The Loudest Duck

Moving Beyond Diversity while Embracing Differences to Achieve Success at Work

Laura A. Liswood

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9780470567593
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Business

Diversity in the workplace is a wonderful thing—but it also challenges many of today's business leaders. For managers and team-members alike, it can be difficult to navigate in a truly diverse workplace made up of people of different cultures, races, creeds, body types, hobbies, genders, religions, styles, and sexual orientations. But understanding our cultural and social differences is a major key to a high-performing, merit-based work environment.

The Loudest Duck is a business guide that explores workplace diversity and presents new ideas for getting the most business and organizational benefit from it. In the Chinese children's parable, the loudest duck is the one that gets shot. In America, we like to say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Comparing the two, it's easy to see that our different cultures teach us different sets of values, and those values often translate into different ways of doing business that may subtly advantage one culture at work and disadvantage another.

In the global marketplace, it's more important than ever that we understand and are conscious of our differences to work together effectively. It is not enough to create Noah's Ark, bringing in two of each kind. We all bring our unconscious beliefs and personal narratives about who we are and who others are with us to work and, with diversity in place, we can no longer ignore them. Truly effective leaders can't pretend that we're all the same or that our preferences and preconceptions don't exist. The Loudest Duck offers a way to move beyond traditional diversity efforts that ignore our differences and toward modern diversity practices that embrace those differences—and profit from them.

Diverse organizations require more sophisticated leadership, conscious awareness of diversity issues, new behavioral patterns, and effective tools for reaping the benefits of true diversity. This book will help you develop the skills you need and the tools you can use to go beyond what Grandma taught you to make diversity work in your business.

More than just an enlightening tale about diversity, The Loudest Duck is a powerful resource for any manager, business owner, team leader, or employee who wants to meet the challenges of the modern heterogeneous workplace. It's not simply about accepting others—it's about ensuring a level playing field for everyone and building an organization that gets the best fromallits people.

Chapter 1

Beware of Noah’s Ark

Two women, two Asians, two people with disabilities, and two African Americans: diversity accomplished—or so we once thought. At some point, corporate diversity came to mean the inclusion of at least two of every kind. Far too many managers and leaders figured that if you crammed a pair of each minority into a company or into a boardroom, you had accomplished the task of creating a diverse work environment.

Nothing, in fact, could be further from reality. We’ve thought long and erroneously that diversity was achieved merely by re-creating Noah’s ark. At least, that’s how the thinking has gone. The push for diversity came to be about numbers, committees, employee networks, and mission statements; strategic plans, tracking systems, business cases, and scorecards. It’s true that in Noah’s ark, those might all be necessary; but we’ve come to find that they are not sufficient.

The problem with this artificial ark is that much of the time, the giraffe looks at the zebra and thinks—consciously or unconsciously—“That animal is just kind of funny looking. He doesn’t look like me. He has a foolishly short neck, silly black and white stripes, and eats what looks like garbage. However, as a giraffe, I have an elegant long neck, beautiful brown and white spots, and eat carefully; only the finest leaves and bark.” And that’s just the beginning of how all of these creatures see each other. The gazelle inevitably thinks that the hippo is ridiculously fat and lazy; the leopard finds the stripes on the tiger jarring; the rabbits and the coyotes can’t be in the same room together; and the racket the magpies make during the day incenses the nocturnal owls.

This is what happens when you create the corporate version of Noah’s ark; and such clashes will happen indefinitely until leaders and companies come up with a plan for integrating these groups, and benefiting from the stripes, the spots, and the horns rather than waiting for company-wide conformity. It will continue to take place until everyone in the workplace learns and understands that their own inherent behaviors and unconscious approaches are likely hindering success for everyone. In a true meritocracy, the benefit of diversity will emerge only when we become aware and conscious of how we feel about the other who is sharing our space in the ark. It will occur when we become aware of the subtle ways in which some in the ark are advantaged while others are disadvantaged—merely because of their diversity. Only then can we understand how the beliefs, roles, shoulds, should nots, values, schemas, and archetypes that we bring into the workplace affect one another.

In the United States, the corporate Noah’s ark still has only 13 female CEOs running the largest 500 publicly traded companies—that’s a record. In 1996 there was a mere one female CEO of a Fortune 500 company; in 2008 there were 11. As for African American men, there are four currently running a Fortune 500 company. This book isn’t all about gender or race, but this will give you an idea of how far we haven’t come and how far we still have to go.

Journalist James Surowiecki captures an important point about diversity in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds. He says that what we are really looking for is “cognitive diversity,” or the differing ways people think. He explains that if you have a homogeneous group and you add an additional member of the homogeneous group to the mix, the individuals will bond quickly because they are alike—but the incremental creativity between them is slight. If you add a member of the heterogeneous group to the homogeneous one, they do not bond quickly, because although they are not alike, the incremental creativity is much greater when each group reaches its full potential. Companies are ultimately looking for increased creativity, better ideas, and multiple perspectives, so they will in fact benefit from diversity. However, we will see that achieving this takes much more effort than merely assembling a workplace that looks like Noah’s ark.

We now need to move beyond diversity. Gone are the days of traditional diversity training—something that ultimately proved to be ineffective. We have to look at companies and employees in a new postdiversity way. A review of 830 mid- to large-sized companies around the United States found that typical diversity training exercises were followed by a 7.5 percent drop in the number of women in management. The number of female African American managers fell by 10 percent, while the number of male African Americans dropped by 12 percent. This study—examined by the Washington Post in “Most Diversity Training Ineffective, Study Finds”—revealed that mandatory diversity training programs were the culprits. Trainings that concerned diversity were found to be more effective when they were voluntary and used to achieve specific company goals.

Businesses in the United States collectively spend between $200 and $300 million each year on diversity training; yet all that time and money could be spent more effectively to achieve more productive results. We are asking people within a diverse population to change their unconscious thoughts, beliefs, schemas, perceptions, role types, and behaviors, while acting more consciously among and around others who are not like them. It makes existence in heterogeneous workplaces more complex, and it makes fair career success more challenging. Changes in perceptions and beliefs about ourselves and others in the ark are required, and we all know that people are reluctant to change. It can be scary, uncertain, and uncomfortable. Successful and effective change starts with the unthinkable, moves to the impossible, and ends with the inevitable. But too often, we become stuck in the unthinkable.

Ancient Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus said, “The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and accepted by all.” The same goes for change; a small group dares it before more join in and ultimately it is accepted by everyone. A standing ovation is a classic metaphor for change. Typically, an initial but small number of people jump up to yell “bravo” then another larger group stands believing that the performance was especially worthwhile; followed by an even larger crowd that gets up, believing that the performance was good based on how others are receiving it. Finally, the people remaining in their seats stand up because they can’t see the stage and have no other choice.

People need to realize that creating diverse environments is, in effect, all about change. This is inherently difficult to grasp. There has historically been more resistance than acceptance to these changes. None of us feel excited and happy when we see competition, threats to our job, challenges to our thinking, or creativity that surpasses our own. These can be scary things, but change can be less painful than we think. Another ancient philosopher, Thucydides, observed that people end up changing for three reasons: out of fear, self-interest, or honor. I like to think of these, in modern terms, as pain, gain, or vision. I may change because it is too painful to stay the way I am. I may even change because it is clear that I will gain from the change. Least likely, I will change because I have the vision to understand that it is in everyone’s best interest for me to change.

Once we’ve assembled Noah’s ark, we can’t stop there. That is merely Diversity 1.0. We must go to the next level and require ourselves to be more conscious about our actions and decisions while changing—if not at first adjusting—our perspectives, beliefs, and most importantly, our behaviors in the workplace. A successful corporate Noah’s ark is a lot harder to achieve than we imagine, because there are far more categories of difference, or diversity, that trigger our unconscious reactions. The categories extend beyond the traditionally defined distinctions that include age, race, gender, national origin, and religion. Try to discern the myriad unconscious assumptions we make about personal characteristics such as marital status, family structure, sexual orientation, belief systems, height, weight, accent, hobbies, sports, country of origin, class, smoking habits, food preferences, personality approaches, gradations of skin color, and speaking styles. These are all distinct types found on the ark. True diversity requires that we tackle these subtle and unique categories head on. Each one must be incorporated into the ark and into the corporate composition. Yet, it is challenging to overcome our own natural or learned perceptions of each of these groups, because we learn about others starting at an early age, and this learning continues throughout our lives.

Let’s look at who is in this ark I keep mentioning. The issue as we look inside the ark isn’t merely that difference exists, but rather that we evaluate people unconsciously. This can have a real impact in the workplace on promotions, salaries, and performance metrics. It can disturb the professional playing field, not because of the diversity in the ark, but because of how we respond to individuals who are different than we are. Some specific examples follow. This is not an exhaustive list by any means.

National Origin. We may be pleased that our company has hired people from various countries of origin, but we should really be focusing on how everyone is reacting to each other. We can use a word like nationality, but what this really means is that people have their own notions or ideas about each other’s country of origin. What do the French really think of the English? What do we do about the Japanese attitude toward the Chinese? What about the ways in which Italians view Germans? If you ask someone their honest opinion regarding national origins, you are sure to hear quite a commentary, quite a host of assumptions, predictions, and decisions. Germans are too stolid and too unemotional, think the Italians. Italians are much too emotional, heated, and dramatic, think the Germans. Herein lies the Noah’s ark challenge.

Age. It is not so much that age is an issue, a problem, or an obstacle, but rather that we have to be aware of what we unconsciously believe about what 20-year-olds can do, what 40-year-olds are capable of, and what 60-year-olds are really all about. We may believe that the millennial generation or 20-somethings are unfocused, not particularly loyal to one organization, and have short attention spans. Don’t even try to give them critical feedback, since those helicopter parents of theirs never did. Many have decided that millennials use electronic media such as Facebook in a way that dissolves the lines between personal and professional, and we probably don’t like it. But we are doing an individual a disservice, our company harm, and ourselves unnecessary angst by forming these judgments about the 20-something who was just hired. It’s not uncommon to assume that the 55-year-old is stuck in her ways and unwilling to make adjustments. Maybe she is, but maybe she isn’t.

Culture. This really boils down to how we live in the world and how that may be different from another person’s way of being or doing things. Our cultural differences are often labeled as weird or strange, rather than viewed as merely not the same as our own. “You eat that part of the animal?” we think to ourselves watching someone savor a particular organ. Maybe we’re judging our colleagues because they kiss each cheek when greeting someone, or hold hands. “That’s so not right,” we think. Nor is that little ritual we saw before a meal, the small bow to a superior, or a phrase used for greeting someone that isn’t “Hello.” It’s hard not to think, “We don’t do that here.” In order to make Noah’s ark work, more of us have to accept that what we do here isn’t what we’ve always done, and if it’s different it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad. That’s cultural difference in a microcosm.

Religion. If we share the same religion as another person, then we have a sense of each other’s values in terms of what, where, why, whom, and when we believe. In turn, we are comfortable in the knowledge that we understand one another. To know is to understand, to feel comfortable, to feel right, and to feel okay about our cubicle neighbor, our supervisor, or our newly hired charge. If we don’t share the same religion, we really do not understand each other very well. Our value system—and certainly our rituals—may be different. It may not be a clash of civilizations, but it is a clash of unconscious understandings that quickly plays out in the workplace.

Say, for instance, that your boss likes to take people out for drinks on Fridays after work as a team bonding experience. Immediately this seemingly thoughtful, spirited gesture includes certain people and excludes others. Jews who observe the Sabbath or Muslims who do not drink and may be uncomfortable in a bar setting are automatically excluded. And this doesn’t take into consideration the person who has adult- or child-care responsibilities. So a manager’s perfectly good impulse to create a strong team and get familiar with her colleagues turns into a subtle advantage for those who participate, and a subtle disadvantage for others in Noah’s ark who are not out for drinks at the end of the week. What are the effects of this potentially unequal treatment? The ones who go out with the manager have unequal access to the manager—the same person who ultimately makes career decisions about others naturally and unconsciously leans toward the people he or she has become comfortable with after hours.

Holidays are another factor. If we share the same religion, we know each other’s holidays—including the dates, the celebrations, and the meanings. You’d have to have been born in a cave not to know about Christmas in the Western world, and I’m sure you’ve casually wished many people a Merry Christmas. But what about the 1.5 billion Muslims who celebrate the holiday of Ramadan, which is less known in many places around the world, and not even acknowledged in some.

Gender. What do we bring to our place of work that we learned long ago about gender—about men and women? Ben Barres tells of an experience that he had as a transgender individual. Barres—who went from being a female to being a male—discusses a science presentation he made after which he overheard a male scientist say, “Ben gave a great seminar today, but his work is much better than his sister’s work.” The male scientist had initially seen Ben give his presentation as a female. I am sure that although much had changed about Ben, his scientific research hadn’t. This man had brought his unconscious way of hearing, thinking, and perceiving to the lecture. Men gave better presentations, in his opinion. As a male, Ben says that he is also interrupted much less often than when he was a female.

Sexual Orientation. It may depend upon what our belief system has taught us, or what our parents said, or how our childhood peers informed us, but we all come to the table with a set of ideas on how we think about gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. We may be less comfortable talking to the woman who is married to another woman when we’re looking for a colleague with whom to bounce ideas around. A male supervisor may have decided—as many men do—that his gay project manager will think he’s hitting on him for suggesting the two get lunch to talk over some strategies for an upcoming presentation. Therefore, the supervisor falls back to relying on the person who is more like him, altogether missing out on hearing from those particular employees.

A manager may not really get to know an employee who is gay through casual postweekend chitchat. A simple question such as, “What did you do this weekend?” may never transpire. Likewise, when assumptions are made about sexual orientation, a gay employee who is not “out” may end up avoiding questions—stumbling through seemingly simple exchanges about weekend plans and end up not connecting at all—in an effort to hide his identity. This becomes a missed opportunity for an employee and manager to bond over small things, and ultimately that manager will be influenced by the lack of those small, pleasant exchanges. In the end, decisions are based on both conscious and unconscious knowledge, which leaves some with a significant advantage and others with a clear disadvantage.

Socioeconomics or Class. This category crosses over many cultural, racial, and religious boundaries. Think about how class affects perceptions of who people are, and what they are capable of achieving. We all have an internal compass about class; it’s one category that quickly separates the haves from the have-nots. Elite blacks, whites, Chileans, and Chinese, for example, can often find common humor, talk about similar cars, homes, or vacations, and may have similar preferences in the arts. This is the phenomenon known as “Davos Man,” and is a commonality based on class, not geography. Money divides like nothing else. Often when I am in India and ask about the different categories of diversity in the company ark, one of the first responses is caste—a word that would be unthinkable in many other places globally, but quite prevalent there in unconscious and conscious thought.

I once asked a company director to explain the dress code in the company. The answer was simple for him in his world; he told me that it was “country-club casual.” I come from a blue-collar background, and my father was a policeman. I’ve long been working in the white-collar world, but my first exposure to country-club dress codes came when I waited on tables and picked up golf balls at the club near where I grew up. Without those jobs, I wouldn’t have been able to decipher country-club casual. For employees from other countries and class backgrounds, this is useless information that reflects a certain unaware, insider mind-set.

Take another example of two people interviewing for a position in the same organization. One candidate comes from a well-to-do family and is accustomed to reading the New York Times every day. While he was growing up, his parents invited interesting people to dinner who spoke about politics, current events, and literature. This person was able to travel abroad for a year duri...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Praise
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Beware of Noah’s Ark
• Chapter 2 The Elephant and the Mouse
• Chapter 3 Tell Your Grandma to Go Home
• Chapter 4 What’s Easy for You Is Hard for Me and How to Navigate the Differences
• Chapter 5 Unwritten Rules
• Chapter 6 We Hire for Difference and Fire Because They Are Not the Same
• Chapter 7 The Tools in Your Toolbox
• References
• Index