Simple question – What is the most effective mode of transport, a car or a horse?
Given that these days we rarely see horses tied up out the front of shopping centres or at school drop-off zones, we can reasonably surmise that, due to its effectiveness, the modern car is a far superior mode of transport.
But our analysis makes one fundamental assumption – that the car has sufficient fuel (or electricity in the case of an EV) to power it!
In the absence of fuel, the benefits, or “the edge” that a car has over a horse, quickly cease to exist. And in this scenario, the horse becomes the more effective mode of transport.
No doubt, you are probably wondering: Where is he going with this?
Please allow me to elaborate…
Most of us living in countries with a representative democracy will agree that this is a preferred, and more effective system of governing. We believe that democracy has “an edge” over other forms of governing, such as a monarchy, a dictatorship or authoritarian or communist regimes. When it comes to governing, we (in democratic countries) firmly believe that we have the car, and other (non-democratic countries) are firmly affixed upon a saddle.
In a democratic system, the fuel – the thing which enables it to function – is intelligence; robust debate; respectful relationships with a willingness to compromise; and an openness to see and then acknowledge the wisdom of the opposing side. These elements are as essential to the democratic process, in terms of “powering” the forward motion of government, and the country it leads, as fuel is to a car. In the absence of this “fuel”, democracy no longer functions optimally. “The edge” we previously gained as participants in a democratic system ceases to exist; here, the horse, or other forms of (non-democratic) government may well be more effective.
Yet, in many democratic countries, we are witnessing the rise, and subsequent flourishing, of a hyper-partisan approach to politics and governing. The “other side” has gone from a group of people who also have the country’s interest at heart, even though they might have a different approach to governing, to now being seen as the mortal enemy that needs to be demonised, vilified, and eventually eradicated at all costs. Fuelled by narratives intended to divide rather than unify, to elicit outrage rather than create community, our collective ability to be open to, let alone see the beauty and wisdom of the other side, has all but vanished. Even if deep down, we might see a skerrick of astuteness or good judgement in the opposition, admitting this out loud has become ominously countercultural, and tantamount to professional (political) suicide.
In addition, there has been a “dumbing down” of the population. We see this in our flailing rates of literacy and numeracy and a diminishment in the rates and quality of tertiary education. The outcome of this, intentional or otherwise, is a degradation in our collective ability to think critically and evaluate the narratives we are being fed, through the filters of fairness, justice and simply commonsense.
The fuel tank in the car of democracy is getting pretty low, and the red light is flashing “almost empty”, that is if it is not already empty. Maybe my next purchase should be a saddle and a shovel for all that manure?!
There is an old management adage: Don’t bring me a problem without a solution! This narrative, I believe, destroys any possibility of finding innovative and creative solutions to complex and entrenched problems like the one I have just described. Sometimes, leadership is simply framing as clearly as possible and elucidating a challenge we have no idea how to resolve. This approach has an intrinsic faith, that somebody else, maybe a teammate, or perhaps even someone from the “other side” (heaven forbid), in seeing our framing of the challenge, will create or contribute to a formulation of a potential set of next steps, perhaps even a solution?
This is what I am attempting, perhaps clumsily, to do in the previous paragraphs.
How might this be relevant to organisational life? (he asks in a somewhat awkward segue)
We can think about diversity and inclusion in a similar way to democracy. The benefits of more diverse workplaces, and cultures with greater levels of inclusivity are well documented, so I will not bore you with the details now. But to summarise, more diverse and inclusive organisations have a “edge” over organisations which are relatively less diverse. However, in order to really benefit from this diversity, is not automatic.
Diversity is challenging! Being open to, and willing to see the benefits, perhaps even wisdom of, different ways of thinking, different ways of communicating, differing personality types and temperaments, and different cultural, gender, racial, sexuality and religious identities is not easy. If organisations are not able to effectively work with, to process, to hold and resolve the tensions and polarisations that are an inevitable part of diverse cultures, then the benefits of diversity rapidly diminish. The distraction and the reallocation of energy needed to resolve these tensions, detracts from a focus on “core business”; this will invariably be detrimental to the organisation. Like democracy, the “fuel” which enables diverse organisations and teams to function, is the ability to work with difference and be open to a perspective that is contrary from our own.
So, while a more diverse workforce has numerous and significant benefits, unless we get better at working with the challenges of diversity, we may well be better off with a monoculture. A horse, as slow as it may be, is still going to be faster than a fancy car with no fuel. And while I am being slightly tongue in cheek in saying this, there is also an element of a sober reality in this sentiment.
While I have no idea how to resolve the challenges our respective democracies face, I do have some thoughts on how to “fuel up” the vehicle of diversity, rather than resorting to a horse in the form of a monoculture. Perhaps some of these, may also be applicable to government?
Giddy up!
- Ensure team members, in particular leaders, have clarity in terms of their technical role (as per their position description) as well as their cultural role. And they are supported and held accountable, in equal measures, in the delivery of both aspects of their role.
- Strengthen psychological safety in order to have more effective conversations about diversity (and democracy).
- Continually recalibrate the “balance point” between being tasked focused and taking time-out of task to focus on a culture of inclusion.
- Make time and space to strengthen the bonds of our shared humanity. Being aware of people’s stories, their experiences, even their hurts and traumas, helps us to better understand and “normalise” why they may be different. This enables more acceptance of, and an openness to, different approaches to business, culture, performance and governing.