Diversity Cost

Ideals are often expensive.

As organizations embrace the value of increasing diversity, particularly at the leadership team and board levels, I am having conversations with leaders who are finding it harder than they thought.

In some cases the challenge is finding capable candidates for roles that have for too long been limited to those who represent the dominant culture (like me). Broadening our networks deliberately, seeking out access and credibility in communities where systems and structures have restricted opportunity, and looking beyond the usual circles and suspects are all crucial as we get deeper into the leadership shortage created by a generation of founders and builders entering retirement.

We must hire, develop, and promote people who aren’t male, stale, and pale.

But what my clients are finding even more tricky is figuring out how to function as teams effectively when people have different life experiences and cultural touchpoints.

Whether it’s ethnicity, disability, marginalization, socioeconomic disadvantage, sexual orientation and gender identity, neurodiversity, or coming from different subcultures; adding diversity to a team or organization doesn’t often go seamlessly.

It’s something like this:

More Diversity leads to increased Complexity which causes reduced Efficiency.

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

We need to consider whether the benefit of having insights and representation from diverse viewpoints is effective (better performance) and worthwhile (aligning with our values). That means evaluating the costs and benefits.

The benefits are well known by now. Diverse teams can be more insightful, avoid group think, be more creative, and better serve diverse communities. They can more easily trust across differences, and avoid the errors of bias that have undermined so many well intended initiatives. Diversity has a lot of advantages; it’s so much more than social justice.

But diversity is also costly. Hiring may be more difficult when we have to look in new places and use less biased approaches. Our organizational culture may take may work to develop and maintain when everyone doesn’t have the same expectations. Even social dynamics take more attention when we don’t all have the same shared references and patterns. Proper inclusion is not just adding someone to the team and expecting them to figure out how to fit in with what is already happening.

I’ve been enjoying Malcolm Glawell’s new book “Revenge of the Tipping Point” where he explores again how ideas spread and communities change. One of the key understandings is that it generally takes about 25-30% diverse representation for any underrepresented group to be able to fully engage in team function. Less than that and we are highly vulnerable to the dynamics of tokenism.

So, what does this mean to you and your organization?

If increasing your team’s diversity is something you believe in; because it will make you better at fulfilling your purpose and/or because it represents something you believe is just the right thing to do; you need to be prepared for it to be a challenge.

Carefully consider what it will take for diversity to be more than a slogan or a checkmark. Commit to doing the work to understand the varied needs of people (beyond their demographics) and accept that it make bring some awkwardness and slow some things down. And then, if you really believe it is best, build the kind of team and organization that thrives because of, not in spite of, your differences.

Contact me if I can be helpful to you and/or your organization.

Subscribe to Catalyst Content for monthly insights and opportunities for charity leaders.