite who are diversity experts and virtuosos, not just rubber-stamping champions. To be a true champion of anything requires a certain level of personal dedication of time and energy. Through this commitment, one develops knowledge and expertise that breeds excellence.
In the past, when legal compliance was the bare minimum needed to give an organization a license to operate, symbolic leadership was more acceptable. In the twenty-first century, the operating license has shifted to emphasize the equal, if not greater, importance of an organization and its leaders having moral legitimacy. Consequently, the credibility of leaders who are simply figureheads is diminished. Alongside this, the chance of the diversity management initiatives they promote having any true and sustainable impact on social justice outcomes within their organizations is also diminished. The best outcome is seen in those organizations that have diversity champions who have power and knowledge at the base of their diversity practices.
Trapped in human resources
Historically, diversity management has been primarily a human resource management practice focused upon hiring dedicated diversity professionals; improving numeric representation of minorities; providing diversity training to staff; changing marketing material to reflect cultural diversity; providing professional developmental support of the individual; and establishing external partnerships. Such efforts arguably often result in little more than tick-boxing exercises, and overlook the systemic barriers that prevent greater and sustainable positive outcomes from being achieved.
In old-school organizational models, human resourcesā main diversity management function was to control āemployees,ā but not necessarily āsenior executives,ā and to get them to behave properly (i.e. within the confines of legal requirements) in order to avoid litigation. Often, human resourcesā responsibility to protect organizations from industrial employment tribunals translates into creating organizational cultures of fear and trepidation, and of command and control management. Many traditional diversity management initiatives have been born out of this.
Diversity professionals working within human resources have been labeled as the āconscience of an organization.ā They often operate without sufficient support from senior executives, and can be found to be working in an isolated organizational silo. Diversity professionals are expected to be āin chargeā of diversity without organizational diversity performance being seen as a shared agenda with all individuals across the business. With this as a basic starting point, it is highly unlikely that a diversity initiative will be a great success and highly likely that the voice and agency of the diversity professional may be muted and eventually lost.
It is ironic that the objective of equality, diversity, and inclusion is to enable all individuals to reach their human potential. More often than not, diversity professionals are put into professional situations in which they themselves do not have the power and ability to reach their potential, simply because the organizations for which they are working are not truly committed to the process of transformation. This is not the point of diversity management, and this is certainly not the expression of ...
