Inclusivity improves productivity

Much ink is spilled (and much airtime filled) with talk about “diversity, equity, and inclusion”.

Unless you have been living in a far-off galaxy, you already know how polarizing these three words can be. You have likely heard about the range of views on offer. You are probably sympathetic to some and outraged by others.

So powerful is that controversy, and so firmly are the battle lines drawn, that I'm not sure if it's possible to sidestep it. But for the sake of saying something that matters to me, I am going to try.

What if (some of) "DEI" could be reframed as "supporting better co-creation"?

In truly effective organizations, we use the maximum creative capacity available to us. We do not have "five heads and ninety-five pairs of hands"; we have "one hundred heads." That is to say, we want the fullest contribution we can get from every member of the organization, from the most junior apprentice to the CEO. It is, therefore, a vital goal of senior leadership to establish a culture that "brings people in."¹

As with much around high-performance cultures, there is something a little counter-intuitive here. Consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario A

The team is facing a problem. One member of the team is the most experienced. They immediately see how the problem can be solved. They speak up and describe the solution. The solution is implemented.

Scenario B

The team is facing a problem. One member of the team is the most experienced. They immediately see how the problem can be solved. They ask questions and try to frame the problem in a way that others can engage with. A less experienced team member goes away and comes back with a solution. The solution is implemented.

Notice that the process in Scenario B takes longer (and is, therefore, only appropriate when the problem is not of the urgent "house on fire" kind). But the process in B brings more people in.

Consider the long-term impact of A vs. B on the behavior of team members. In a team where A tends to happen, people will learn patterns of thinking and acting, such as "I am less experienced, so I should let someone else speak up." Where Scenario B is more common, team members learn "I should speak up because then I will have the chance to learn and be guided by more experienced people."

Also, consider that in Scenario A, the more experienced team member might be acting not from a desire for individual glory but from the altruistic motive of wanting to help their team get out of a tight spot. They helped, but they also subtly excluded others. We might act from good motives, and with a good outcome in the short-term, but in a way that degrades the ability of the whole team in the long term. That’s the counter-intuitive bit.

I'm simplifying massively, of course. But my ultimate point is that when people talk about "inclusivity," they generally mean that it’s not enough to hire a diverse workforce; you also have to work actively to ensure all their voices are heard. You can't be passive in this process, waiting for people to jump in on their own initiative. Sure, some people will, but others will not.

If we want to be truly and sustainably productive, we need to work actively to draw everyone into the conversation. And when I say conversation, I don’t mean a general talking shop; I mean specifically the ongoing conversation about "What problems are we solving for our customers, and how can we get better at solving them?"

This is the creative question at the heart of all human work. Co-creation means solving this problem together—not just as managers or through staff functions. This goes to the heart of the way that high-performance cultures are more effective organisations and more enjoyable places for everyone to work.

1. This is what James Carse would call 'an infinite game'. His book “Finite and Infinite Games” is an excellent read and one I highly recommend.