Many of my clients are very committed to diversity in their organizations. But I have always been wary of diversity programs because “diversity” – a code word for reducing existing levels of prejudice – signifies that we have a “problem” and that we need to “fix” it. But surely the problem cannot be “fixed’ with a “program”? It is best achieved through a fundamental shift in our beliefs and the way we see the world – and in particular, people.
When I first went to Johannesburg some 40 years ago, I asked my local guide, “How many people live in this city?” and I will never forget his reply: “Oh, about 650,000 – over 2 million if you count the blacks as well.” I was stunned, and thus began my immersion course in the horrors of the separateness of South Africa at the time and the many ways we have invented to make another person feel inferior.
As coach of the University of Texas–El Paso (UTEP), the late Don Haskins was the first coach to start five black players in a championship. In the 1966 NCAA title game, Texas Western, as his University of Texas, El Paso (UTEP) team was then known, upset an all-white Kentucky team. After he passed on September 7th. Bob Knight, “the winningest coach in Division 1 basketball history”, said of his friend:
“There’s a myth, perpetuated by the press and the 2006 Disney movie “Glory Road”, that it took exceptional courage for Don to start an all-black team. Not really. It took a guy who didn’t care about colors. He would have started five white kids or five Chinese kids if that gave him the best chance to win. Don’s legacy is that he played the game the way he thought it should be played, without prejudice.”
Now, that is the sort of values system we need to encourage throughout our society – not just in organizations. I prefer the term “inclusion” because is says what we mean – we intend to include everyone, regardless of their color, race, religion, demographic or any other label that we might use to separate people. Exclusion hurts. Inclusion inspires.
In my work studying corporate boards, I am struck by the absence of a different kind of diversity. That women, for example, comprise only about 15% of directors is not news. People of color are even fewer. In the 21st century, however, I would argue that the larger diversity obstacle has not to do with factors we can observe from the outside (race, gender, age, etc.) but instead centers on how people see and think.
Most people naturally feel safer in the company of people who are superficially similar to themselves. Today, however, younger people are more comfortable with “others.” This generational shift is evident in the U.S. electoral polling: basically, older people have trouble getting past Barak Obama’s race, even before they consider his policies. That issue does not affect nearly as many young people according to the surveys.
If that hurdle is crossed, now the issue becomes one of accepting people who think differently, or whose values that may be internally consistent and well-meant, but nonetheless differ from our own.
Overcoming that obstacle, I believe, is a tougher challenge, and will be a principle social task of the 21st century.