Mind the majority: Why covid is not great learning for everyone

Solidarity everywhere and a boost in flexible working that was previously unimaginable. Many believe that covid-19 causes the long-awaited, fundamental transformation at work. A transformation that is particularly needed among the traditional critics of flexibility. ‘We’ hope that the positive(?) current experiences will make ‘them’ feel good regarding individual work arrangements and that they will therefore promote them in the future. I have listened carefully to different parties and this article summarises the opportunities and less obvious risks for D&I related to some (side) effects of covid-19. As a key element, my considerations include experiences in dealing with so-called majority or mainstream stakeholders. For this time, it will be even more important to have them on board to create powerful and sustainable learning from the crises – including but not limited to flexible working.

The hidden downside of the covid-19 success stories

Media is vastly dominated by various types of covid-19 reports. In addition to the negative direct effects of the disease, the coverage includes numerous remarkable support initiatives the pandemic has caused. Maybe you are as impressed as I am by many of the examples of solidarity, creative solutions and unstoppable determination to make things work well together. Once these positive messages have reached us, it is maybe more difficult to see the other, dark side as well.

First, there is the understandable effort that everyone is trying to use the crises to advance their own agenda. From interest groups to the car industry, many are constructing reasons why things are particularly challenging for them and how their case should be prioritised going forward.

In addition, there is a sizeable group that is struggling with the current situation more silently. They struggle because the current dynamics are so fundamentally different from what they are used to. They are no longer in command, not controlling what’s happening and not even the rules. They cannot utilise physical presence to increase their domination, and they are largely left with and by themselves to find purpose and satisfaction in what they do.

This experience may well cause a form of trauma that can undermine or even reverse positive covid-19 side-effects in the near future. This underlying dynamic may create unexpected winners or losers unless we focus on the group that favours presence work, relies on physical activities, prefers personal contact and clear organisational structures – in other words, even if this may sound stereotypical, our ‘traditional’ D&I target group.

In order to do understand the future agenda, let’s look at the different sides of the set of covid-19 coins in front of us.

Solidarity or Suspiciousness?

Each day, the media feature new and amazing initiatives about people helping people in challenging situations. Hence, we are inclined to think that the collective threat brings out the good in humans – and to some extend this holds true. However, what about hoarding? What about the fear about almost anyone we don’t know – related to potential infections? These are everyday opposite examples of solidarity that show hostility instead. They bring back memories of the very early days of HIV when no one knew anything about the virus and for some time everybody was suspicious about everybody else. Whom you did not know was considered a dangerous threat. The covid-19 pandemic spreads much faster and it seems clear that it can affect everybody almost equally. To this end, a human thread (not threat) may run across most of the Corona debate. This could be an immense opportunity to use D&I to bring people together across different groups that are similarly affected and strengthen values that unite us.

Read more about how to work on seemingly diverging values from a D&I perspective

Humanity or Hostility?

As heads of government, managers and zoo workers have been infected – across all possible borders – the virus seems to be democratic, if you like. Statistically, though, it appears to have a bias against older people and those economically disadvantaged. On the other hand, it does not (cor)relate, on an international scale, to personal demographics like ethnicity or nationality. Not only for that reason are the various forms of nationalism and racism that break out in different parts of the world unbelievable and absurd. They can be, however, understood from a basic human instinct perspective – return to your tribe (if you have one) and lock yourselves in (even if it does not make sense).

Rationally seen, it is clear that we must try to contain any outbreak, also in a city or region. What we see, though, is a reflex to close national borders more readily than to block off a territory within a country. One of the few different examples was a statement of the President of the German region of North Rhine-Westphalia, Armin Laschet, who stood against an initiative to close the Dutch-German border. He said people were living across that border and health management also takes place across that border. In most places, however, mind-sets are much less European or mature, but rather National(ist).

This also applies to the discussion of ‘bringing home’ citizens from a given country. In these situations, the risk of potentially importing infections seem to be underemphasised while that aspect is overstated in relation to foreign travellers or migrants. These and other biases are quite prevalent in the covid-19 communication and rarely get questioned.

Harsh forms of covid-19-related racism exist as well. In Europe, the attempt of extreme right to use the pandemic against refugees was mostly dismissed. In the U.S., however, racism against people of ‘Asian appearance’ is reported and spills over to other groups. In other countries, nationalism occurs related to supplies – anything from masks to respirators or potential vaccines – that are requested to stay in the country.

It seems that covid-19 has created a renewed need for us to consider how D&I can be a tool to fight nationalism. Read (and see) more about this aspect here

Who needs help vs. who deserves it?

While medical care is tight in some Global hot spots, the question about Public aids are more widely and vividly discussed particularly in European countries. Some argue that large corporations require attention for their ‘systemic relevance’ – a concept that has created a new and quite questionable hierarchy between job families. Others want to focus on micro-enterprises as they are both numerous and a source of societal and economic agility. The cultural sector, however, which has been as severely slashed as tourism or restaurants, does not seem to have the same lobby – and it does not have the same chance to recover by itself as most industries.

More biases and blind spots are embedded in the public discussion of covid-19 related challenges. Families with children as well as senior citizens receive the largest attention, and there are many good reasons for this. It is remarkable though how the discourse extents from there to either domestic violence (that affects women by medial default) or the homeless. Given the large amounts of singles living particularly in large cities it is amazing that the discussion of isolation rarely looks at the particular challenges of people who live alone. At the same time, they are expected to support their colleagues with families to cope with the complexities of work and care.

In these discussions, the normative element of what is considered the societal mainstream becomes obvious including the bias it entails regarding people who do not conform. Obviously, D&I has a role to play in pointing out these biases. With regard to the implicit dominant or outspoken majority groups, D&I has good reasons to focus on those much more than in the past.

The danger of many more ‘Google Memo’ cases ahead

You might remember: A Google employee was fired for spreading harmful stereotypes about women – ten pages long. There was little reflection on the reasons why a highly qualified employee would make the effort to produce and release such a thorough document that went far beyond a hasty, offhand comment. My analysis showed is was most probably an outburst of accumulated dissatisfaction with an ongoing focus on disadvantaged groups while the majority was generally neglected or acknowledged during ‘white men’ achievement weeks.

Other analyses show that numerous D&I messages include vast and undetected toxic elements that accelerate the polarisation of the D&I sphere. Simplified requests for parity, bias accusations and searches for new forms of discrimination fuel this separation. Here are two articles that evaluate the communication and perception of important D&I issues including pay gaps or other inequalities.

Everyone working in D&I knows that there has always been resistance against acknowledging and recognising differences and related unfairness, inequalities or injustices. Consequently, the opposition expanded to reject changes of processes or even cultures that would create more effective work environments for all but keep privileges instead. For a long time, there was an almost ideological fight over the right way to position D&I in mainstream contexts in order to create buy-in. As an equal right topic or a business case. I have always been very clear about the latter, and my experience kept on confirming the approach over twenty years. Now there is evidence that backs up the guideline to emphasise the business case and tone down human rights or sustainability aspects.

All of these considerations contribute to understanding what a promising approach should look like to make sure the post covid-19 era will support D&I and not revert to traditional thinking and acting.

Transformation or Trauma?

Flexible work from home, with optical fibre or additional megabytes, at a bureau or kitchen table, with cats or children running around. Suddenly, work organisations realise how much people can get done remotely – when simply there is no alternative. This is often praised as a breakthrough at least for the ‘home office’ model, but doubts should be added to the applause          .

Previous studies found that people working from home reach higher levels of productivity. The main explanations being the absence of ‘disturbance’ by office chitchat as well as lower stress levels, e.g. due to saving commuting time. Both develop a flipside in the current situation when home office is the only work reality: Employees can be too focused on their work, at times back-to-back in video calls. In these cases, the healthy disturbances at offices are missing. In addition, the former benefit of being able to manage private issues on the side currently turns into stress, when private logistics become an additional requirement. 

Read more about the critical role of leaders in supporting work/life balance 

For some people the forced change causes a trauma: When you never believed in flexible working and at the same time saw your mission in working while travelling. Now you are stuck at home, trying to fill the time saved with random requests and virtual controls of peers and team members in order to re-create a sense of importance. The less extreme cases may well be the majority: People simply missing the organisational framework – in every sense –, suffering until the traditional context will be re-established. I think that this group is much larger than the average media coverage suggests – for there is nothing to report about these invisible cases of the new normality.

Conclusions

Let’s start with reminding ourselves that, regardless of the struggles or issues people may have during these weeks, most people are able to realise the great achievements of post-war societies and value the cohesive force of modern democratic values.

1. First and probably foremost, the incredible treasure of liberty and freedom – as citizens of non-autocratic states
2. Secondly the freedom of mobility or travelling, specifically within the European Union and above all within the Schengen area.

The value of these items became just too obvious when they were partly or mostly stripped – to varying degrees in different countries or locations. In the work-related field, other aspects have become apparent:

• The value of personal interaction – not only at work but also in private (family and beyond)
• The complementary power of virtual technology – equally at work and to maintain private contacts.

The conscious combination of these experiences can be instrumental to create a more conscious approach to both quality personal contact and intelligently applied virtual tools in the future.

In order to utilise the (side) effects of covid-19 to drive transformation in a way that supports D&I, it will be critical to provide an overarching business case for new ways of working and new work cultures. This business case must focus on the added value for the business and for the majority of employees and managers. Consolidating all my knowledge and experience, I know it would be toxic to continue focusing on working mothers (even if we try to add fathers once more). The storyline has to be more comprehensive and must illustrate the holistic scope of our work as it relates to the overall business agenda.