Good article here on how the hot new HR buzzword is “belonging,” including this section to give it some heft:
LinkedIn, Nordstrom, HubSpot, DoorDash and other companies all now have executives with job titles such as manager of “diversity, inclusion and belonging” or vice president of “global culture, belonging, and people growth.”
Earlier this year, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School hosted its first lecture panel focused on the topic. Harvard and Yale have also been getting in on the idea, hiring faculty or staff with “belonging” in their titles after launching related task forces or campus-wide initiatives.
Those are some big-name hitters getting into the “belonging” game. If you read down the article, you’ll see quotes about how senior leadership “doesn’t understand” what “belonging” means; in the same quote, the person tries to claim that senior leaders do care — and understand — what words like “diversity” and “inclusion” mean. OK then.
Caring vs. doing something
Wall Street has claimed for over a decade that it cares about diversity. Do most big banks share complete workforce data? Nope.
Tech companies share diversity reports more, but there isn’t much progress.
The reality is that diversity and inclusion falls into the biggest workforce bucket of them all: “I shall claim to care about this thing because it sounds like something I should claim to care about, but really I want to be over here doing what I actually value, which is making money and fleecing rivals on deals.”
That’s all it is.
And honestly, the vocabulary around diversity initiatives has become muddled. Words like “diversity” and “inclusion” and “belonging” are fluffy words to an executive. They do not represent a certain amount of money, a product launch, etc. They don’t really know what these words mean and they cannot translate them back into things they understand.
Plus, these things typically reside in HR. That’s a department usually near the bottom of the list of people you want in front of you.
And plus: most executives, honestly, want to be surrounded by like-minded people. I mean same gender, same skin color, same background, same way of thinking about that sector/industry. Usually someone running D&I doesn’t look like you, doesn’t think like you, etc. Who wants that person around?
And what about when we “train” for diversity?
Usually feels like a PR stunt.
What about hiring for diversity?
Ever heard of the myth of team diversity?
In reality, what we need is…
- A few executives who give a shit.
- A way to tie these initiatives more directly to revenue/growth.
- An increased focus on cognitive diversity.
- Use more words that senior leaders “get” and can process.
Those four steps would be a start, at least.
What you got?
If a company hired or promoted based on workplace capability, problem solved. Diversity becomes an automatic value-add since task ability knows no demographic channel. You’ll have a diverse & effective team by default, no buzzwords need apply.
Naturally this rarely happens in a modern company. Firms predominantly hire and promote off of “gut” , followed by social proximity to the power base. Humans don’t pick other humans off of cold hard data , they pick the least risky or threatening candidate. This usually means the person closest in appearance and manners to themselves.
The higher up the org chart the more important these factors become. If you’re an older Asian man and the level above you is populated with young Hispanic women , your next promotion will be at a different silo or company.
That’s spot on, Luke!
And the older Asian man example isn’t far fetched. It’s not just white men that discriminate. I’ve seen IT organizations nearly totally populated by Indians. You would think that brown skin was a requirement to code.
A person’s ability to perform and to excel are far more important than the ring they occupy in the “diversity circus” that is so pervasive in these times.
Minorities of all stripes have earned my support and respect based on their abilities, ideas, and how they connect with others, not on their race, age, gender, accent, national origin or how well they conform to “the corporate culture”. It has always been that way in my approach to management. As long as human resources and other management drones focus primarily on the obvious differences among people instead of their abilities, skills, and/or actual accomplishments, excellence will remain as an occupational step-child.
I have earned a doctorate, as evidenced by a couple of diplomas that I keep in my private office. This is not so much a product of my efforts, as the application of criteria established by others to reinforce their own personal values and bias. I have them to remind myself that is can be done and was not all that difficult to accomplish. The acquisition of true knowledge and understanding, regardless of how or where it is obtained is much more significant than anyone’s certification or approval.