The myth of inclusivity

Posted on by Blog

I’ve been involved in a lot of debates about diversity and inclusion recently. The conversations are fascinating and the views diverse in themselves. With one particular area of seemingly strong consensus when confronting the issues that we face;

It’s never our fault.

Of course, this is completely natural. We all like to think of ourselves as liberal minded, inclusive and welcoming people (well most of us). It’s just everyone else, they’re the problem.

Going back over thirty years I can remember my Grandmother telling me she wasn’t a racist like those other people, she even used the “Paki shop”. Whilst we can all look at this with the shock that time permits, she genuinely meant it. But this isn’t a generational thing, how many of us can hand-on-heart, honestly say that we don’t have perceptions and expectations of the opposite gender?

So if we all want this all inclusive, welcoming, meritocracy, what gets in the way?

When we talk about the culture of our organisations, we talk about the way in which people behave, the way in which people act towards one another, we talk about our values and we talk about the way in which we do things.

In HR we talk about how we can underpin the culture with our interventions; recruiting to fit, rewarding to incentivise, training to develop and structuring to facilitate. We build our organisations to reinforce the very cultures that contradict our conscious intention.

Culture gets in the way of and we reinforce the culture through our actions and our formal and informal systems. It’s rarely our intent.

The challenge we have is to get beneath intent and start to challenge these behaviours, systems and structures. Which invariably means challenging the way in which we feel naturally comfortable in doing things, how we make decisions and how we design our businesses.

Diversity and inclusion aren’t improved by tokenism, “programmes” or initiatives. They can’t be when our organisations are still constructed around an infrastructure that is decidedly “exclusive” and rewards people for conformity of behaviour and compliance to a set of unwritten rules.

The start of the path to improving organisational inclusivity is recognising that we are all part of the problem. The smallest act, or use of language multiplied a million times a week, the unintended consequence of doing something the way we’ve always done, the choices and decisions that we’ve learnt to make.

We have the power to make things better, we can choose to make a change, but in order to do that we need to do two things; accept that we are not ok and that, at the end of the day, it IS all our fault.

The first possible answer

Posted on by Blog

Do you think there is one single truth? How about one single answer? A definitive version of right?

Our explanation of our existence and the decisions that we make is defined by our retrospective analysis. Our psychology such that we create a narrative that supports our past conclusions. Only sometimes do we reflect and say, “what if?” and then when we feel external factors have left us short-changed.

Ironically at the same time we base our current thinking and decisions on our past. The past that we have rewritten to justify the decisions that we’ve made, becomes the foundation for our future direction. It’s a perfect circle of deception.

The product of this is that we tend to stop at the first possible answer. Our organisations are run by people that rely on this, which is why we struggle with genuine diversity of ideas and look for consensus. When we tend to have shared history, shared retro-perspective, we form more of the same conclusions. It makes things…..quicker.

But what is the probability that the first possible answer, is always the right one? Or even the best one?

Learning to ask the “what if” before rather than after, learning to listen to different views, learning to understand that our perspective is based on our rewriting of the past and that the more that we surround ourselves with people with similar pasts, the more we are likely to reinforce our single perspective. Could any of this help us make better decisions?

In science we talk about the null hypothesis. When we reject it without disproving its basis, we invalidate our research. Yet in business, we call it being commercial and agile, strong leadership.

Trying asking “what if” now and not after and see whether that moves you past your first possible answer. You might be surprised by the results.

We get the leaders we deserve

Posted on by Blog

Many, many years ago I was sat in a room with a CEO and a number of their employees, it was a “meet the ordinary people” type affair. There was a debate about the visibility and availability of the CEO in the various parts of the business, with one of the managers saying that she would like to see them spend more time out on the floor with her team.

It’s the kind of challenge that you hear pretty regularly raised towards leaders and leadership teams. What struck me, on this occasion, was the reply of the CEO.

They went on to explain that they’d very much like to do so. That they’d love to have the opportunity to get to speak to people and interact with them. But they found it really hard to just roll up out of the blue and just start talking and people never really invited them to anything that was going on to help them overcome this challenge.

You mean, CEOs have weaknesses? Well, of course they do. We all do and just because you’ve risen to a position of power doesn’t mean you’re perfect. In the kitchens and copier rooms across the country, we’re busy identifying and outlining the weaknesses of our management teams. We’re incredibly good at diagnosing and highlighting the shortcomings, but what are we doing to help them?

That’s their problem though, you’re not paid to make them better. Right? If you work in HR, I’d thoroughly dispute this but in fact I’d dispute it wherever you work. In many ways, you get the leaders you deserve.

Think about that meeting when you struggled with the P&L for the investment proposal. How would it have felt if someone from finance had come up to you afterwards and kindly offered to take you through the numbers to make sure you were up to speed? What about the time that you were struggling to get your point across in that important meeting? What if someone had asked you questions to help you break it down?

It doesn’t matter what level you are, what seniority you are, how much experience you have, you’re going to have areas of weakness and you’re most likely going to know about them. People pointing them out is often little help, being told what you already know never is. But having people around you quietly helping you to work on them and improve? That’s altogether a different matter.

So next time you want to have a moan about the way your manager, boss or CEO behaves, also ask yourself what you could do to help them cover off that area and be better. You might be surprised by the result you get from them, and maybe also how you feel about yourself and your work.

Ripping up the writing rules

Posted on by Blog

As human beings we’re conditioned to use “appropriate” language depending on our setting. In the bar, in a shop, when we bump in to someone on the street and, of course, in the workplace. We choose the way in which we speak, the way in which we interact based not on our conscious decisions, but instead on the way in which society has shaped us.

Similarly, our reaction to the language of others is also conditioned by our expectations of situational appropriateness. When something does meet with these expectations, we take note. Sometimes, with shock, surprise and maybe even joy.

If we want to create more human, more humane workforces, we must never forget the power of the words we use. We need to remember that we are conditioned to write, to talk to employees, to present ourselves in certain ways. There is no rule book, no code of conduct that exists that tells us we need to talk in this way. It’s just years and years of conditioning.

See what I mean:

“We are committed to being a flexible employer as a method of helping us to retain valued employees. We recognise that there may be times when you wish to take an extended period of absence in order to pursue personal interests or domestic duties such as caring for a family member.”

Or,

“We recognise the potential in all of our employees and that talent exists throughout the organisation. Analysis has already taken place across the organisation to map out current activities that support talent management and to identify strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats.”

And my personal favourite,

“Here at xxxx our ambition is to create the best environment for all our colleagues to reach their full potential. In doing so, we build the culture, capability and capacity to help the business meet its multichannel growth ambitions.

We are facilitating a simple, honest and human culture that is inclusive, collaborative and connected. Ensuring we work with the right structures and processes, to enable flexibility and a culture that values individual contribution, builds teams and minimises risk for xxx.”

Who actually talks like this? I doubt the author of any of these pieces would ever actually speak this way, yet when they put their work hat on, something else comes out. And the expectations of the recipients are met.

Changing how we think, how we act and how we speak is hard. We’re wired to be one thing and yet we want to be another. It takes commitment and it takes perseverance. But when we do, people are more likely to take note.

“We know sometimes you’ll need to take extra time off to deal with the things that happen in life, and that’s ok”

“We want to help you to use all of your skills and abilities at work”

“We’re trying to be the best we can be and to help you to do the same”

Here’s the challenge. As you’re writing this week, whether it is a policy, an advert, an email or announcement. Ask yourself whether you’re writing as you, or whether you’re writing as you’ve been conditioned. If it’s the latter, try switching it around. Speak like a human, not a Human Resource and see what the reaction is. You might be pleasantly surprised.