There is no such thing as an organization that handles diversity well
There is no such thing as an organization that handles diversity well
Contemplating and testing alternative hypotheses
When has a diversity consultant ever entered an organization and concluded that things are okay?
Organizations can always improve. Just as professional athletes can level up their skills - even if they are champions.
To recognize the potential for improvement, let’s separate two concepts.
Baseline performance. We enter situations with a profile of strengths and weaknesses. A jagged profile is a given. Nobody excels at everything.
Malleability of performance. Upon receiving interventions, strengths increase and weaknesses decrease at a particular speed. Allow for sufficient time to transpire as few people show immediate or straightforward results.
These two concepts from the world of sports offer insights for thinking about diversity training. To be succinct, let’s start with the cute but scientifically inaccurate 10,000 hour rule by Malcolm Gladwell (“ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness”). The gist is that if you want to achieve excellence, put in at least 10,000 hours of training. Then you too can be Steph Curry, Bill Gates, or the insanely prolific Joyce Carol Oates.
In reality, individuals don’t need 10,000 hours. This is because individuals vary in baseline knowledge, skill, and temperament. Each of us possesses baseline talent + a trajectory of change in response to intervention. For instance, you might be a terrible pickleball player when you start but upon watching Youtube videos, attending clinics, requesting candid feedback, and experimenting with new strategies, you might grow rapidly. Far more rapidly than peers. A person’s trajectory of change in response to intervention is much harder to assess. As an act of laziness, too many recruiters lean heavily on baseline skills, fail to gauge coaching potential, and overlook the best talent. This two-prong framework of potential is equally relevant to judging organizations.
Be Wary of Unfalsifiable Beliefs
I have worked in organizations that presented data showing that diverse employees are doing just fine. With anonymous surveys, sexual, racial, and gender minorities reported a strong sense of belonging. They reported being treated with dignity and respect. They reported high levels of access to resources and opportunities. The averages were impressive. And as could be expected, a few outliers loathed the workplace, the work, and fellow employees. While a source of concern, if you respect individual differences than you know some people are going to be more unhappy than others (along with closed-minded, rigid, emotionally unstable, lazy, and socially distant). While we should try to intervene with unhappy characters, be cautious in extrapolating the difficulties of one or two individuals as an indicator of systemic problems. Whether the problem is best understood at the individual or group level of analysis is not a given. It is a question requiring testing.
Inconvenient Alternative Explanations
To understand the culture of an organization, it is best to collect data anonymously. This way if problems exist, retribution is minimized. With less worry about answering honestly, we are more likely to gain access to true thoughts and feelings. However, with anonymous surveys we cannot immediately rule out know alternative explanations for expressions of discontent.
There are people who are highly disagreeable, cantankerous, and argumentative.
There are people who seek attention with subclinical personality behavior problems.
There are people who initiate problems that triggers proportional negativity from others. Unpleasant people tend to infect their companions.
With social skills on a bell curve, some people are going to be at the low end of the distribution. These unfortunate people have greater difficulty getting along with others, and are more apt to view normal behaviors as slights. microaggressions, or plain ol’ aggression.
If we want to understand people in groups, we must consider and test alternative hypotheses. Just like memory, narratives (or “lived experiences”) are constructed. They are not automatic, accurate representations of reality.
Just because we want a particular conclusion does not mean that is what the data say. Just because we like the results of a scientific study does not mean the research is high quality. Similarly, just because we don’t like what the data say does not mean the research is shoddy.
Here’s the problem: We can always find flaws in what we don’t approve of. We must bend over backwards to avoid bending reality toward preferred conclusions. If you want to conclude a job candidate sucks, you can find something in their personality or record to ding them. If you want to conclude that an organization is anti-anti-racism, you can build a story to ding them.
Here’s a micro-solution: assume benevolent intent until definitive proof exists to think otherwise. Take the time to notice the psychological strengths of individuals and groups you are about to crucify. Give them a chance to be coached, and offer sufficient time to gauge how their behavior modifies. Do anything less and you risk artificially turning potential allies into unwarranted adversaries. Play the loooooooooong game.
Consider the prescient words of author Upton Sinclair in 1934, “It is difficult to get a man [sic] to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Trust those who can point out areas of uncertainty in their conclusions.
Be way of those who show unwarranted confidence in their conclusions about something as complicated as human interactions in groups.
………………………………………………………………………………..
Extra Curiosities
My favorite interview to date has just dropped. It’s from my second trip on the incredibly named Smart Person Podcast. If you listen to one thing by me, listen to a pleasurable 69 minutes on how to fight bat shit crazy ideas….and win.
For the past four years I’ve been collaborating with an incredible team of scientists on how people thrive during and after mental health problems. Check out this review, “Thriving After Therapy” in the Association for Psychological Science Monitor.
Ted Lasso or Bob Knight? How do you embrace these divergent leadership styles in organizations? Check out my 91 minute podcast conversation.
As always, if you enjoyed this newsletter, go ahead and leave a ❤️. Even better, share this with someone who could use a boost. And contact me with feedback and start a conversation here. And if you want more, click on the links below…
………………………………………………………………………………..
Dr. Todd B. Kashdan is the author of The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively (Avery/Penguin) and a Professor of Psychology who leads The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University.
Take the PRINCIPLED REBEL quiz.
Follow me on socials: Twitter or Facebook or Linkedin or Instagram