diversity: what you see, inclusion: what you do

Diversity is a measure of how an individual’s personal characteristics differ from those of the normative majority of an organization;

Inclusion is the act of ensuring that people’s experiences within an organization are not impacted negatively as a result of their personal characteristics...

Of course, diversity and inclusion are intertwined: the way that one person interacts with another, and the probability that the interaction will make one person feel excluded, often depend on the personal traits of each person. Hence we can say that a company is highly inclusive if, even when people with different traits interact with one another, the behavior of one person does not cause the other to feel excluded.

Ultimately, if we want a company to be more inclusive, it is the people who cause exclusion that need to change their behavior—and, in some cases, the company has to instate policies to prevent experiences of exclusion from occurring, or taking corrective action when they do occur. This is why we say that “inclusion is what you do.” Trying to describe the sense of inclusion or belonging that an employee feels is not very useful unless we can understand who made them feel excluded, and what exactly happened in the interaction that made them feel excluded...

Finally, thinking about diversity as what you see and inclusion as what you do helps us to understand some key limitations of many current D&I efforts and initiatives. For one thing, conducting inclusion surveys that simply ask how included someone feels, is of limited use: unless you ask exactly who and what made them feel less included, simply knowing someone’s level of inclusion is like knowing that someone is not feeling well, but having no idea of what illness they may have. For another thing, simply trying to “force diversity” by hiring more people from underrepresented segments of the population, without actually changing the way people behave in their interactions with other employees, is extremely unlikely to yield any improvements.

It is only when we learn to identify sources of exclusion and take actions to minimize them, that our companies will be able to sustain a growing level of diversity and to enjoy an inclusive environment where all employees have an equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.

Paolo Gaudiano

"Diversity Is What You See, Inclusion Is What You Do," Forbes. March 1, 2021

the silent have something to say

We've worked hard, spent a lot of money, and dedicated much time to our goal of diversity in our organizations. We want different ideas, perspectives, worldviews, and cognitive diversity. Yet so often, there is still silence coming from many members of our team - not because the quiet employees are lacking ideas, but because there are dynamics playing out under the surface. Either a manager notices this, or they don't. If your managers aren't noticing, then there is no sense in spending another dime on diversity efforts - because they won't pay off. 

If You Are a Manager: In meetings, it is essential to be conscious of who is speaking and how often everyone shares their opinions. Allow time for every member of the team to be able to talk in meetings... In order to ensure that everyone is heard, you may have to call on people directly, or politely ask that someone wait their turn. Conference calls are a particularly fertile breeding ground for silence. 

If You Are an Employee: If you do not speak, your ideas will not be heard. It is that simple... You have a responsibility to participate and share your ideas. Otherwise, you will have to accept that you are creating a work environment that isn't fair for you. Ask your manager to allow you to speak in the meeting or the conference. Advise him or her that you would like to be the first person to present at the meeting this time. Help your colleagues by noticing if someone is remaining silent in a meeting and ask them what they are thinking, even if the manager does not.

Laura A. Liswood

The Loudest Duck: Moving Beyond Diversity While Embracing Differences to Achieve Success at Work by Laura A. Liswood. Wiley. 2010. p.146, 147

beware of optimism bias

Beware of optimism bias: the expectation that the best possible outcome will emerge. This accounts for why divorce rates in the western world are around 40 percent, yet when you ask newlyweds to rate their likelihood of divorce they are most likely to put it at 0 percent…. It also explains why, as our colleagues Chris Bradley, Martin Hirt, and Sven Smit describe, “One of the most emblematic outputs of the dreaded strategic-planning process is the ‘hockey stick’ forecast – the line that sails upwards on the graph after a brief early dip to account for up-front investment. These hockey sticks, confidently presented by executives pitching their new strategy, are easy to draw but they don’t score many goals. What tends to happen in reality is that the strategy fails to meet the bold aspirations and is replaced by a new one. 

Being aware of such biases doesn’t help one avoid them. As Dan Ariely, one of the foremost thinkers in the field, declares, “I am just as bad myself at making decisions as everyone else I write about.” Fortunately, however, there are a number of proven and practical tools to minimize biases in decision-making. These include, among others, the following: the “pre-mortem” (generating a list of potential causes for failure of a recommendation and working backward to rectify them before they happen); “red team-blue team” (assigning one person/group to argue for, and one to argue against, a decision); “clean-sheet redesign” (developing a system from only a set of requirements, free from considerations related to current investments or path); and “vanishing options” (taking the preferred option off the table and asking, “What would we do now?”). Importantly, simply ensuring you are engaging a diverse team in decision-making will reap significant rewards – which research reveals can improve decision-making quality by more than 50 percent.

Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger

Beyond Performance 2.0: A Proven Approach to Leading Large-Scale Change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019

google leadership evaluation

Here are Google's leadership evaluation questions (a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)):

1. My manager gives me actionable feedback that helps me improve my performance.

2. My manager does not "micromanage" (get involved in details that should be handled at other levels).

3. My manager shows consideration for me as a person.

4. The actions of my manager show that he/she values the perspective I bring to the team, even if it is different from his/her own.

5. My manager keeps the team focused on our priority results/deliverables.

6. My manager regularly shares relevant information from his/her manager and senior leaders.

7. My manager has had a meaningful discussion with me about career development in the past six months.

8. My manager communicates clear goals for our team.

9. My manager has the technical expertise (e.g., coding in Tech, selling in Global Business, accounting in Finance) required to effectively manage me.

10. I would recommend my manager to other Googlers.

11. I am satisfied with my manager's overall performance as a manager.

Then Google employees are asked to complete two other questions: 

12. What would you recommend your manager keep doing?

13. What would you have your manager change?

The evaluation spends almost no time assessing a manager's knowledge, skill, and experience. All but one question focuses on soft skills: communication, feedback, coaching, teamwork, respect, and consideration.

What you know matters, but communicating, delegating, creating a sense of autonomy and purpose...that matters a lot more.

Granted, you could argue that possessing superb technical skills is less important for Google's team managers; after all, it's easier for Google to recruit and retain incredibly skilled people than it is for many companies. 

But that argument misses the larger point. While most employees need some degree of training early on, the emphasis soon shifts from what they know to how they use their knowledge and skills.

Jeff Haden

"Here's How Google Knows in Less Than 5 Minutes if Someone Is a Great Leader" Inc. November 18, 2020

what has changed with leadership in the past 50 years?

Very Little.

Tom Peters is a business and leadership legend widely known for his historical bestseller, In Search of Excellence, which has been called "the greatest business book of all time" by Bloomsbury Publishing.... 

In an interview with Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, Peters didn't mince words on the current state of leadership, saying that "nothing has changed in 50 years, including the maddening fact that all too often a business strategy is inspiring, but the execution mania is largely AWOL."

In his latest work, The Excellence Dividend, Peters collects everything he's learned in his 35-plus years of writing and speaking on the best practices for businesses and their leaders. He also puts the finger on the most common offenses people in management roles have made--and keep making. 

1. Inability to execute well.
2. Seeing 'excellence' strictly as long-term strategy.
3. Failure to develop a thriving culture.
4. Failure to put employees first.
5. Failure to listen.
6. Ignoring women as potential leaders and consumers

"Poor cross-functional coordination and communication is the principal element in the delay of everything," Peters says. If your organization's health is suffering due to internal conflict and too many obstacles in the way of progress, leaders aren't actively working together in a coordinated way to effectively execute.

How do you interpret excellence in leadership or business? Most leaders think "strategy," "planning" and "vision" are pathways to achieve excellence "out there." But Peters says managers fail to capitalize on immediate excellence--how we connect, listen, inspire, and admit mistakes on a human level to employees or customers. "Excellence is conventionally seen as a long-term aspiration. I disagree. Excellence is the next five minutes," says Peters.

"CEO job No. 1 is setting -- and micro-nourishing one day, one hour, one minute at a time -- an effective people-truly-first, innovate-or-die, excellence-or-bust corporate culture," Peters says. 

Peters says excellent customer experiences rely entirely on excellent employee experiences because it's the employee who makes or breaks the customer connection. This means leaders must see extreme value in them and pour into their career growth and development. "Training is any firm's single most important capital investment," adds Peters.

I've often written that effective communication isn't just about talking; it is also the ability to listen and understand what's happening on the other side of the fence. That's what great leaders do. "I always write 'LISTEN' on the back of my hand before a meeting," Peters says. 

On a more strategy level, Peters says "women buy everything" and make up a majority of consumer and business purchasing decisions, yet are largely underserved. But his conclusion hints at the underrepresentation of women in the C-suite: "One indicator of readiness to embrace this colossal women's market opportunity comes from conducting what I call a 'squint test.' One, look at a photograph of your exec team. Two, squint. Three: Does the composition of the team look more or less like the composition of the market you aim to serve?" Now there's a reality check.

Marcel Schwantes

"6 Things The Smartest Managers Already Know But Keep Getting Wrong" Inc.com. Oct. 8, 2018

building an effective team

Building an effective team begins with a brutally honest process of self-evaluation and reflection. The leader must be open to a humble assessment of his or her own strengths and weaknesses mapped against the qualities, knowledge and experience necessary to succeed. There are numerous consultants and assessment tools available to assist in this process, but the most effective leaders I have known grasp this aspect of team building intuitively, naturally gravitating to partners and advisers who “make them whole” and who make the team-leader appear almost super-human by placing a vast array of talents and information at their fingertips.

Leadership teams should be comprised of the most talented people you can attract; they are not merely there to row, but also to help you steer. The sincere respect that the leader shows for each team member is critical to maintaining equilibrium within the group. In general, members of the this kind of team are less prone to competition and have superior cohesion because each member is explicitly recognized for bringing a unique and essential skill to the table. A team comprised of people with distinct talents and perspectives is also less likely to succumb to ‘group think’ and will engage in honest and open dialogue with the team leader. Over time, this frank give-and-take builds an atmosphere of trust within the team, which increases the members’ willingness to surface uncomfortable concerns in a timely manner.

Kerry Healey

"The difference between a great leader and a good one." Fortune. 8/4/2015