Returning to work for that late Summer productivity push with stretch goals at the forefront of their minds, leaders can’t fail to be aware of the pervasive backdrop of identity debates that rage around gender; class; identity; culture and race.

These are unprecedented times. But you would be forgiven for thinking:

“What? Another global crisis  that’s popped up to distract and deflect my teams?”

It’s clear to the enlightened that, far from being a storm to weather, change and change management itself is going to be a lifelong process of continuous development for leaders, especially the people aspects. So time to start dancing in the rain.

 

If your title  on the org chart is leader and yet you’re there on technical merit alone,  you have to be aware that it is going to become increasingly more difficult to justify your status.

 

Critics on one side have suggested that this current emphasis on difference or what sets us apart rather than what we have in common, is a cynical form of populist socio-political engineering aimed at creating loyal tribes. They argue that it has coincided with the coming of age of digital natives and the rising power of digital media. They also claim, that it’s deliberately contrived to divide and thereby enable easier control of the masses, as global agendas overtake national priorities and tempers fray.

 

The other set of critics, on the other hand, suggest that the current discord is a bi-product of the growth of handheld media liberating and giving voice to the previously unheard, the disaffected, the downtrodden and the victimised. They point to the growth in higher education attendance and suggest that this is now manifesting as enlightened thinking.

 

These are just two, domineering but very different readings of the same situation.

 

Can both be right?

Does it matter to you in your role?

 

Whether you favour the money and the power lines; take the supposedly ethical high ground or just keep your eyes focused on more pragmatic horizons, refusing to be drawn, the prevailing truth, as ever, probably lies somewhere in-between the self-interested extremes.

 

Whatever your personal take on the root cause of the culture debate, one of the effects on organisations of these geo-political pressures and discussions, is that the talent management and employment landscape is undoubtedly becoming increasingly complex. This, in turn, demands deeper consideration and sensitivity and certainly more sophisticated and malleable leadership strategies as senior colleagues try to control their controllables, as they are trained to do. Invariably, they will look to influence the aspects of employer or employment brand that they believe they can shape directly.

 

As coaches with several decades of leadership experience at the sharp end, this increasing complexity certainly brings challenges. But, as ever, the fault lines of change also herald greater opportunity for those with the potential to thrive through complexity.

 

The emotionally and intellectually agile leader capable of inhabiting the sense-making role, who has a vision for how the people disciplines influence business outputs and who is dedicated to liberating that latent potential within their teams while remaining focused on their core goals, will become increasingly valuable. There’s little doubting that, now.

 

Typically, in times of change, newness, alternate perspectives and difference is often interpreted or positioned as a threat by those who are insecure about the unknown. And, let’s be honest, most of us welcome the comfort of the familiar over constant uncertainty and every one of us avoids uncomfortable truths, from time to time. Sometimes, insecurity and discomfort is justified when the demands of the changing world seems beyond the realms of our current capability, or threatens to de-stabilise our standing in a competitive world.

 

There is also a natural paranoia about the less scrupulous who look to exploit division in order to manufacture advantages for themselves. These types now seem to get a deal more airtime than they used to, because hysteria and drama and buzz sells. But retreating into extreme conservatism in response can’t be effective for long.

 

Sure, the philosophies of diversity management and multi-culturalism have their logical critics. There are plenty of self-interested charlatans about (that’s human nature) waving flags of popular convenience, after all.  But inclusion and culture change are both concepts bridging anthropology, sociology and the organisation development world, that, within the corporate sphere, started as idealised enlightened thinking, but now have a firm business case, proven in practice and theory. Given the direction of travel of society in general, these concepts simply can’t be ignored. There’s a clear imperative for both diversity and inclusion and culture development linked to sustainable leadership practice, certainly when organisations are properly managed and led.

 

Culture, in organisation terms, refers to norms and ways of working. These can and are clearly informed by nationality and background. But organisational norms are primarily focused on practices that deliver the corporate goals and which can be readily scaled and replicated. They are more deliberately contrived and, even when they have significant legacy roots, serve a pragmatic purpose, first and foremost. They require a high degree of clarity and consistency of application. But even in global corporations it is perfectly possible for leaders and teams to riff around a “set” list that comes from a single playbook, but adapt and interpret it to suit local tastes. In fact, that adaptability is a core part of the role of regional leaders. But it takes skill and guile and nuance and responsiveness as well as governance and focus. Even then, with the best will in the world,  culture change initiatives can be undermined by identity politics and insecurity, if wielded as weapons for political point scoring, as they too often are.

 

Regardless of your starting point, it’s natural and healthy to remain skeptical about the way ED&I is positioned and managed and, indeed,  how far any leader can promote multi-culturalism in its absolute form, within organisation structures that require clear differentiation, controls, compliance,  rules, regulations and consistency. Sadly not every version of being yourself at work will be appropriate for every brand and sometimes values clash or are at odds that just can’t be reconciled. But if individuals and organisations are explicit about their purpose and values before entering into a business relationship, like joining as an employee or purchasing as a customer, that should be less of an issue. Yet, again, that takes systems thinking, strategies and work.

 

For decades now, we have been advocating for leaders to proactively manage their ways of working and corporate culture and, in turn, employment brand. In fact, as showcased in Brand Engagement, Ian was collaborating with the European Institute for Diversity Management back in the 90s, before the term was even widely used and certainly before it was accepted as a business principle and was designing consultancy teams with these principles very much in mind.

 

A core argument for taking a proactive, focused and systems approach to culture management is that, if you don’t, someone else will do it for you and will shape it to their own ends:

 

1. – checked your Glassdoor reviews lately?
2. – how’s the recruitment going and what are your suppliers saying about you?
3. – are your engagement surveys explaining the current talent churn?

 

See how the soft stuff really impacts the hard bottom line?

 

OD isn’t about hearts and flowers. It is actually a form of hard-nosed systems thinking. When it’s approached properly, it will be taken at least as seriously as your strategy for marketing and sales. At least. Why? Because it is the key enabler that drives the hard business outcomes like customer attraction, satisfaction, market share and profitability. Are you regularly reviewing your OD strategy at Board?

Bet you talk about your Marketing plans. So why would you spend £millions to attract customers with lofty promises about the brand, only to disappoint them when they interact with your people and products online or face-to-face? This neglectful practice actually speeds up brand decline…

 

Most OD problems arise, when well-meaning (or in rarer cases malign leaders) equate enabling activity to outcomes or lead only with the ethical imperative. This is made worse when they’re hypocrites,  clearly deficient in authenticity or values-based practice themselves but projecting a shadow that is compelling.

 

ED&I or culture management within organisations has to be about much more than woke PR trotted out for any trendy cause for a month of a year. It’s surely about ever-adapting ways of working to encourage colleagues to find common ground between their core values and those of the organisation and, as a result, continuously delivering better business outcomes by taking increasing ownership over the  goals they share…willingly.

 

In the hearts and likes version of the people profession devoid of a mature systems approach, the means become the end. In this world, organisations either end up alienating the bulk of their colleagues with fluffy talk in pursuit of what remains a minority agenda or lose sight of why they’re in business for in the first place and hemorrhage customers. Witness some major brands like Harley Davidson who are back-tracking in this area, pointing to a perceived loss of focus.

 

Post pandemic, we’re clearly living in more emotionally attuned times. For better or for worse, people feel the zeitgeist more keenly now, whether driven by algorithms or what passes for news. Most are literally plugged into others, (whether they like it or not), via their electronic devices. Emotions are powerful and can undoubtedly cloud commercialism. But sustainable businesses are balanced businesses. Their leaders take multiple stakeholder management very seriously. It’s the compass that guides their strategy. The trick is, in order to continue to make proper, informed and balanced decisions about their identity as it evolves leaders have to be acutely aware of their vital anchor points and strengths:

1. – their purpose and core goals
2. – their unique selling points and differentiators
3. – how their OD strategy reinforces and perpetuates the above, continuously adapting to remain current and future fit.

 

They then need to enshrine these behavioural anchor points in the ways of working of all leaders and perpetually and agilely improve and enhance their offer in line with customer and wider stakeholder feedback. This calls for systems thinking, ensuring that all moving parts work in synchronicity and complement one another.

 

Invariably, the people elements are the trickiest to get right. But inevitably, on most projects or programmes, they receive the least investment in terms of time and budget.

 

Diversity has undoubtedly become a buzz word. It’s often mentioned out of context of its siblings equality and inclusion and too often is positioned as either a right; a moral crusade; an atonement for historic ills; a response to victimhood or even a manifestation of moral superiority. Positioned this way, it appeals to those who see themselves as somehow wronged, searching for a safe and not necessarily productive space; raises the collective heckles of those who feel blamed for something they had no active part in or sometimes, yes sometimes, it becomes a ready and consuming cause for folk to align behind, hopefully touching upon the commercials, at some point.

 

There are a host of difficulties with this positioning, not least:

 

1. – it places the focus of improvement activity on a minority cause to the exclusion of the majority of colleagues
   – it creates a parent/child, two camp dynamic that infantilises the minority
   – it breeds resentment as it often detracts from the business goals

 

The point of ED&I within the corporate sphere, stripping out the emotions and ethics, is to enable the organisation to perform more effectively either by accessing a wider talent pool; tune in to the needs of stakeholders more effectively; innovating better; evolving to changing demographics and markets faster or enriching with differing styles that stretch and evolve the core.

 

That last point is crucial. Organisations are made up of manifold individual identities but they are drawn together under one vision; purpose; strategy; value set and culture. If you own the business, you are the ultimate custodian of all of the above and it’s most likely that, in this era,  if you want to succeed commercially, clarity and inclusiveness are both key.

 

Whether you’re a business; organisation or nation-state,  the notion of multi-culturalism is both attractive and problematic. It’s attractive because it encompasses all-comers and caters for all varieties and tastes. But it’s tougher to manage and lead.

 

Brand, or identity, is mostly behavioural. It’s a signal to stakeholders, including investors, customers and indeed colleagues,  of the behaviour they can expect when interacting with the organisation and its leaders. It’s measured by reputation, what people say about you when you’re not there. And everyone’s on a form of Tripadvisor these days.

 

In order to differentiate, your brand has to define what it stands for. But it also has to be clear about what it doesn’t. It can’t be all things to all people. It takes a prejudiced stance. And that’s nothing to be ashamed of. That’s the point of having a unique point of difference. By the same token, it has to be scaleable and manageable, so its ways of working cant be entirely chaotic or self-determined by every employee. Unique standards and norms and guidelines and principles, governance and values and behavioural boundaries are part of the collateral that defines an organisation or a brand. These define difference. They are your USP. Consistency is an indicator of a healthy corporate culture, but it requires compliance and that’s an uncomfortable fact, for some.

 

So, multi-culturalism, in an absolute sense, is only really viable within a corporate environment within a range of tolerable variances. It’s the same principle that applies to total quality management where the nature of physical outputs is guaranteed by controlling a unique formula of inputs with the human inputs famously being the greatest source of problems, but also innovation. A strong systems-thinking environment can embrace diversity and inclusion. Of course it can and, of course it should. But as with any healthy adult relationship, there are behavioural boundaries that everyone has to work within in order to sustain the working status quo and achieve the key goals. There are givens. They create the bedrock on which the negotiables and variables should thrive. Systems and processes need to be in place to enable necessary experimentation; growth and continuous improvement to challenge and shape that status quo. But innovation is more an act of perspiration than inspiration and it requires discipline and focus. You’re just more likely to generate the good stuff if you somehow also embrace difference in pursuit of a common goal.

 

The long and the short of this debate is that leaders should treat culture development with at least as much care as the finances, not least because it’s a lot more complicated. They need to be as clear about culture development goals as they are outcomes sought and to role-model their core values. These simple steps alone should be sufficient for the future focused leader to embrace the notions of diversity, equality and inclusion as they can readily influence all three without marginalising their colleague base.

 

While multi-culturalism has its challenges, evolving core culture to remain inclusive and adaptable is eminently achievable. But like the best things in life, it takes dedication, commitment, focus, prioritisation, team effort, consistency and hard work.

 

Yet how many CEO’s still leave this task to the HRD to tackle on their own?

 

Do you?