Diversity is a hot topic. What initially began as an ethical, and then a legal issue, is fast becoming a creative and competitive one. Organisations are becoming increasingly aware of the potential that diverse perspectives have. For their culture, their learning, their creativity, and ultimately their competitive survival.
Diversity, as a topic, has now moved beyond the quota thinking. Thinking that in many cases was simply about ensuring sufficient numbers of people from diverse backgrounds on the payroll. The question is now: To what extent can people fully reflect their own diversity? – How do we increase the extent to which we are able to bring ‘all of ourselves’ to the workplace?
The question is now: To what extent can people fully reflect their own diversity?
When we bring our ‘whole selves’ to work, diversity is no longer limited to the obvious distinctions of ethnicity, capability, sexuality, health, age, etc. It also includes those things that may have disadvantaged other less obvious populations in the past: style, preference, situation. For an example of this, take a look at Susan Cain’s TED talk on the challenge introverts experience.
In practice however, though our understanding has moved on, diversity in an practical sense is still an issue. We still struggle with it. People from minority backgrounds are still disadvantaged. And whether that disadvantage ends up in salary, status, or satisfaction, the place it most often begins is in meetings.Share Now
The place where we most commonly suppress diversity is within meetings
Meetings, small or large, are the point at which diversity of contribution and behaviour is most often encouraged or suppressed. They are the point at which ‘who I am’ interacts with ‘who you are’. And also with the established ‘who WE are’.
Meetings have a long history of driving normative behaviours – helping new people observe various conventions, and to learn and adopt (often subconsciously) what the current culture subtly rewards and chastises. As a result, while organisations may recruit people who are ‘different’, our behaviours in meetings often subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) reshape ‘different’ to make it ‘fit in’.
Our current standard approach to meetings goes back to before medieval times when meetings were a means of exercising hierachical control, and bringing things ‘into line’. They are great at driving decisions, reviewing progress and keeping control. But they are not the best mechanism for inspiring creativity, creating energy or exploring diversity. As a result, our experience of meetings in the current age of change and ambiguity is often unrewarding, and unproductive. This is particularly true if we hold perspectives that are not mainstream, or tackle issues that are not clear cut.Our experience of meetings in the current age of change and ambiguity is often unfulfilling
Much of the problem arises from the fact that most meetings, physical and virtual, progress on a single track: An almost continuous stream of dialogue which represents the main channel of power in the meeting. This stream of dialogue is the mechanism by which the attendees move toward delivering the purpose of the meeting. It is also the primary means of influence, and of recognition and reward.
We see the importance of the stream best when perspectives diverge on important topics. When it does, the focus often becomes one of taking and controlling that stream. So much so that listening to the stream becomes more about seeking an opportunity to regain control of it, than about seeking to fully appreciate its current flow.
The focus of listening becomes more about regaining control, than about appreciation.
Furthermore, contributions to the stream are perceived to either move things forward, hold things up, take detours, or waste time. And that perception is usually evident in what is said subsequently, and who says it. It is an informal economy in which our value (and our influence) grows or declines in response to people’s perception of what we said, and how we said it. And of other people’s reaction to that. It is in this way that traditional meetings, whether held in a room or online, tend to be normative.
The single channel means that everything has to be seen to count on the mainstream. If it doesn’t, it can prove costly in easily securing airspace for subsequent contributions. Therefore, where we hear minority perspectives expressed, it may only be the Aces we see played rather than the whole deck. People may only express the perspectives they are reasonably confident will be accepted, rather than the ideas that will attempt to shift those perspectives. As one person put it – you have to pick your battles.
What if the stream of dialogue was not the only channel of power?
But what if the stream of dialogue was not the only channel of power? What if we used multiple interconnected streams running in parallel with each other? Then the opportunity to contribute would be far greater, less controlled, and with less risk. Streams could diverge and come together when they were clearer and stronger. The main stream would emerge based on merit rather than control. And diversity and creativity could be much more welcome and appreciated components of that emergence. And even if they weren’t, their exposure in the alternative channels will still generate increasing understanding and awareness. In this way, they can influence future decisions, even if they do not play an immediate part in the current one.
If multiple streams were possible, it could represent the difference between a meeting process for the 16th century and one for the 21st. It could create an environment in which diversity and creativity generate energy and insight in engaging with the challenges of an increasingly complex and uncertain world. It could enable meetings that are more fulfilling, uplifting and inspiring. Where greater levels of openness and authenticity are appreciated. And where we harness them into answers that cause people to look forward to their next meeting with excitement rather than complaint. And it could enable diversity to flourish in all its richness.
Multiple streams: Meetings are more fulfilling, uplifting and inspiring
But how do you get multiple streams? We cannot all talk at once!
Well not in audio anyway. But virtual meetings are not restricted to audio and straight lines, or single channels in the same way that traditional face to face meetings are. Even though we have initially designed them that way. In a virtual meeting we have infinite board space, easy access to templates and sticky-notes. We have persistent displays, multiple forms of input, the ability to be in several places at once. We can accommodate all perspectives, we can all be heard equally, we don’t have to compete. Air-time is just one of many communication resources. Location and time are no longer an issue. Meetings no longer have to be synchronous, and this helps attract more reflective perspectives.
Virtual meetings are not restricted to single streams
But to access this, we have to accept that we hold a paradigm of meetings that is holding us back. Meeting is a verb, a reflection of activity, but in a business environment we see it as a noun. I ask you what you see when I use the word meeting? Most people’s minds will immediately default to a group of people sat round a table. Unchallenged, that paradigm will cause us to fall into single channel approaches of talking every time. I ask you to set up a meeting on XYZ, and much of how it will take place is already assumed. Even if the meeting is virtual, the likelihood is that it will be conducted in a way that reflects what we would do if we were face to face.
Part of our issue is we have a paradigm of ‘meeting’ as a noun, rather than a verb
So let’s break that paradigm.
Let’s set in place a new intention. That we will set up at least one meeting a week with a multi-channel component. This will build our confidence and understanding. And as we see the benefits grow, we can gradually extend into a new paradigm. That ‘meeting’ is a verb – it is active, it is participative. It is engaging, and it reflects a freedom to bring the very best of ourselves to every situation.
We are all ‘diverse’. Lets work to create a culture that better embraces the fullness of that fact for each and every one of us. And we will begin to see the richness and value of that diversity. We will grow to appreciate that creed, colour and orientation are simply just three of the factors that make each one of us totally unique, and immensely valuable.
Creed, colour and orientation are simply just three of the factors that make each one of us totally unique, and immensely valuable
Please note that nothing in what I have shared is intended in any way to trivialise the suffering members minority groups. They continue to experience hatred, prejudice, exploitation, ignorance and greed. But bias does not stop simply by gaining justice for those who have suffered. It is something that sits just below the surface in each one of us. It is part of our paradigm of avoiding change, and staying comfortable. My hope in writing this article is to highlight that ‘same’ is little protection against the future that awaits us all. And that engaging with, learning from, and truly appreciating ‘different’ will be key to our survival. It is only when we can truly begin to see ‘different’ as the richness and privilege that God designed it to be, that we will truly embrace each other in the way He intends.
Related Post: Diversity and non-inclusive language
Track your progress to ensure the efficacy of this strategy.