Inclusion and Diversity

Three Perspectives on the Future of High Performance

Posted on Updated on

CHIt’s been one month since our Future of High Performance Masterclass and we’re excited to soon be sharing our Report with members of the Future of Work Research Consortium, which will present the key findings from our extensive research on this theme.  The Masterclass was packed full of insights, activities and opportunities to network and share good practices.  We had three fantastic guest speakers on the day, so here are my key takeaways from their insightful contributions.

Dr. Randall S. Peterson, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at London Business School, spoke to delegates about the power of collaboration in high performance teams.  My favourite takeaway from Randall’s presentation was about how research shows that the best teams are the most diverse – but so are the very worst teams.  He argued that the key was in the management of these teams.  When diverse teams are managed well, members have access to a variety of sources of information and have opportunities to learn from each other and grow.  However, when teams are managed poorly, it gives rise to task conflicts (disagreements around the content of the work), relationship conflicts (personal disagreements) and process conflicts (disagreements about the logistics of getting work done).  Creating common understandings of problems, encouraging information sharing and promoting psychological safety and belongingness are a couple of ways to begin managing conflict and supporting high performance teams.

Tom Ravenscroft, founder and CEO of Enabling Enterprise, identified three major myths about human skills which need to be formally debunked.  The first is that these skills are innate and that there are some “natural” team players.  The second myth is that these skills are picked up by osmosis and simply “rub off” on people, rather than needing to be taught.  The third is that these skills lie latent and that, in the “right situation”, people will show these skills.  Organisations need to abandon these assumptions in order to make real progress towards building the skills of the future.

ballet-sneaker-dress-ballet-dancer-163379.jpeg

Lynda Gratton, Hot Spots Movement’s founder and CEO, told delegates about her main impressions from the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos this year – you can read her full blog for MIT Sloan here.  Lynda stated that one hot topic was that work is undergoing a major transition, as technology demands that people upskill and reskill more rapidly than ever before.[1]  At our Masterclass, one of our delegates asked Lynda a fascinating question: how can CEOs continue to be creative when they are under increasing pressure to take immediate action to address this transition in work?  Our research indicates that CEOs need the support of HR to look beyond the short term and develop a narrative on the future of work.[2]  By developing a point of view on learning and making their involvement and investment in learning initiatives a priority, they can help their people to develop the skillsets necessary to transform and adapt.

So, some key questions to consider when thinking about high performance in the long term are:

  • Am I building the uniquely human skills I will need to succeed in the future of work?
  • Am I harnessing the power of diversity in my team?
  • Does my CEO have a clear narrative on what our organisation will look like in the future and what we need to do and learn in order to get there?

As our definition of high performance changes, building our skillsets and prioritising our interpersonal skills and development will help us to become more future-proofed.  Drop me an email if you’d like to have a conversation about high performance at callandra@hotspotsmovement.com.


[1] Lynda Gratton, ‘Five Insights From Davos on the Future of Work’, MIT Sloan Management Review Blog (2019).

[2] FoW, Building Narratives on the Future of Work Masterclass Report (2018).

Do Diversity Statements Really Work?

Posted on

lottiehsmphotoWe are surrounded by pro-diversity messages today – from the #MeToo campaign, to the controversial Pepsi advert featuring Kendall Jenner – diversity, and the lack of it, penetrates every aspect of society.

We find here at HSM, that workplace diversity and inclusion (D&I) is often the most pressing challenge for many HR executives, and it’s no surprise given that there are only 25 female Fortune 500 CEOs and three black Fortune 500 CEOs[1], and that just 16% of autistic adults in the UK are in full-time employment[2]. Many organisations are trying to amend these inequalities not only because it has become socially unacceptable, but also because it has been evidenced that a diverse workforce can greatly benefit an organisation’s bottom line.

For example McKinsey has found that companies in the top quartile of ethnic and racial diversity were 35% more likely to financially outperform their industry competitors[3]. This clearly has huge appeal for organisations, yet there remains a significant gap between the rhetoric and the reality of diversity efforts today. In this post I will focus on how often well-intentioned organisations are unaware of how to make the leap from the rhetoric of aspirational diversity agendas, to creating a reality of a company culture that is truly diverse and inclusive.

One way in which companies try to incorporate a pro-diversity message within their organisation’s culture and values is by including diversity or equal employer opportunity (EEO) statements, or by creating lengthy and comprehensive D&I policies. It is sometimes assumed that by creating these statements or policies, they will automatically attract a more diverse applicant pool of talent, and thus a more diverse workforce, allowing them to benefit from all of the advantages of diverse workforces. However, research has shown that EEO and diversity statements are ineffective in bringing about actual change[4]. A recent World Economic Forum report claimed that although 97% of companies have diversity programs or statements in place, only 25% of employees from diverse groups believe that they have personally benefited from these initiatives[5].

agreement-black-business-943630

So where can we go from here? Evidently employers still have a long way to go in fully addressing discrimination in organisations. Eliminating discrimination and working towards inclusivity needs to be made a regular part of the conversation in order to become a reality. For example, it could be a good starting point to ask employees what they think inclusion means, to ask them to share their experiences of feeling excluded, and to co-create with their employers the actions that would make the company more inclusive. The ideas and actions that come from these conversations can help bring your policy to life, as they truly come from the heart of your organisation and your people, those who will ultimately be responsible for implementing it.

This is something we have enabled clients to do, using our Collaboration Jams. These online, crowdsourced conversations enable thousands of employees to connect in a many-to-many conversation around the most pressing issues. Combined with expert facilitation, they make even the most sensitive topics safe to explore and provide leaders and HR teams with evidence-based solutions. Get in touch to find out more about how you can empower your employees to convert your diversity rhetoric into a reality.


[1] http://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/

[2] https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7540

[3] https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

[4] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000312240607100404

[5] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/company-diversity-fatigue-no-excuse/

Gillette – A Lesson on Inclusion and Diversity for Organisations

Posted on Updated on

DTIt has been a week since Gillette released their new ‘The Best Men Can Be’ advert and the world of social media turned upside down. From ‘well done’ to decrying the advertisement as being biased against men, the comments and opinions kept flooding in. So — is Gillette’s ad biased against men, or highlighting needed social change? Perhaps both, but here is a third theory: it was our unconscious bias that made us feel one way or another.

The human brain is hard-wired to make hasty decisions that draw on a variety of assumptions and experiences. Consider this: we are exposed to as many as 11 million pieces of information at any one time, but our brain can only functionally deal with about 40.[1] To filter out all the remaining pieces of information, our brain develops a perceptual lens that only lets in certain things. On one hand, this prevents information overload, but at the same time, we are not subjective on our interpretation of what is in front of us.

Unconscious behaviour is not just individual; it influences organisational culture as well. Unconscious organisational patterns exert an enormous influence over an organisation’s decisions, choices, and behaviours. These deep-seated company characteristics are often the reason that despite conscious efforts, organisations are failing to move the needle on inclusion and diversity. Even when leaders declare a commitment to fairness in their organisations, unconscious bias causes them to evaluate equal performers differently, as Emilio Castilla, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stephen Benard, of Indiana University, have demonstrated in their research on the “paradox of meritocracy.”[i]

gillette-2019012110501889-20190123023914535.jpg

So… Is diversity training the best an organisation can get?

Not really. According to the renowned behavioural economist, Daniel Kahneman, it is very hard to eliminate our individual biases. Hundreds of studies have examined the relevance of interventions for reducing bias.[ii] It turns out that the positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that people often respond to compulsory courses with anger and resistance, with many participants actually reporting more animosity towards other groups afterward.

What is the way forward? Organisations should consider the approach known as choice architecture. This involves deliberately structuring how the information is presented: You do not take away the individual’s right to decide or tell them what they should do. You just make it easier for them to reach more rational decisions. For example, orchestras deployed this technique by using blind auditions in the 1970s.[iii] Cecilia Rouse of Princeton University and Claudia Golden of Harvard University have illustrated that this simple change played an important role in increasing the percentage of women in orchestras from 5% to almost 40% today.[iv] Organisations cannot easily put job candidates behind a curtain, but they can do a version of this with people analytics. For example, using software that allows recruiters to strip age, gender, educational and socioeconomic background information out of résumés so they can focus exclusively on talent.

How is your organisation overcoming unconscious biases? Is people analytics currently being utilising in hiring by your organisation? I would love to hear your insights on this very important topic. Email me at david@hotspotsmovement.com


[1] Ross, H. (2008). Proven Strategies for Addressing Unconscious Bias in the Workplace. Cook Ross.

[i] Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-676.

[ii]Levy Paluck, E., and Green, Donald P. (2009). Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367. Retrieved from http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5186d08fe4b065e39b45b91e/t/51e3234ce4b0c8784c9e4aae/1373840204345/Paluck_Green_AnnRev_2009.pdf

[iii] Ibid.

[iv]Goldin, C. and Rouse, C. (2009, September). Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians. Retrieved from

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/orchestrating_impartiality_the_effect_of_blind_auditions_on_female_musicians.pdf

Guest Blog – Redefining leaders: Have we broken the myth of the hero leader

Posted on Updated on

By Amanda Fajak, Executive Director at Walking the Talk

20 years ago I published an article looking at the link between power, gender and the likelihood of promotion[1]. In that research I uncovered an important finding. Women were associated with emotion and emotion was a characteristic that was not associated with strong leadership. Inversely, men were associated with assertiveness, a characteristic that was associated with strong leadership.

This finding has been reiterated many times over the years with the general consensus being that men are traditionally associated with aggression, risk taking, decisive behaviour and autonomy (what are called agentic qualities) – what have historically been viewed as valuable leadership skills – whereas women are traditionally associated with being kind, caring, humble and relational (what are called communal qualities) – historically less valued leadership skills[2]. These stereotypes of men and women have resulted in historic streaming of men and women into different careers (very broadly in 1998 this meant men traditionally in finance and business and women in nursing and teaching).

Fast forward to 2018 and I was curious as to what has changed. When you look into our business press, there is still evidence of the male hero leader – with the likes of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerberg being credited with single handedly changing our lives. However there are also strong women leaders and influencers making the headlines – Michelle Obama, Angela Merkl, Mary Barra (GE), Indra Nooyi (Pepsico), Carolyn McCall (ITV), Theresa May to name a few.

Interestingly, research from as recently as 10 years ago showed that despite an increasing number of women in more powerful roles, women had started to see an association between feminine and leadership characteristics, but men had not[3].

adult-brainstorming-briefing-1270950

The latest research by Eagly[4] – who has polled views on gender stereotyping since 1946 – delivered good and bad news. Over time, men have increasingly been seen as more agentic (aggressive, decisive, etc). Over time women have been increasingly seen as more intelligent and competent than men but the stereotype of women being more communal has also increased.

These sorts of findings are a source of frustration to many. On the surface it would appear that we haven’t made much progress in breaking down stereotypes. This is only 1 lens, if we broaden out our perspective another picture might be emerging.

Recent research conducted by Walking the Talk[5] showed that investment professionals are less likely to invest in organisations that are aggressive, overconfident, overly hierarchical – organisations that have more agentic qualities.

Similarly, recent research by the Centre for Creative Leadership[6] listed the following 10 characteristics to be associated with leaders: Honesty; Ability to delegate; Communication; Sense of humour; Confidence; Commitment; Positive attitude; Creativity; Ability to inspire; Intuition. These are more communal qualities.

In the same vein the latest thinking about the leaders that create psychological safety – a critical underpinning to organisation health – includes modesty; humility; openness; supportiveness; inclusive decision making; acknowledging others; emotional intelligence; and accessibility – more communal qualities.

If we look at changing perceptions about leadership it is evident that we are starting to see a significant shift in terms of what good leadership looks like. Could it be that although stereotypes about women have not changed, society has come to a point where it is starting to recognise that feminine characteristics are what it takes for strong leadership?


 [1] Fajak, A. & Haslam, A. (1998). Gender solidarity in hierarchical organizations. British Journal of Social Psychology. 37, 73-94.

[2] Eagly, A.H.. Wood, W. & Diekman, A.B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes and H.M. Trautner (Eds.). The developmental social psychology of gender (pp.123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[3] Duehr, E. & Bono. J. (2006). Men, women, and managers: are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59, 815-846.

[4] https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/the-truth-about-gender-stereotypes-8691

[5] https://info.walkingthetalk.com/culture-counts-report

[6] https://www.ccl.org/blog/characteristics-good-leader/

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)