Leveraging Difference

These young people are freaking me out!  I sound like that older uncle I had who said something similar to me when I was in the my teens and I remember thinking how…well…old he was (talk about what goes around).

My revelation has been stoked by my experience over the past two weeks of teaching in the annual LEAD Summer Business Institute at Darden.  Since 1980, Darden has invited nearly 800 academically gifted and multitalented high school juniors from diverse backgrounds to participate in this internationally renowned program.  I’ve taught in the program and worked with these students since the late 90s, but I’ve been paying attention to them in a different way this year.  Part of the motivation for my attentiveness stems from the discussions I have had with executives and managers about how to recruit, motivate, and develop the new generations—Gen X, Gen Y, and Millennials—of employees who are entering the workforce.  And we continue to see surprising evidence of what they look for in an employer. This is urgently important.  We know the demographic story that the “Boomer” heavy generation is quickly giving way to these new generations in record numbers.  But the story is even more nuanced.

As white baby boomers age past their childbearing years, younger Hispanic parents are having children—and driving U.S. population growth.  News reports last week revealed recent sharp increases in minority births that are coupled with relative decreases in white births as aging baby boomers were shepherding college kids instead of starting young families. Since 2000, the percentage of minorities has risen from 31% to 35% (and that of whites has declined from 69% to 65%).

So these high school students I’ve been working with, all of whom are “minority” (a term which is quickly losing its meaning in this discussion) really are the future, and in particular, the future of our workforce.  So what have I learned from them?

They are smart—or they seem especially smart to me. Yes, they are smart because they are technologically savvy.  But the second part of that clause is probably more important than the first.  These young folks are vibrant, energetic and intimidating because they bring to bear knowledge and skills that, for the most part, I lack.  So I am challenged not just by the content of what they know and can do, but by my fear and anxiety that I don’t know and can’t do the same things.  This is one of the greatest challenges managers face in dealing with younger employees.  It manifests in complaints about these young peoples’ lack of work ethic or lack of commitment.  And it’s not that these are not valid concerns.  But I also see managers threatened by the different perspective on work that younger employees bring to the organization.  The manager’s inability to effectively leverage that difference of perspective is the problem—not the actual difference.

They are (mostly) not white. A few years ago, I worked with a top management team to help them strategize about talent management challenges related to generational issues.  I asked them to give me stereotypes of X’s, Y’s, and Millenials.  And then I asked them to give me stereotypes of Hispanic or Black X’s, Y’s, and Millenials.  They struggled to see the distinction and that will be a problem.  Young kids from diverse ethnic backgrounds—Hispanic, white, black, Asian—are not all the same, and as predominantly white boomers build their image of the next generation from what they see of the white kids in their lives, they will radically miss the real next generation workforce’s concerns.  For example, a recent poll of 1500 young Hispanics from ages 16-29 revealed that:

— 91% felt that the U.S. a land of opportunity and…

— 83% thought that discrimination was still a problem;

— 73% considered themselves bicultural and straddling multiple cultures and languages;

— 88% felt that staying close to their Hispanic community was important.

This is data for managers and organizations hiring from this numerically dominant part of the coming workforce and what they must understand and grapple with.

They are already motivated.  This younger generation is very motivated and wants to make a difference in the world.  The image of the easy-going, nonchalant, young person who doesn’t really care about much doesn’t fit with the kids I’ve seen.  From my own cultural perspective, I liken what I see in members of the younger generation to the African American cultural value of being cool.  Being cool doesn’t mean you don’t care—it never has.  It simply means you control how you show you passion and thereby you exercise control over who you are as you navigate environments in which you have much less control than you want.  Kind of like the life of adolescent.  The challenge for me and for managers of my generation is to be able to shift frames of reference so that I can really internalize what matters to these kids.

These kids from LEAD are teaching me how I am limited in my view of the world.  And they are teaching me, as a producer of talent for companies throughout the country, how much more I need to learn about who they are.

In a recent Washington Post “On Leadership” the question was raised regarding Elena Kagan’s nomination to teh Supreme Court and the prospect of an “all-Ivy” bench. Is it a good idea for any institution, or any sector of society, to rely so heavily on a handful of elite universities to educate and train its leaders?

If you look at the possible “all-Ivy” complexion of an emerging Supreme Court, it’s easy to find comfort in the fact that this could be a “dream team” aggregation of legal smarts that can only benefit the country.  After all, having the brightest and the best at the helm is the ultimate goal in any meritocracy, so it’s hard to argue that we should have less qualified people on the bench.

The problem with this picture is that in an increasingly complex world, we don’t question the definition of “best” enough.   We look for single indicators of excellence—IQ, or years of experience, or law school education—and we act as though if we just pick enough people with high marks on a given one, we will have satisfied the objective of getting the best.

If only it were that easy.

In jobs as important and complex as the post of Supreme Court Justice, there can be no single indicator that captures “best.”  We must consider a variety of factors in assembling the best team of justices, and one of those factors has to be the diversity of perspectives that the team collectively produces.  The problem with an all-Ivy lineup is that in a domain in which diverse perspectives are critically important in creating just results, we foment all sorts of biases by not being more intentional in using diversity to create checks and balances in how the Court operates.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a bunch of Ivy League minds coming together.  High intelligence and excellent legal training are an essential part of a great Supreme Court.  But we have to ask what else matters in rendering justice?  What great minds from other educational perspectives and training grounds can collaborate to make sure the Court does not stroll along an Ivy-biased trail of legal thinking. As the Court ruled in 2003 in two cases dealing with admissions practices in higher education, diversity can be and is often a valid criterion upon which people can be selected for a position if that diversity is essential to creating the best results.  Shouldn’t we apply this logic to the Court itself?

I don’t have anything against folks from the Ivy League.  Some of my best friends went to school there. And I don’t know if the addition of Elena Kagan will complete an Ivy dream team or not.  But I know from my research and professional experience that we are not good at seeing complexity in selection decisions like this.  We want to believe that if we have one clear and transparent indicator of performance, like Ivy League education, then we can achieve great results.  But justice won’t come from a homogeneous set of legal minds on the Supreme Court.  It will only come from the skillful mixing of diverse ideas and perspectives.

Real change is never a one-person show.  Real change happens when the work of formal leaders—leaders in the center—is complemented by the work of leaders on the margin.

In any significant movement for change, whether in business, politics, or larger society, the person who holds the mantle of leadership can only accomplish so much on his or her own.  For example, when Dorothy Height died last month, I was reminded in reading her obituary how her leadership shaped the direction of the civil rights movement, even though she did not have the widespread name recognition of Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks or Julian Bond.  We properly celebrate the accomplishments of high profile positional leaders, but we are less adept at understanding the leadership in the background.

What can we learn about great leaders on the margin, leaders like the most influential First Ladies?  First, they are smart, skillful and savvy.  Leading from the margin means having a clear vision of what happens in the mainstream.  People on the margin observe and reflect, often having fewer options to act because they have less access to tangible resources.  But when they do get the chance to make a difference, they put what they have learned into action.

Second, they lead through referent power—power derived from integrity, admiration and respect—rather than formal power bestowed on them by their position.  A slightly oversimplified example: President Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, and when he issues an order, it must be obeyed because he is the boss.  First lady Obama may not get things done only because she orders it (though I’m sure she has some juice).  She likely also gets things done because she garners a high degree of respect and esteem.  That’s what referent power is all about.  And by the way, referent power is an almost bottomless well of power.  As long as a leader exhibits integrity and skill, people will follow her or him anywhere.  Once that integrity is damaged, the power base disintegrates.  As a corollary,  leaders from the margin influence and leverage networks of critically important players who help them achieve their objectives.

Finally, leaders from the margin can see the world in a way that most people do not and that often makes them especially innovative.  They are not as restricted in their thinking by conventional rules and norms.  They can focus their energies on critical issues that are often overlooked or undervalued by the majority in the center.  Their unique perspective is honed by lots of experience studying the dominant leaders and decision-makers and capitalizing on their blind spots.  This makes leaders from the margin among the most valuable catalysts for real change in any organization or society.

NOTE: On this topic, my colleague, Erika Hayes James will be teaching a new Executive Education class at Darden, October 11-15, 2010 called “Women Emerging in Leadership.”  If you are a woman at any level of management, or aspiring to be, please consider attending this valuable course from the top ranked Executive Education program in the world. For more information, contact Darden’s Executive Education department.

Last week, we hosted eleven prominent alumni at Darden who comprise the Dean’s Diversity Advisory Council. Dean Bob Bruner convened this group four years ago to assist Darden in its goal to become the business school that best capitalizes on the diversity in its community to create a high engagement learning experience. Last week’s meeting was stimulating, energizing, and fun because as Chief Diversity Officer, I got to work with a fascinating group of people—alumni, Darden leaders, and colleagues—who were there to help me think strategically about how to use diversity to make Darden better. Since that meeting, I’ve continued to reflect on the question that captivates me: how can organizations use diversity to generate high performance?

I came up with an answer: Do “real” diversity and not “fake” diversity.

What I mean is that real diversity work—the activity that will affect the bottom line performance and growth of the enterprise—is connected to the real mission and strategy of the organization. Pretty straightforward to understand, right? Okay, so now comes the tough message—most organizations I study are faking diversity. They think their diversity initiatives are examples of real diversity work, but in fact, they aren’t. Often, they are far from it.

An example. Some leaders, intending to link diversity to strategy, end up explaining that they are doing diversity work because “it is the right thing do” or “other places are doing it and it seems to be going over well.” But organizations and leaders that subscribe to this line of thinking often fall short when it comes to creating sustained change toward a more diverse institution. It’s not that being virtuous as a leader or organization is a bad thing. Nor is it necessarily bad to act based on benchmarked best practice. The problem is that in these organizations, diversity-related activity takes place in the absence of being integrated into the strategic goals of the organization. People might know what to do, but they don’t really know why they are doing it. In these organizations that are faking it, leaders don’t want to say it, but they don’t really have a compelling business reason for pursuing diversity. Or, to be more precise, they can’t articulate what the compelling reason is…yet.

Now, if you are wiping your brow and saying “Phew, we’re clearly in a better place in our company than what he’s talking about,” well…maybe. Some business cases for diversity are really are well integrated into the core strategy of the business, but others merely masquerade as critical to the business strategy—they really aren’t. Having rationales such as “capturing new markets,” “innovating,” “getting the best talent,” doesn’t mean your efforts are really integrated into core strategy. You may still be faking it.

So, how do you know if you are doing real diversity work? Consider a couple of markers of “real” versus “fake” diversity. Not exhaustive, just suggestive:

• Alignment (real) vs. Diffusion (fake). When aligned stakeholders throughout the organization know why diversity matters and they know what kind of diversity matters—it’s the real thing. When it’s fake, stakeholders aren’t always sure why or what kind of differences matter. And, frankly, they don’t really need to know to get their work done.
• Diversity-savvy (real) vs. Diversity-dumb (fake). In diversity-savvy organizations, cultural norms and knowledge are replete with the language of the differences that matter. Stakeholders know the social and historical stories of the differences that are important to the business. For example, at one predominantly Christian company that did business with customers from the Middle East, nearly all employees knew the Islamic calendar, as well as history and customs of the faith. It was part of everyday interactions. But in diversity-dumb organizations, there are usually multiple outposts of cluelessness when it comes to the diversity and differences. People are uninformed or uneducated about differences that are relevant to the organization. Indeed, these folks feel that diversity is not relevant, so they don’t invest the time to learn. And guess what? If you have these outposts in your organization for too long, they are right—the message is being sent that diversity doesn’t really matter in your organization.

For diversity really to be done well, leaders must see it as so fundamental to the business that they are fearless in demanding, cajoling, and insisting that their organizations step up to it. Real diversity change is not just a loosely connected set of tactics and best practice activities—like hiring a certain percentage of women and minorities—but rather a coordinated set of activities that fundamentally changes the way the organization does business. Now, that can be a scary and exciting proposition. But real change often is. What we know is that the best leaders and organizations are willing to take a “calculated leap of faith” that truly investing in diversity will create better organizations. That is what we are trying to do at Darden.

Not long ago, I read an excellent article in the Fall  2009 issue of the magazine Strategy+Business on the challenges of global talent management, given the variety of economic, social, and demographic changes we are encountering.  Diversity was an important part of this discussion as the writers explored the dynamic shifts in what talented people wanted in their work lives and where those talented people could be found.

What was interesting was that race was not a part of the discussion in the issue at all.  Certainly nationality was, as was gender.  And the term “people of color” was used in describing a best practice undertaken by Johnson and Johnson.  But nothing else referred to race.  Now, I could chalk this up to pervasive and persistent bias and racism.  After all, none of the authors (to my knowledge) were black so it’s not surprising that race might be downplayed as an important factor in the talent diversity discussion.  But then my wandering mind began to entertain an alternative hypothesis: what if race—specifically the presence or absence of black people in organizations—was simply no longer a priority in the 21st century discussion on global talent development?   What if black people were really only tangential to the path that effective 21st century firms needed to traverse?

I guess that’s possible, but I don’t think it’s likely.  First, in the talent hungry U.S., 11% of the population matters.  The sheer number of skilled individuals in the U.S. workforce who identify themselves as black represents a substantial benefit to any company that can harness that talent.  Though constantly underappreciated, the talent within the black community is vital to U.S. economic viability moving forward.

But that’s only half the story.

Creating racial diversity in organizations is how,  we, in United States organizations,  get to learn how to overcome the bias toward marginalizing employees with whom we are unfamiliar, uncomfortable, or even, unpalatable.  Every organization everywhere in the country wastes money and talent every single day of the year. That happens because there are always people who are marginalized, people who don’t fit the normal image of a productive member of the organization.  One of the great capabilities of successful 21st century organizations (and communities, and societies) will be the ability to learn from the perspectives of these different people.  Not ostracize them. Not tolerate them. Rather, seek them out and learn from them.   I don’t know why one particular difference dynamic like racial difference becomes focal in a given society at a given time.  Certainly there are social, historical, political and economic factors that converge to privilege that dynamic.  But the important thing is to pay attention to the difference and learn all we can about how engaging it can help the organization be better.

Coda:  When I began writing this essay, I was reflecting on the plight of indigenous people in the U.S.  I was contemplating using Native Americans as examples of a people who, by virtue of the oppression and racism visited upon them by the European and U.S. dominance over their nations, had been rendered irrelevant in the conversation about talent.  After all, there really are not enough of them to make a difference, right?

I was about to be trapped in the very hole I’m writing about.  Assuming that because a group of people aren’t present in large numbers that they are not relevant to what we need to understand to be an effective organization, leader, or manager of talent.  The value isn’t only in the numbers and the statistics.  It’s in the lessons learned from the engagement.  I know that stuff is harder to measure, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important.

If the title of this posting caught your attention because you are being sued, you should read, but not much that I write is likely to help you overcome your lawsuit. I was saying just that to a potential client recently. They had invited me to meet with senior executives in the company and, other than knowing that their interest was diversity-related, I did not know what they wanted from me. As it turned out, I learned that they were fairly certain they would be sued for racial discrimination. I wasn’t of much help to them, mostly because I have no legal training and they needed good legal counsel. But I shared with them a way of preventing future suits that I have uncovered in my experience with dozens of companies on the brink.

Treat people fairly. I don’t think they were all that impressed by this truism, but as we kept talking I think I made my point more clearly. Treating people fairly certainly means not denying one group of people a benefit that other groups receive. That dictum is relevant when it comes to compensation, promotions, exposure to clients, or selection of sales territories. But what about more intangible benefits?

Like feedback, for example. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been struggling for years to understand fully why the opposition to gay marriage makes me so angry. I certainly have friends and family who are gay and I support and empathize with the daily challenges they face to just be who they are. And this attack on their freedom to create family and home as they choose is unnerving.

This is one reason that opposition to gay marriage makes me angry.

I’m also clear about the parallels between the opposition to gay marriage and the opposition to interracial marriage between whites and people who were not white in the U.S. (being a member of the latter category). U.S. Representative Seaborn Anderson Roddenbery, D-Georgia, was a celebrated opponent of marriage between “Negroes” and whites. In January 1913 he introduced H.J. Res 368, a bill proposing a Constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriages in the states where it was legal and ban it nationwide. The rationale for this proposed legislation was that it was immoral for people of different races to marry. Many interpreted a variety of Biblical passages to support this view and though Roddenbery’s bill never passed, a great deal of legislation has existed throughout U.S. history to criminalize interracial marriage. Both the law and cultural mores in this country have evolved and such legislation has been unequivocally deemed unconstitutional (thank you, Loving v. Virginia). And though many people still oppose interracial relationships and marriage to varying degrees, a large majority of people seem to be comfortable in the position that those views should not be legislated (at least I haven’t read of any significant movements to outlaw interracial marriage recently) But today, we are Roddenbery and his contemporaries when it comes to gay marriage. To many who oppose it, gay marriage is a moral affront and gay people are demonized for who they are.

This is also why opposition to gay marriage makes me angry.

But I realized that these reasons for being angry were secondary to the ones articulated by conservative lawyer Ted Olson in a Newsweek article last week. I should note that I am not a conservative by political definition; I’m probably much more of a moderate. I am certainly compelled by extreme views of any issue and am fascinated by “crossings”— moments when someone from one extreme takes on an opposing view. In The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value, Olson does just that. Now this guy has been at the center of a number of important conservative legal victories including the ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in the 2000 election race against Al Gore. But now, he is attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California’s Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California’s constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex. He is behaving like a turncoat conservative on this one and in the article he writes about why. He argues that same-sex marriage represents the very values that conservatives cherish—the creation of “a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership.” He argues that it is about civil rights and the promise of the Constitution and of our Declaration of Independence that states that all people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” He further refutes arguments that gay marriage would somehow dilute procreation or that it would discourage heterosexuals from marrying (both of which are profoundly flawed arguments as I see it). Overall it is a powerful and thoughtful piece.

Upon reflection, I realized that my anger flowed from the pain this debate creates, not only on gay people everywhere, but on straight people as well. The stance to discriminate always harms both those who are discriminated against we well as those who discriminate. Ghandi and King, among others, are particularly eloquent on this point. And because I am a heterosexual person in a predominantly heterosexual society, I get angry because I know I can easily be seduced to be biased and prejudiced against gay people, even if it’s unintentional. It’s not that I’m a bad person; at least I like to think I’m not. It’s just that as a straight person, it is so easy to become accustomed to making gay people less human than I am. I’ve grown up with demeaning stereotypes of gays and lesbians, profound silences about how their lives and struggles are different from mine, and a public debate stoked by straight peoples’ privilege to call a vote to decide if gay people should be allowed to enjoy the right to family, community, and happiness. How many straight people do you know who’ve ever worried that they would be legally deprived of their privilege to marry? (Caveat—a discussion of the experiences of disabled people is forthcoming…)

When it comes to sexual orientation there are many choices we make, whether gay or straight: What kinds of neighborhoods and communities will we live in? Who will we associate with? Who will we work with? How much of ourselves will we choose to share?

“Who will we marry?” should be one of those kinds of questions about which we all have the freedom to choose.

Senator Harry Reid sure stepped in it with his comments about then candidate Obama’s skin color and dialect. At first glance, his comments seem insensitive and ignorant. At second and third glance, too. And he should be praised for it. Read the rest of this entry »

By now, it’s difficult to escape the trio of bad kids who have made their marks on U.S. social discourse over the past couple of months—U.S. Representative Joe Wilson, tennis star, Serena Williams, and musician and entertainer, Kanye West. In case you’ve missed any of this, each has been criticized for public outbursts of rudeness and incivility. Wilson blurted out to the President of the United States “You lie!” during the President’s speech to a joint session of Congress. Williams, berated a tennis line judge with profanity during a match at the U.S. Open Tennis Championships, and West leaped onto the stage of the MTV Video Awards ceremony and interrupted the acceptance speech of winner Taylor Swift proclaiming that Beyonce, another nominee for the award, actually created the best video and (by implication) should have won.

The Downside of Being Nice
What interests me about these incidents is not that they are harbingers of the end of civility in our society; I really don’t think they signal the downfall of order in the republic. Rather, I’m alarmed by the knee-jerk reaction that the appropriate response to these indicators is to buck up and discipline ourselves to be nice to one another. Don’t get me wrong, I like to be nice to people and I like them to be nice to me. And indeed, a dose of niceness and restraint probably would have been very helpful in each of these situations. But I get worried when we move swiftly to the conclusion that being nice is the remedy to an interpersonal conflict because invariably, these movements toward niceness and interpersonal comfort often mask the reality of the discomfort and discord that are really present in our relationships. This is especially true in relationships that cross identity differences.

Each of these incidents pitted people of significant differing social identities (in the U.S. context) against one another. Although there has been some discussion of the issue of race in the example of Congressman Wilson and President Obama, the fact that racial and gender differences were evident in the other examples has been largely overlooked: Ms. Williams (African American woman) is rude to Ms. “Line Judge” (Asian woman whose name has been withheld); Mr. West (African American man) is rude to Ms. Swift (white woman). And each of these identity conflicts has a rich and painful narrative in the U.S. socio-historical landscape. Blacks and Asians are continually matched against one another as minorities vying for legitimacy in the U.S. cultural and economic context. Black men have been vilified (even murdered) for actions that appear to disrespect white women.

Now I don’t believe these specific incidents were consciously or directly motivated by any of this: Ms. Williams didn’t yell at the line judge because she was reflecting on how Asians are seen as model minorities who, in the eyes of the white majority, makes African Americans seem less worthy contributors to society. Mr. West didn’t jump up on stage based on the decision that a Black man had not publicly disrespected a white woman for some time, so it was his turn. But research on implicit bias bears out that we are all subject to deep-seated biases that subtly influence our attitudes and behaviors. Is it unreasonable to assume that some of those biases might have been at play in these incidents? Is it unreasonable to assume that even if those biases were not relevant for the actors in the incidents, that some of the millions of us who observed the incidents might be affected by the biases?

The Power of Real Civility
We cannot escape the fact that we react to race and ethnicity and gender and that we are prone to incivility as a result. The important question to me is how do we navigate the incivilities across difference that have and will continue to emerge in our interactions?

Erika James and I took a stab at this challenge in a chapter that appeared in Dutton and Ragins’ volume, Exploring Positive Relationships at Work (you can read more of Erika’s perspective at her Blog) [1]. We argued that strong, generative relationships between people of differing social identities are only forged when positive intent and expectation for the relationship is combined with the ability to engage and learn from constructive conflict that is raised in the relationship. In particular, we argued that you have to be able to talk about the identity differences that separate you. What are the differences? What do they mean? What significance do they have for each of you? You can’t build an enduring relationship across difference if you can’t get your biases and antagonisms out on the table in constructive ways.

Robin Ely, Deb Meyerson and I add some texture to what it means to engage constructively in our Harvard Business Review article, “Rethinking Political Correctness” [2]. In this article, we argued that a serious impediment to building resilient relationships, both at work and at home, was the difficulty we encounter in having honest and frank dialogue together. We proposed that an effective way to step into these dialogues (as opposed to covering them over with niceness) is to cultivate five core skills:

• Pause to short-circuit the emotion and take time to reflect;
• Connect to others through goals and intentions that affirm the importance of the relationship or the larger goal that you are trying to achieve together.
• Ask yourself questions that help you identify blind spots and discover the source of your defenses. Ask yourself how your desire to be proven right about a perceived threat or to be proven innocent of offending someone, might distort your view of the situation.
• Get “genuine” support that doesn’t simply validate your own point of view, but rather, helps you gain a broader perspective on the issue. Bounce your thoughts and reactions of friends and colleagues who are not simply your cheerleaders, but who will help you confront your own blind spots.
• Shift your mindset from “you need to change” to “what can I change?”

Being civil and being positive are not one in the same. The nicest gestures can be the most cutting if they are undertaken without clear intent, skill, and caring. Real civility takes into account the humanity of the people with whom we are engaged. Real civility challenges us to embrace—rather than flee from—the discomfort and anxiety we may feel when we face those people (read more about other positive forces in organizations at Ryan Quinn’s LIFT Blog).