Leadership and Change

The opening segment about an executive attempting an introduction in Mandarin does illustrate a shift in the image of leadership: by delving into a realm where he is uncomfortable, his attempt at bridging cultures may encourage acceptance from the local audience. But there’s still the question of what diversity IS: language, skin color, physical location, relationships both social and corporate?

Egodigwe references new formats of interaction for educating about diversity. The concept of activities in lieu of passive-delivery lectures is clearly a shift, and seems similar to Jacob Moreno’s group psychotherapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama where individuals bridge misunderstandings by putting themselves literally in the role of the other. Yet the missing piece is whether these organizations have an intermediary running this event, or if the minority viewpoints are physically present for these activities. Abstraction or detachment from reality and individuality is the biggest issue with this type of mass-manufactured response.

We are experiencing an increase in “categories” for diversity from simply race and gender to sexual preference, socio-economic class, alumni affiliations, ad infinitum. Is this increasing the diversity of thinking, or merely continually abbreviating who we really are? The specifics of the individual and the relationship of that mental construct to that of the organization is what is truly critical in providing an environment that supports diversity. I find this to be a problem of numbers, not labels. Does a manager have the time to truly know each employee? What level of knowledge is necessary to support them in the role one plays in the organization, versus where that individual wants to grow a career or simply what one wants from life?

This graphic by Ryder http://www.ryder.com/aboutus_diversity.shtml is actually one of the better images I’ve come across that depicts the varying labels that are used. Perhaps it is simply that the company relies on many aspects of society to for their business to function. Which makes me question if for-profit companies could ever truly be diverse: how many movies are there about the one with a disadvantaged background that made it to the other side? To name a few: In Pursuit of Happyness, Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester, Invincible, Goal! All about one individual crossing borders to an elevated situation.

But discrimination and diversity works in both directions. Gene Hackman in Hoosiers and James Earl Jones in The Reading Room both play roles that struggle with integration of one from a more advantaged background entering a less prominent setting. Until we can identify intention separate from the literal background of individuals or our preconception of their personality, these assumptions feeding both directions will always exist. Patchett’s “Bel Canto” builds off this key theme of what is most critical to breaking down standard categories: common backgrounds/language/social status, or an extreme experience outside the realm of every day life?

Are these extremes of everyday mundane versus bomb the only ways we have to build bridges across unknown individuals? Or are there others you have experienced that continue beyond a limited [structured or random] interaction? What are experiences that you have had that build diversity?