Designing for Diversity

“Comedy is ‘you fall down an open manhole.’ Tragedy is ‘I get a hangnail.’” — Terry McGovern (my old acting coach and the voice of the stormtrooper that says “these are not the droids we are looking for”)

You may have noticed that when someone does something shitty, like cutting someone off in traffic, they always have an excuse like “the sun was in my eyes,” or “I was on my way to an important meeting.” I mean you don’t do this of course; other people do.

But when they get cut off in traffic they immediately think the other person is an asshole. Or as a friend once put it: everyone going slower than me is an idiot and everyone going faster is an asshole.

In social psychology this is called the fundamental attribution error (FAE), which is the all-too- human tendency to emphasize environmental or situational factors to explain our own behavior; and dispositional or personality factors to explain other people’s behavior. It’s also known as cognitive bias, and even super smart people fall victim to it.

A few years ago Jonathan Haidt (NYU professor, best selling author, TED speaker etc.) wrote a piece called True Diversity Requires Generosity of Spirit. I kind of love the title and even the opening sentence: “Diversity is inherently divisive.” But after that, the whole piece quickly devolves into a near textbook example of the FAE.

Diversity is messy because humanity is messy. To build better teams, better organizations, and a better world, we need to bring in more perspectives. The promise of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) work is that we’ll make organizations more resilient and robust and also correct the sins of our forebears. Even many people like Haidt who oppose the discipline of DEI (at least as it is currently practiced) share this overall intent.

Haidt's piece is an impassioned plea that people be more “reasonable” when asking that organizations become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. He puts it this way:

“Don’t attack people. Be more indirect and psychologically skillful. Try to see things honestly from their point of view, and acknowledge what they are doing right, before you say what you’d like them to change.”

On the surface there is little to disagree with here. It’s pretty much always a good idea to develop a bit of empathy for the opposing side in a debate. But let’s look just one layer deeper at the argument. In this piece Haidt is lecturing students who engaged in campus protests (many of whom come from traditionally marginalized groups). He’s not speaking to himself, other professors, or his colleagues in the “heterodox” community.

He’s essentially saying that he doesn’t like the way a certain style of dialog makes him, and therefore others like him, feel. That it adds divisiveness to something that is already inherently so. I get it. I get nervous too when I talk about certain topics with certain people because I fear how the mood of the conversation might shift.

But I have a problem with Haidt putting primary responsibility for the tone of a discourse onto people (often from diverse backgrounds) asking for change and asking them to express concerns, or to ask for a place at the table, more sweetly.

Haidt says that “​​Diversity is inherently divisive; it takes work to reap its benefits” and I agree. It’s hard to blend different viewpoints and so much easier to collaborate with people with shared backgrounds and perspectives. But Haidt is wrong in his prescription.

When someone enters a space that has historically excluded people that look like them, they are usually coming in at entry level and have little power to change how that space operates. But they see things that others don’t — as newcomers often do — and often what they see are the subtle behaviors and systemic structures that reinforce exclusion; things that may just seem “normal,” “professional” or “the way things are done around here” to the people already in that space.

To put it bluntly: many spaces are predominantly white, male, hetero, and cis because they have actively excluded people who are not in overt and covert ways. When a woman, Black person, trans person etc. enters a space where folks like them have been traditionally excluded, they both want to make themselves at home and tend to feel a responsibility to make the space more accommodating to those who come after them.

In other words they see things about the organization that need to change to make it more inclusive but too often lack the power to make those changes. So, often reluctantly, they become advocates and activists.

Making change is hard. Imagine if Dr. King had just asked nicely at Selma. Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 have passed without loud protest and even a bit of property destruction? Probably not.

So here’s my broad prescription. If you are in a position of power, wealth, and/or authority and if you value diversity, as most people say they do, then it’s up to you to lean into discomfort yourself and to make things as easy as possible on people from traditionally excluded backgrounds. To be a good host and invite them in and ask how you can make the space more accommodating.

If you lead an organization, a big part of your job is organization design: developing the explicit and implicit rules, tools, and habits that run your organization. If your company is mostly white, cis, male and hetero, then that’s most likely who it is designed for. If you value diversity, you need to design for it. Here’s my prescription to get started:

1. Make a personal commitment to designing an organization that is more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

2. Be willing to feel some discomfort as you do this work, and develop a robust support network around you to help you manage your feelings (coaches, friends, colleagues, spouse, therapist, etc).

3. Actively invite people from diverse backgrounds into the organization design process (so they don’t have to resort to extreme measures to be heard), really listen to them, and co-create a new design together.

4. Keep doing the work; organization design is never done and never perfect.

And keep the FAE in mind at all times; recognize that the reason people asking for diversity can be so annoying and loud at times is not because their disposition is to be noisy or rude, but because their circumstances mean they don’t get heard without resorting to these tactics.

Sure, Dr. Haidt, diversity is divisive but it doesn’t need to be quite so hard.

— Bob Gower

PS If you’re ready to improve the performance of your team or company, hit reply and let’s talk.

PPS Here’s a great podcast critiquing Haidt's book The Coddling of the American Mind (which I’m inclined to call Please Coddle the American Boomer).