Why diversity must include more than a few people rather it is for the entire workforce.
Kylie de Klerk
BSc, MMedSc (Res), PhD Candidate | Complex Systems | Adaptive Leadership | Published Researcher | Healthcare sector focus
Diversity has numerous definitions and will take on a unique meaning for each person. Most likely, depending on which generation you were raised in, the country you were born in and where you live in the world now, diversity has a different meaning to you. Similarly, the way we view diversity and inclusion in the workplace is influenced by individual, local community and the national diversity lens. (1)??
Therefore, in each industry, concepts of diversity will have many forms and faces and a unique dialogue with a set of expectations. Presently, women make up about 47% of the workforce in Australia, working in both full time and part-time positions. A snapshot into select industries shows that 12% of the Australian engineering workforce is female. (2) Further, looking at some international data, electrical, mechanical and IT engineers comprise over 93% male workers, whereas, women comprise over 85% of the workforce for psychologists, pharmacy and dispensing assistants, and almost 98% of the nursing staff are female.?(3)?Interestingly, there is about a 50-50 ratio of men to women practising medicine in Australia, however, very few women ascend into leadership roles in medical fields (but leadership is a topic for another day). (4,5)
Therefore, we can see why gender becomes a particular focal point when diversity is the topic of interest for managers and politicians. Similarly, according to the Diversity Council of Australia, the finance and insurance industry reported progress on diversity initiatives whilst the manufacturing sectors are lagging behind when reporting on parameters like culture, disability, religious inclusion and employee experience. (6)
Therefore, the magnifying glass moves between industries and onto different metrics highlighting areas for diversity improvements, primarily those that centre around the more visible elements of diversity.
Changing the narrative
However, there is a risk when discussing diversity, people can inadvertently be boxed into categories purely based on their outward appearances, for example, 65-year old?white male, mature-age Asian woman, immigrant student. In simple terms, categorisation based on gender, race, and age is where and the process of inclusion tends to slow down and become less inclusive and perhaps a little exclusive.
Consequently, there is a danger in oversimplifying a person's individuality and diversity to satisfy or correct previous disparities in workplace diversity. As French author Amin Maalouf says,
“The identity cannot be compartmentalised, it cannot be split and halved into thirds nor have any defined sets of boundaries. I do not have several identities, I only have one made up of all the elements that have shaped its unique proportions.”
?Contrastingly, this narrow view of diversity is then applicable to only certain members of the workforce who possess certain traits- which are usually minority groups. Therefore terms like diversity should become inclusive of the entire workforce and not for selective groups within the workforce. (7) When organisational diversity and inclusion initiatives refer to select groups based on a narrowed diversity definition, the inclusion criteria for specific individuals can result in clusters and groups forming within the workplace which polarises people towards the exact opposite of what diversity and inclusion agendas seek to create. Further, those with the greatest desire and the rights for inclusion initiatives due to previously being disadvantaged from equal opportunities risk feeling tokenised and isolated. (7)
The ultimate results for the organisation are poor employee perceptions of genuine inclusion.
The diversity iceberg?
How we think, process information, problem solve (our IQ and EQ) and our personalities are characteristics of diversity too. Also, deep-level and intimate elements of our individuality like religious ideologies, sexual orientation and gender identity, experiences, values and traditions all form a fundamental part of who we are too and influence how we interact with other people and perform in the workplace. Contrastingly, initiatives and industries that use a narrow diversity language focus on the top of the iceberg (and by default select individuals), or the visible and outward manifestations of diversity, whereas, the most intimate and sacred parts of who we are, how we connect and engage with others, and how we really feel included are often negated from the diversity and inclusion processes.
领英推荐
Address the -isms?don’t create more
Historically diversity and inclusion programs were initiated from affirmative action and employment equity legislation and mandates. (8,9) However, organisations have evolved from this starting point where inclusion agendas and top-down organisational strategies and policies around diversity have been put into practice by human resources with great enthusiasm.?Consequently, we have progressed to a point where organisations now need to ask themselves-do these inclusion strategies and programs target only some of the people in the workplace and create a polarising effect with others? Also, are organisations recruiting or targeting select individual and diversity characteristics for inclusion at the risk of the exclusion of other individuals and valuable non-visible characteristics?
Racism, sexism, ageism, classism, nationalism, religious phobia many issues that can and must be addressed politically, socially and in the workplace requires focusing on more than the tip of the diversity iceberg, it requires a deeper approach to understand and incorporate the many facets of an individuals character, attitudes and upbringing and a subsequent more broadly-focused inclusion strategy.
Only then can diversity and inclusion be a?genuinely inclusive?initiative for all people and it will become a horizontal and vertical organisational performance imperative.
References
1.Kirkhart, K. E. (2005). Through a cultural lens.?The role of culture and cultural context: A mandate for inclusion, the discovery of truth and understanding in evolutive theory and practice, 21-39.
3.https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-do-men-and-women-do-occupational-breakdown-gender
5.?Bismark, M., Morris, J., Thomas, L., Loh, E., Phelps, G., & Dickinson, H. (2015). Reasons and remedies for under-representation of women in medical leadership roles: a qualitative study from Australia.?BMJ Open,?5(11), e009384.
7. Cox, T. (1994). A comment on the language of diversity.?Organization, 1(1), 51-58.?8.??????8.Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies.?American Sociological Review,?71(4), 589-617.
Microsoft 365 Adoption & Change Manager at Transparity
3 年Transparency is key in any decision making process, (e.g.: a promotion), otherwise how do those who “lose out” know that the decision was made on merit alone? As for how the losers should feel? Well hopefully better than when promotions were automatically handed to the usual club of white men who went to the right school and knew the right people… if the fairness of the decision is evident then there’s no legitimate grounds for any party to feel discriminated against. Having said that, there will always be push back from those who previously benefited from privilege… if you’ve always had the high ground then a level playing field looks mighty unfair.
Business Development Consultant, Facilitator and lived experienced speaker for Happiness Co
3 年Striving for equality is fundamentally a poor direction. It is EQUITY that we must insist occurs....and once achieved then we move to justice.