Typically, diversity is not destructive at all. Even when it seems most unproductive, it might be working its greatest creative magic. But when it is a conscious construction, it can at the very least be problematic – in its very deliberateness introducing tensions into the dynamics of the workplace that have nothing to do with the work, and that contribute nothing to it.
One way to get a feel for this is by considering the common refrain that opposites attract. The truth is that they don’t. They repel. Yin and yang, for example, don’t complete each other. They annihilate each other. They don’t signal ever cycling harmony, but rather the inevitability of destruction following from creation.
It is complements – not opposites – that attract. Organizations don’t need people with a range of strengths, abilities, and talents which conflict, but rather which combine to accomplish corporate aims. One of the threads that must be found woven through them all is a common predisposition to bend their shoulders together, albeit in their varying ways, to jointly pursue these goals.
This is the tricky thing about common purpose, culture, and diversity. Pursuing any one of them for its own sake is likely to undermine, or even destroy, the others. Pursue your organizational purpose, and bend your means to its end – not it to theirs.
—
Today’s tip: Please take a moment to read this insightful essay on the impact an assignment in America made on a UK correspondent, written on the occasion of his return home.
—
Did you know you can read these posts, and any other at this site, on your mobile device? Specially formatted pages, more quickly downloaded and easily read, will open on your internet-capable phone when you navigate here (don’t forget to bookmark it!). Also, you can switch back and forth between standard and mobile views. Give it a try!
But before you go, please take a moment to subscribe, either by email or RSS reader, to be sure you receive future articles right here as well, as they’re published.
Technorati Tags: diversity, productive, creative, dynamics, workplace, work, harmony, destruction, creation, purpose, culture, organization, America, UK
Sphere: Related Content
8 Comments
I certainly think that diversity can be destructive (as anything in the extreme can be dangerous), but not in most cases.
Hello Aleksandar,
I don’t disagree at all – it’s worth considering the possibilities of its being or becoming dysfunctional – even through a distortingly misplaced focus on it.
Thanks for stopping in with this caution – much appreciated. And thanks as well for your visit!
Diversity in the backgrounds and perspectives of employees brings value to workplaces. It also brings management responsibilities. While management may be a bit easier with a homogeneous workforce, it’s neither a smart or legal option.
Businesses want to make the most of its people, usually their most expensive resource.
A key part of using employees’ talents is encouraging employees to call upon one another to complement their skills and perspectives.
People are more comfortable calling upon others with whom they share similarities.
So, effective management puts effort into overcoming barriers among employees, and part of that effort goes to establishing the value of diversity as a strategic business asset.
A civil workplace is more effective every time.
http://www.workengagement.com/crew
Michael
Hello Michael,
Your emphasis on the role of management in this something I support strongly. A key part of this is uncovering and harnessing the inclination to work together, bringing diverse skills, abilities, and perspectives to bear on common problems, to advance joint goals.
Cultivating that diversity in order to benefit from it is also a valid part of this – often even when doing so involves allowing diversity to generate creative conflict to clear a path to previously unseen solutions. The problem is when the value of a strategic asset is mistaken as that of a strategic aim. It is a difficult boundary to perceive, but when it is mistakenly crossed, civility does indeed abandon the workplace.
This is an important topic, one that has become highly charged, and that is thus tough to discuss without sparking some degree of controversy. That, of course, is all the more reason for discussing it.
So, thank you for stopping by to do that. And thank you as well for your own work!
(a) In its initiation, diversity must be conscious construct – even if only bacause of learned biases/tendencies toward and away from.
(b) Diversity must never be for its sake alone.
(c) “One way to get a feel for…” This analogy does not pertain. With diversity, you are dealing with the establishment of cultural/social crossroads where some already exist. If there are no pre-existing cultural crossroads, there is little basis upon which to build.
Your comment is characterized by a peculiar sort of diversity of its own, which makes it difficult to pin down and respond to. I am left to say only that these declarative statements are not persuasive, do not appear to add to or illuminate any points made within the comment or anywhere else in the post, do not lead me to change or question the points made in the post, and indeed would seem, on the whole, to support the veracity of some of the concerns I allude to.
I would continue to caution against anyone attempting to construct diversity of any sort upon any basis at all. The results will almost certainly be other than expected, and resolve themselves around ends other than those intended.
Managers should construct goals, create an operating environment that facilitates their pursuit, and use the diversity of many sorts that will form of its own in that environment and around those goals to help advance the organization’s ends.
Let’s walk this together slowly. We are in more agreement than we are not.
(1) Your first paragraph is beautiful – on point.
(2) Your paragraph #2 stands/sits nicely by itslef but does nothing (using your terms) “to illuminate the conversation.”
(3) You return powerfully in paragraph three to the point of complimentary relationships. Complimentary relationships, complimentary histories, complimentary experiences are what I reference with the term “cultural crossroads.”
So we are neither tangential nor antagonistic in our perspectives. I am pretty much in concert with you – just paragraph two (although well argued) did as you said…”added nothing.”
It remains unclear to me how you can agree with the third paragraph without comprehending how and why it follows from the second, which progression is the actual point of the post. I will take responsibility for that shortcoming, and return to the matter in the near future to elaborate on it, and will look forward to your observations then.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Managing Leadership has a thoughtful post on what can happen or not happen when you try to force diversity in the workplace. ML’s post is certainly not anti-diversity. Rather, it’s about sensible diversity. var addthis_pub='mleesmith'; [...]
Post a Comment