A Possible Game-Changer for Diversity & Inclusion Efforts: Collective Impact

My colleague, Lisa Whitten of SUNY Old Westbury, and I presented a workshop on the Collective Impact approach to creating change at the Academy of Management conference in August of 2014. Collective impact represents a disciplined and ambitious approach to making deep, societal change through collaboration of organizations across different sectors–such as government, education, and the private sector. We noted that many intra-organizational diversity & inclusion practices attempt to create more inclusive work environments. But few collaborate with a diversity of external organizations to address root causes of exclusivity–such as societally-based sexism and racism. At our session we addressed applications and challenges of this approach.   Given the complexity of the forces aligned against true inclusion, we believe that this multi-disciplinary approach involving a number of stakeholders is a fruitful one.

Has anyone in the private sector attempted a collective impact change effort? What were the results?

Our session description can be found here: session description

by

D&I Programs will be More Effective with an Examination of Power Dynamics

An approach to diversity and inclusion based on an understanding of power dynamics among groups is important. Leaders need to be aware of who has a “voice” in the organization and who may be being silenced. In my work with groups – both inside and outside corporations — I’ve been struck by the surface and incomplete interpretations of behavior that are made in the absence of such dynamics. Too often, sub-par performance among members of majority groups are still rationalized, explained away, and otherwise forgiven, whereas similar performance by marginalized groups (e.g., women of color) are subject to intense scrutiny, attributed to overall incompetence, and often result in irreversible damage to reputation and standing. As has been documented in research, dominant group members often have strong informal relationships with senior power holders whereas those from marginalized groups do not. One step for D and I programs is to get more granular in assessing how their programs work to “even out” such power dynamics. For example, in formal mentoring programs, are mentors providing equal knowledge of organizational politics and access to senior people to their majority and minority mentors? My research shows that this is not the case, in looking at white women mentees vs. women of color mentees. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/optimizing-mentoring-programs-women-color

Outcome measures such as overall satisfaction with the mentoring relationships are incomplete. Without an understanding of how willing power holders are to share their influence with those “unusual suspects” from minority groups, D&I programs and practices will not be as effective as they could be or as they were intended to be.

by
,

Why Your HR and D&I Programs Are Ineffective: The Devil is in the Details

Several years back, my team and I did a content analysis of diversity and inclusion programs that were intended to positively affect career success of women of color.  On paper, they looked great.  For example, of 15 organizations we assessed, 14 stated, in writing, that they had programs incorporating managerial accountability for developing women of color.

However, when we surveyed the women of color in those organizations, we found that less than 20% believed that their managers were held at all accountable.

What happened?  Simple (or not so simple):  poor implementation.   Such problematic implementation exists through the current time, with many targets of D and I programs being dissatisfied with results.

Many practices are well-intentioned and may even be well-communicated.  But organizations are short-changing themselves if they do not examine, in a granular way, HOW programs are implemented and carried out.

HR and D&I practitioners can take a page from educational program assessment, which digs deep into implementation.  At the core of program assessment is  the concept of program integrity, defined  as the degree to which a program is implemented as originally planned.  Undergirding this principle are adherence indicators  that include program content, methods, and activities, and  quantity, which represents the amount of a provided service received by a participant, such as  frequency of interactions.

But most important to HR/D&I is quality of delivery.  This deals with the manner in which a practice or program is provided and includes commitment and interaction style.

For example, as another team and I discovered, women of color tend to have less trusting relationships with their managers than do majority women.  Much of this lack of trust can be traced to interaction styles between the manager and direct report.   Importantly, this lower trust leads women of color to have a greater intent to leave their employers.    Whatever the organizations we surveyed were doing regarding retention of women of color, it was falling apart at the manager–direct report level.

HR and D&I professionals need to learn from pitfalls, as well as share stories of successful implementation—whether it is grooming strategically-based champions across the company to role model and support a change effort; or following up on program commitment experienced by key players;  or holding in-depth discussions with managers–especially those in the “frozen middle” who are often resistant to D&I–as to the quality of interactions with their diverse employees.

In the meantime, I welcome a dialogue on what people are struggling with.  What are the pain points for your diversity and inclusion practices, and, more broadly, HR programs?

For more insight on implementation,  please see:

Dusenbury, L., Branningan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W.B. (2003).  A review of research on fidelity of implementation:  Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings.  Health Education Research, 18, 237-256.

by