The CEO Conundrum: The Intersection of Organizational Culture and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

The CEO Conundrum. Today’s CEOs face a challenging conundrum. How to fine tune and leverage the power of the organization’s core culture, the things that set it apart from the competition, with the pressure of ensuring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is part and parcel of the organization’s approach. One sees this conundrum in play in various forms, e.g., AT&T and Wal Mart have very deliberately made race, specifically whiteness, a key factor in their business model. What this means internally for their cultures is yet to be determined given culture reacts to such changes in such a way as to return to its status quo: Culture is more powerful than the CEOs simply making specious observations. ?

The Characteristics of Culture. Organizations can be viewed through various lens or perspectives. My view is that organizations are living, breathing organisms that both interact with and react to their environment versus being machine-like, i.e., cold, hard, and typically unaffected by the environment. If my view is correct then the artifacts of culture that permeate the organization impact the human members. As an example, most mature organizations have vision and mission statements, long- and short-term goals, and core values that are prominently displayed; standard signature blocks; intentionally designed work areas; logos; etc.

Each of these is an artifact of the organization’s culture intentionally designed to harmonize the uniqueness and behaviors of the individual members to a common, organizational approach. There may be commonality of products and services between and among competitors but, internally, each competitor has a different culture. This unsubtle difference is why so many mergers fail – cultures do not often mix: Boeing has been very publicly experiencing this long-term effect of cultures not mixing after its long-ago merger with McDonnell Douglas, itself the result of a merger. In effect, culture shapes and molds the members even if the members are not consciously aware. Culture negates strategies that don’t align unless a well-planned, long-term, systematic approach is undertaken to shift the culture. ?

The Characteristics of DEI. Attempting to disrupt the status quo is the DEI norm in its current state. Celebration of multiculturalism versus assimilation is the norm. The DEI approach is the antithesis of a common, core culture in that individuals seek to celebrate their uniqueness and often their fluidity between and among identities. Race, ethnicity, sexual preferences, socio-economic, and a host of other attributes are in play to ensure identification of the individual is not only recognized but totally accepted regardless of another’s beliefs and value systems. This creates an atomized environment, a kaleidoscope of individuals that potentially changes constantly. Individuality and uniqueness are celebrated whereas the desire for a common approach is often not the desired end. The bespoken inclusion often leads to conflict as the values and beliefs of the atomized individuals interact. One sees this clearly in the conflict within the LGBT* community as segments react negatively to the current dominant trans ideology. ?

The Intersection of Culture and DEI. In an earlier post I discussed Role Theory’s three levels: role taking, role making, and role routinization. It is at the role making level that the intersection of culture and DEI is most turbulent. Why? Because it is here that the growth of the social exchanges that build mutual respect, mutual obligation, and mutual trust blossom or fail. The organizational culture is exerting pressure for the individual to conform and to align to its values and beliefs whereas the instincts and desires of DEI, i.e., fluid individual identify and required acceptance, manifest. It is also at the role making level where the “what’s in it for me” paradigm begins to shift to self-identification with the organization or remains self-focused. The tension is high as these forces interact. If the role making effort does not mature then the member may become resentful, feel left out of the clique, anxious, etc., while the organization likely begins to see the member as one that is not worthy of continued or increased resource allocation (growth opportunities). If the relationship remains at the role making level tension and conflict abound. Remote work or a return to the office decision is demographically charged if media articles are on point. If true, that is a real-time example related to this intersection event.?

Considerations. A sincere effort to incorporate DEI requires CEOs to understand their current cultural type, i.e., control, collaboration, cultivation, or competence per one common model, and to understand that not all cultural types are receptive to DEI. As an example, a control culture is just that; the expectations for conformance, compliance, and performance are high. Concurrently, the leadership style of the organization must be factored into the dynamic. As an example, the Servant Leader style looks beyond the organization’s bottom-line results to socioeconomic community concerns. Many organizations do not have the means or the desire for this type of perspective yet must contend with the current DEI efforts.

The intersection of DEI and organizational culture is an area that CEOs should analyze carefully and continuously even though the topic is fraught with peril. Every individual should be treated with dignity and respect; however, the CEO must decide if a common, core culture is preferable to an atomized climate. There are pros and cons to each that must be weighed consciously. Think systems versus components. Inserting DEI as a component ultimately will not work even if politically expedient. And finally, culture is not quickly changed. Culture change is not an overnight shift that occurs simply because the CEO has spoken.

The author is a VA-certified Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business owner who works under the auspices of Eagle3 Business Services. He holds a Dr. of Strategic Leadership from Regent University, a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College, and a Master of Public Administration from the former Georgia College. He is a certified Theory of Constraints Jonah and a Lean Green Belt. He is also certified as a Hammer & Company Process Master, a MBTI Practitioner, and was a Gallup Strengths Performance Coach for four years. Dale spent years in Conflict Management as a certified mediator, arbitration advocate, and as a practitioner of negotiation. He holds an Executive Conflict Management certificate from Notre Dame. The author is adept at blending leadership, people, and process into a holistic approach to amplify organizational effectiveness. Dale may be contacted via [email protected].