Diversity is a Talent Management Philosophy

Effective practice in any profession or field of endeavor is governed by both art and science. They are usually grounded in some guiding philosophy. The science is the predictable tools, methods, and processes, and the art is the creativity, innovation, and best practices. The philosophy is the guiding principles or preferences for how things are done. Organizations perform better — according to a considerable amount of empirical evidence — when they embrace and leverage deliberate and well-reasoned philosophies that enrich their everyday efforts.

The ‘why’ of diversity is sometimes questioned by the uninitiated. Critics might presume that diversity is narrowly defined as physical characteristics of age, gender, race, and the like. It is often confused with legal requirements that outline the protected classes. Diversity is a much, much larger idea. It can be best deemed a collection of characteristics, experiences, and perspectives.

When teams, groups, or organizations are filled with carbon copies of the same, they risk having the one-dimensional groupthink of the like-minded. The best teams are synergistic. They are made up of complements that make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. When everyone is the same, thinks the same, and works the same way, they are fixed into self-limiting paradigms. When everyone has unique differences, they bring to the table perspectives that create what experts call additional ‘adjacent possibilities.’ A layperson might just call these ‘creative possibilities.’ Research finds that diverse teams produce more — and better — ideas and results.

More importantly, research from McKinsey and other notable organizations shows that diverse companies produce better financial outcomes, better customer service, better employee engagement, and other noteworthy outcomes. Such advantages exist in the education sector as well. Emerging research indicates that there are also educational benefits to diversity. All students — minority and majority — learn better when the classroom is diverse, and instructors take actions that recognize this difference. The gains for all are not restricted to race and gender but extend to learning styles, abilities, and preferences. There are gains, also, in student development and retention as a result of diversity.

With all these in mind, it would be prudent that every attempt be made to populate every group with diverse mindsets, perspectives, and skills. The richness of this talent pool should produce unlimited outcomes. The selection of diverse talent cannot be random, with a utopian view that any combination of talents would produce advantages. Everyone knows that a baseball team has nine players with different skills for the different positions on the field. No ballet or theatrical production would be enjoyable if the musicians, actors, dancers, and performers had the same backgrounds, skills, and experiences. This applies to the workplace as well.

It would make no sense to have too many accounts, information technology (IT), HR, or student affairs types in one organization. There should be different types of skills, experiences, and preferences in the IT professions — database analysts, engineers, programmers, etc. Similarly, if all the programmers went to the same schools, had the same certifications, and knew the same computer languages, how competent, creative, or successful would they be? A recent report indicated that 80% of full-time faculty trained at 20% of universities, with 25% of institutions producing as much as 86% of tenure-track professors in some fields. This is a failed talent experiment and makes unsupportable assumptions about what is a meritocracy. After all, how many David’s and John’s does it take to run an academic department, ___? (Insert any number greater than one.)

Is our definition of “good” recycled 20^th-century thinking? Moreover, is it 17^th-century thinking? Is a well-heeled young man from a good family (humorously translated today as legacy admit from an Ivy League school) the American ideal of the best and brightest? Do we still think the perceived five ‘best’ students from the same historic schools is the best that we have to offer the world? Is ‘the best’ still defined as from New England? Or, should we consider modern science, our own observations, and just the basic reality that talent and gifts are not restricted to geography or any other singular variable — such as race, gender, socio-economic status, or language spoken?

Countless research shows that smart leaders understand that their philosophy about diversity drives their thinking, methods, and day-to-day practice. Diversity of skill, experience, style, and perspective is a formula for success. It is high time for us to adjust our thinking from narrow-minded demographic characteristics and embrace the idea that pulling together the best team, department, faculty, or unit comes from deliberately bringing together backgrounds that are rich in difference. If everyone looks the same, thinks the same, and comes from the same schools, one or more of them is redundant. The group is trapped within its own experiential limitations. Diversity is a talent philosophy; it recognizes the inherent narrowness of sameness and argues that ‘the world’ — by definition — is vast and full of difference and possibilities. Diversity does not presuppose there is a singular ‘good’ or definition of supposed ‘quality.’

This idea will be explored further in the next three blog posts. Importantly, diversity is also a leadership competency. Great leaders know how to assemble winning teams.