Inclusion and Diversity

The Key to Shifting Cultures

Posted on Updated on

HM

The rapid pace of innovation and disruption means the average lifespan of organisations listed on the S&P has shortened from 60 years in the 1950s to just 18 years today. A significant shrink. As a result, many organisations face a regular battle to reinvent themselves, as well as shift their cultures to match the new reality.

We have recently explored this challenge with our Future of Work Research Consortium members in order to identify the enablers that can help organisations seeking to shift their cultures. Our research indicates that enabling workplace culture shift requires first and foremost an understanding and altering of micro-behaviours, specifically, negative types of micro-behaviours. Such micro-behaviours are thoughtless, unfair, often unintentional, and in dissonance with the environment organisations are looking to create. The collective practice of negative micro-behaviours can lead to the formation of toxic cultures.

How can organisations change negative micro-behaviours? Our research has revealed the effectiveness of nudging. Nudge theory is a concept in behavioural science where positive reinforcements and indirect suggestions influence the motives, incentives and decision making of groups and individuals. We’ve recently collaborated with Lisa Shu, Professor of Behavioural Economics at London Business School, whose research on nudge theory has shown that whether they intentionally chose this role or not, organisations are inadvertent architects of the decision-making of their employees, customers, and shareholders. However, whilst effective nudges do change the choice environment, the beauty is that they do not require a huge organisational change or intervention. For example, if an organisation were to be fostering a culture of sustainability, the company could put up a display showing the daily energy consumption at the workplace. This gentle nudge has shown to reduce energy consumption in workplaces, helping the development of a sustainable culture.

piics

Another effective way to change negative micro-behaviours is through ‘change agents’, that is, those influencers within your organisation who can, because of their ‘knowledge, skills and position in the company network, and not their formal hierarchical power, shape the views of multiple colleagues’[1]. What we’re finding is that the behaviours of influencers have increasingly significant effect on the company population as a whole. Typically, due to more trust in influencers as relatable role models, employees are more likely to adopt the behaviours, values and attitudes practiced by these colleagues.

With many organisations facing the need to reinvent their culture, our advice to you is to think twice about implementing large-scale strategic programmes or initiatives. Instead look to the people within your organisation, and leverage their collective power through nudging and change agents to effect change.

Want to learn more about nudging and change agents? Reach out to me at harriet@hotspotsmovement.com and I’ll be happy to talk you through our research.

[1] Shu, L. Gino, F. Bazerman, M H., (2011) Ethical Discrepancy: Changing Our Attitudes to Resolve Moral Dissonance, Behavioral Business Ethics: Ideas on an Emerging Field. Taylor and Francis Publishing

 

A Year at Hot Spots Movement

Posted on Updated on

MF

Last month marked my first year of working at Hot Spots Movement and it’s been a fruitful year of learning where I have kick-started a career in Community Management and met some fascinating people.  I’ve grown to be immensely proud to work here and this anniversary is a great cause to look back at the past 12 months and share what I’ve learnt throughout our Future of Work Themes and showcase how our research is implemented into our own employee experience.

Shifting Identities

Within weeks of joining the company it was time for The Future of Work’s second Masterclass of the year, Shifting Identities. I had jumped into the deep end of the investigation into what  organisations need to do differently to exuberate their diversity  efforts and for me personally identifying as a multi-cultural person and having just left a property company (currently quite a non-diverse industry!), I felt an instant connection and sense of belonging. Throughout the theme, we explored the need to rethink and engage the multiple identities of employees over time, such as dual-career couples, parents and older workers. As the months went on and we taught and consulted companies on how to move the needle in these key areas of inclusion and diversity, I soon witnessed the same practices being applied here and discovered how we foster our own constantly shifting identities – and there are many! We have a new mother, a new husband, a new charity owner, new homeowners, new graduates, multiple nationalities and several partners in ‘dual career’ relationships. Its been a fulfilling experience learning what all these identities and life experiences mean for our flexible ways of working and communicating and seeing how we incorporate numerous qualities such as trust and respect.

Intangible Assets

Our next theme, which we shared at our October 2017 Masterclass, was about what organisations need to do in order to be aware of whether their employees are building or depleting their productivity, vitality and ability to transform. Companies investing in their employees’ Intangible Assets was something which seemed logical to me – who wouldn’t think about their staff’s well-being?! I soon uncovered the impact that learning, vitality and the ability to transform has on employees engagement, creativity and pride in a company – not just their overall happiness at work. There is an abundance of research showing that Intangible Assets are crucial in enabling employees to thrive in the future and so it was great to see them reinforced into our work at Hot Spots Movement. For example, vitality and the notion of work life balance is extremely important here – several of our colleagues go to the gym or yoga classes together within working hours and we all get involved with the many aspects of the business, allowing us to constantly learn and be creative. Many of us have also changed and developed our roles in the last 12 months – including me! I’ve recently joined the Marketing and Comms function and am really enjoying embracing it as a new facet to Community Management.

Shifting Cultures

The third and final theme of my first 12 months was Shifting Cultures, which we explored at the beginning of this year and at our February Masterclass. With many organisations implementing and feeling the pressure of facilitating complex changes in their company cultures, we explored what it takes to enact such changes and, specifically, how, by whom, and what barriers exist. I was welcomed with open arms into a culture where our values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are all aligned, creating an ethos which is collaborative, innovative and fun! We play games, have competitions, socialise and even little things like swapping seats every few months really keeps energy and interaction levels high. As a team, we have taken the time to get to know each other making us more supportive and stronger advocates of group work. We share projects allowing for ongoing challenges and creativity and we operate in a fast-paced, vibrant environment where we are all connected to our company’s purpose. We are also based in Somerset House – a renowned creative hub on the Thames, bringing a real sense of community to work.

I have had an inspiring first year at Hot Spots Movement and am very much looking forward to the next one where we will be exploring Agile People Strategies and The Future of High Performance, having just finished our immediate previous theme on Narratives on The Future of Work at our June Masterclass.

Get in touch with us now to find out how you can incorporate our research into engaging your employees!

melissa@hotspotsmovement.co

18-05-08-10-48-22-247_deco

Transcending our echo-chambers: the importance of diversity of thought

Posted on

Marvin Headshot.pngHere at Hot Spots Movement we pride ourselves on our multidisciplinary approach to research on the Future of Work. It is something that goes right to the heart of our intellectual ethos and lays the foundation for much of our research. From Aristotle to Aldous Huxley, or from Sociology to Semiotics, we passionately believe that the best and most innovative work is one whereby an eclectic array of views, ideas and opinions are incorporated into the body of knowledge. Seemingly, the days of the maverick lone wolf (think Tesla, Darwin or Einstein) are over. This is not, however, to suggest that creative individuals don’t matter, but ‘rather that we become more innovative when we remain open to as many arguments, philosophies, conversations and rival ideas as possible’[i].

Take, for example, the research conducted by Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin Jones and Brian Uzzi. This multidisciplinary team of researchers used big data to learn what distinguished ideas that had an impact from those that did not. After sifting through twenty million academic articles and two million patents cited over the past fifty years, ‘they discovered that the most innovative and impactful ideas were much more likely to come from cross-enterprise collaborations rather than from teams from the same university, lab or research centre’[ii].

However, despite this, many organisations still tend to build networks which only reinforce the existing ideas underpinning their current organisational architecture. Such a tendency can partly be explained by ‘selective exposure theory’ which is based on the notion that people have a predisposition to engage with information that reaffirms our existing viewpoints. Quite simply, this is because the brain favours familiarity and people therefore do not respond well to opinions that don’t align with their own.

To this end, transcending our echo chambers and incorporating diversity of thought into the organisational framework requires us to go against our instinctual need to create networks that reinforce our pre-existing views. However, one innovative initiative that can help build more diverse networks into the workplace is that of co-working spaces. ‘Co-working spaces bring together diverse groups of freelancers, remote workers and other independent professionals in a shared, communal setting’[iii]; thereby organically create a milieu in which people from wide ranging industries and professions can assemble and share their diverse knowledge and expertise. Such an environment cultivates not only a hybridity of perspectives but also innovation.

However, if completely redesigning the office space is unfeasible, then homogeneous logic and ideas can also be overcome through mechanisms such as crowdsourcing platforms or sponsored lunches with rival competitors.

Fundamentally though, irrespective of what mechanisms are implemented, incorporating diversity of thought into your organisational framework is contingent on being open minded and expressing alacrity to viewpoints and perspectives which in the past may have seemed fatuous or superfluous. The era in which we live is characterized by unprecedented and nebulous change. This generates many exciting opportunities, but such opportunities can arguably only be fully realised if organisations are willing to absorb the information and ideas which exist in sometimes unfamiliar domains.

[i] Burkeman, O. (2010) Steven Johnson: ‘Eureka moments are very, very rare’, (The Guardian)

[ii] HotSpots Movement (2015) The Collaboration Imperative Report

[iii] Bound, A. (2018) Demand for Co-working spaces expands beyond London (Financial Times)

 

How can organisations realise the promise of diversity?

Posted on Updated on

“If you work hard you will succeed. If you really want to achieve your dreams, it’s in your hands.”

annaWe are all familiar with variations on these thoughts, and the idea that individualism and hard work will win out in the end is a truism that many people take on faith. Organisations often construct their recruitment processes with the idea that society is meritocratic – believing that those high-potential hires have succeeded due to their work ethic and skills alone.

Despite this, research has shown that it is often those from affluent backgrounds who land the best jobs. Even when people from disadvantaged backgrounds manage to break into a professional career, they face an earnings penalty compared to colleagues who come from better-off backgrounds.[i] Despite having the same education attainment, role and experience as their more privileged colleagues, those from poorer backgrounds are paid an average of £2,242 (seven per cent) less.[ii] Women and ethnic minorities face a ‘double’ disadvantage in earnings. Those from poorer backgrounds in some cases also exclude themselves from promotion for fear of not ‘fitting in’ and were less likely to ask for pay rises. This is a challenge that organisations are increasingly waking up to. Competition for talent and the need for diversity of thought mean that organisations will lose out commercially if they do not have a cross-section of employees that reflect wider society.

So how can companies improve their diversity and foster inclusiveness around social mobility? Here are three insights from our research:

  • Look for unintended biases in the recruitment process – Could your recruitment approach be filtering out applicants from less advantaged backgrounds? Some organisations, such as EY, are experimenting with relaxing their hiring criteria, or implementing ‘blind’ CVs in recruitment, so that details on university or education are hidden.[iii] Advances in predicative talent analytics may also enable organisations to identify promising talent from a larger pool than they might traditionally consider, basing hiring on data rather than intuition.[iv]
  • Sense-check the gap between the rhetoric and reality – Organisations may think they have the practices and processes in place to increase their social diversity, but if people at all levels of the organisation are unware of them, or don’t use them, there will be no shift in culture or behaviour.
  • Identify a priority area and experiment – Companies often think that moving the needle on diversity means making large-scale changes across several areas. Our research and work on our own I&D Framework has shown that a tailored and focused approach is often more effective. Start by identifying what your organisation does well, and where it is weaker. Selecting key areas allows companies to monitor and measure new interventions to understand the real impact and the changes that take place.

Keeping these insights in mind will help ensure your organisation builds a diverse, inclusive culture.

Interested in creating an I&D strategy that is ready to enable action within your organisation and truly shift the needle on I&D read our complimentary Insights Report on Inclusion and Diversity here: http://bit.ly/IandD-MovingTheNeedle

Or for more information about our I&D research, contact me at anna@hotspotsmovement.com or on 02077591852

[i] Rivera, L. (2015). Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs. Princeton University Press

[ii] Friedman, S., Laurison, D., and Macmillan, L. (2017). Social Mobility, The Class Pay Gap and Intergenerational Worklessness: New Insights From The Labour Force Survey.

[iii] EY drives social mobility by removing academic entry criteria http://www.ey.com/uk/en/newsroom/news-releases/17-02-02-ey-drives-social-mobility-by-removing-academic-entry-criteria

[iv] (2017) FoW Report on Shifting Identities

What can the Hollywood sexual harassment scandals tell you about your company culture?

Posted on Updated on

Anna Gurun PhotoThe wave of stories of pervasive sexual harassment and assault in recent weeks, from Hollywood to Parliament, have made me think about the role of culture in normalising such behaviour. We are currently researching Shifting Cultures for our upcoming Masterclass, and part of that research has centred on how cultures are formed. Are organisations aware of how much of their culture is shaped by the mindset of the dominant group?

We all have social identities, established through self-reflection from interactions with others. The sociologist Charles Horton Cooley referred to this as the ‘looking glass self’.[1] As we grow up and are socialised, we see the way people talk and act with us, which then feeds into our self-perception. This includes stereotypes that people already have about our group identity. As a middle-class, white woman from an educated background, for example, I will have received subtle cues about how I’m expected to behave, and what I’m expected to achieve.

Yet arguably, not everyone is aware of the extent to which they have benefited from their collective identity. In his discussion on modern masculinity, the artist Grayson Perry identified a group he termed ‘Default Man’.[2] White, middle-class, heterosexual, usually middle-aged, they are, as Perry notes, a tribe that does not think of itself as a tribe. Instead they often see themselves as individuals. Yet collectively they profoundly shape our culture.

Take the workplace. There are fewer S&P 1500 companies led by women than S&P companies led by men named John.[3] It is clear that this impacts organisational culture, yet it is unlikely that as an individual ‘John’ feels his progress acts a role-model for other men like him, or that he is part of a community with similar experiences that shape his behaviour and mindset. Does John feel that he got where he was all by himself, with no societal support at all? Research has identified an ‘out-group’ homogeneity effect,where people believe in the uniformity of those not like them: ‘they are alike: we are diverse’.[4] The power imbalance still prevalent in society means that the male in-group often either consciously or unconsciously defines the broader culture.black-and-white-businessman-man-suit

This is true for the more toxic elements discussed in recent weeks, but also for parts of culture that we are not even aware of. There is a parable that describes two young fish swimming along, who happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?” How much of what we take for granted in terms of qualities of an effective leader, or criteria for progression within an organisation is subjectively biased in favour of the dominant group?

Recently, there has been a rise in the number of organisations realising that building an inclusive culture means engaging the majority group. Deloitte, for example, ended its women’s networks and affinity groups, instead involving men in the conversation and making them accountable for D&I goals.[5] The fact that is has taken this long, highlights the extent to which men have traditionally been viewed as the default that doesn’t need to change, rather than an identity group like any other. If workplace culture is going to shift this needs to continue, as companies reckon with how much of their culture is formed by one group and the ramifications of this.

 

 

[1] Rousseau, N. (2002) Self, Symbols and Society, Rowman and Littlefield.

[2] Perry, G. (8 October 2014) The Rise and Fall of Default Man, New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/grayson-perry-rise-and-fall-default-man

[3] FoW Power and Leadership Report 2016

[4] Ostrom, T.M and Sedikides, C. (1992) Out-Group Homogenity Effects in Naural and Minimal Groups, Psychological Bulletin 112(3). 536-553.

[5] Wittenberg-Cox, A. (3 August 2017) Deloitte’s Radical Attempt to Reframe Diversity, Harvard Bussiness Review https://hbr.org/2017/08/deloittes-radical-attempt-to-reframe-diversity

Can we ever reach gender parity in organisations?

Posted on

haniahLast week, I attended a workshop at my toddler’s nursery school and I was disheartened to see that there was only one father in a room full of mothers – most of whom had left their work early in order to attend. And I wondered, where is the change that was to come with the millennial men? Doesn’t all the research indicate that they want to become much more involved fathers? What is stopping them?

I have been researching the topic of gender parity for over a few years now, and it is extremely off-putting to see lack of progress we have made on this issue. Many large organisations are now on their second or third wave of diversity and inclusion programmes. However, a good number of them are still struggling to identify obvious improvements in the metrics they hoped to see changes in.

I feel we cannot move the needle on this issue unless we collectively stop viewing mothers as being primarily responsible for childcare. According to the 2016 Women in the Workplace Study, at every stage in their careers, women perform more childcare than men. The study also found a link between the quantity of childcare women do and their leadership ambition: the more work women do at home, the less interested they are in leadership positions. The main reason for this disconnect is that the combination of work and childcare responsibilities is difficult to reconcile with the dominant model in the business world, which demands total availability as well as greater geographical mobility.

Motherhood has long been a dominant explanation for the small proportion of women in corporate boardrooms. Some of the most compelling evidence of the motherhood penalty comes from experiments conducted by sociologists; Shelley Correll, Stephen Bernard, and In Paik. In the experiment, they asked college students to rate a pair of job applicants after examining their résumés and the notes from screening interviews. After establishing that the application materials presented the candidates as equally qualified, the researchers altered them to indicate that one applicant was a parent. When being considered for the same job, mothers were significantly less likely to be recommended for hire and, when they were, they were offered on average $11,000 less in starting salary, than childless women. Fathers were not penalised at all. The participants revealed that they assumed the mothers to be inherently less competent and less committed.

One school of thought suggests that the issue is down to women’s own preferences – that women value career less than men or that mothers do not want high-profile, challenging work. However, research indicates that women are certainly not lacking in ambition. In fact, they begin their careers with ambitions that are just as high as their male peers. Furthermore, the 2013 Life and Leadership After HBS study, which surveyed more than 25,000 Harvard Business School graduates, suggests that when women leave their jobs after becoming mothers, only a small number do so because they want to devote their attention to motherhood; the majority leave reluctantly, because they find themselves in unfulfilling roles with few prospects for advancement.

What is the way forward? Millennial men finally behaving in accordance to what they have been saying, and organisations actively enabling and not penalising them to embrace fatherhood.

Sources:

McKinsey & Company and LEanIn.org. (2016, September). Women in the Workplace Study. Retrieved from https://womenintheworkplace.com

Life and Leadership after HBS. (2013). Retrieved from

https://www.hbs.edu/women50/images/women_survey_preview_130402.pdf

Correll, S., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a Job: Is there a motherhood penalty. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 112, No. 5

Have you got an organisation full of goalkeepers?

Posted on Updated on

Headshot for Website ColourHere’s what sport can teach us about diversity in business.

Could you win a football game with 11 goalkeepers? Or, maybe a netball match with 7 goal shooters? Ok, how about a rowing race with 9 coxes?

Of course not, is clearly the answer. But whilst these may seem like flippant examples, they hint at the challenge we often face in organisations: creating diverse teams, with each member bringing a different skillset, or way of thinking that elevates group performance.

Diversity (or the lack thereof) in the world of business is something we look at a great deal here at Hot Spots Movement. Whether that’s gender diversity, ethnic diversity or neurodiversity – it’s clear that boardrooms and offices are just not diverse enough.

There are obvious and significant ethical issues around discriminating over gender, race, sexual orientation or mental health. However, there is another reason why companies should be sitting up and taking note: Lack of diversity is impacting on the bottom-line. There is a growing body of research showing that the more diverse a team is, the greater the chance for innovation. Which whether in the context of the smallest start-up or the largest multi-national, means a competitive edge.

This may sound like common sense when said out loud. But it’s surprising how few organisations fully grasp or truly act upon this information. As such, I wanted to support this claim by taking examples from the world of sport – whilst sport without doubt has its own diversity issues, examples of the benefits of diversity are easily quantified and for many plain to see.

Academic studies of the world of sport provides concrete evidence in support of the notion that diversity positively affects performance. Researchers from Duke University tested the theory within the UEFA Champions League (Europe’s elite club football competition) and found that heterogenous teams significantly outperformed their less diverse opponents [1]. So substantial were these findings that even when player’s transfer value and quality ratings have been adjusted for, even relatively small increases in cultural diversity could double a team’s goal difference.

Now let’s take this concept across the pond to one of the world’s most lucrative sports leagues, the National Basketball Association. Interbasket analysed the performance of the league’s most and least diverse teams over a five-year period. When comparing the 10 most against the 10 least demographically diverse teams in the league they found that teams with the highest number of foreign players won on average 11 games a season more than those who measured poorly on diversity [2]. This is a particularly impressive result, when considering that those 11 games account for 13% of wins available for a team across a whole season. What business leader would not want to see a 13% increase in performance from their teams?

studjo-yavor-miastko-74158Diversity then can clearly have an extraordinarily positive impact on performance of teams, increasing creativity, innovation and flexibility. So, I challenge you the next time you’re hiring someone to look beyond someone who shares your background. Perhaps ask yourself, ‘Am I creating a team full of goalkeepers, or have I got every position covered, ready for the big game?’

Need help with your diversity strategy? Find out how Hot Spots Movement can help by checking out our website here: http://www.hotspotsmovement.com/

[1] Malesky, E., Saiegh, S. and Ingersoll, K. (2014). Diversity and Group Performance: Evidence from the World’s Top Soccer League. APSA 2014 Annual Meeting Paper.

[2] http://www.interbasket.net/news/4989/2009/10/the-top-10-nba-teams-with-most-international-diversity/