Tag Archives: Diversity

Four Deadly Business Myths

Leave a reply

Four Deadly Business Myths

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The unicorn is perhaps unique among myths in that the creature doesn’t appear in the mythology of any culture. The ancient Greeks, for all of their centaurs, hydras and medusae, never had any stories of unicorns, they simply thought that some existed somewhere. Of course, nobody had ever seen one, but they believed others had.

Beliefs are amazing things. We don’t need any evidence or rational basis to believe something to be true. In fact, research has shown that, when confronted with scientific evidence which conflicts with preexisting views, people tend to question the objectivity of the research rather than revisit their beliefs. Also, as Sam Arbesman has explained, our notions of the facts themselves change over time.

George Soros and others have noted that information has a reflexive quality. We can’t possibly verify every proposition, so we tend to take cues from those around us, especially when they are reinforced by authority figures, like consultants and media personalities. Over time, the zeitgeist diverges further from reality and myths evolve into established doctrine.

Myth #1: We Live In A VUCA Business Environment

Today it seems that every business pundit is talking about how we operate in a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) world. It’s not hard to see the attraction. Conjuring almost apocalyptic images of continuous industrial disruption creates demand for consulting and advisory services. It’s easier to sell aspirin than vitamins.

The data, however, tell a different story. In fact, a report from the OECD found that markets, especially in the United States, have become more concentrated and less competitive, with less churn among industry leaders. The number of young firms have decreased markedly as well, falling from roughly half of the total number of companies in 1982 to one third in 2013.

Today, in part because of lax antitrust enforcement over the past few decades, businesses have become less disruptive, less competitive and less dynamic, while our economy has become less innovative and less productive. The fact that the reality is in such stark contrast to the rhetoric, is more than worrying, it should be a flashing red light.

The truth is that we don’t really disrupt industries anymore. We disrupt people. Economic data shows that for most Americans, real wages have hardly budged since 1964. Income and wealth inequality remain at historic highs. Anxiety and depression, already at epidemic levels, worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The recent great resignation, when people began leaving their jobs in droves, helps tell this story. Should anyone be surprised? We’ve been working longer hours, constantly tethered to the office even as we work remotely, under increasing levels of stress. Yes, things change. They always have and always will. We need to adapt, but all of the VUCA talk is killing us.

Myth #2: Empathy Is Absolution

Another favorite buzzword today is empathy. It is often paired with compassion in the context of creating a more beneficial workplace. That is, of course, a reasonable and worthy objective. As noted above, there’s far too much talk about disruption and uncertainty and not nearly enough about stability and well-being.

Still, the one-dimensional use of empathy is misleading. When seen only through the lens of making others more comfortable, it seems like a “nice to have,” rather than a valuable competency and an important source of competitive advantage. It’s much easier to see the advantage of imposing your will, rather than internalizing the perspectives of others.

One thing I learned living overseas for 15 years is that it is incredibly important to understand how people around you think, especially if you don’t agree with them and, as is sometimes the case, find their point of view morally reprehensible. In fact, learning more about how others think can make you a more effective leader, negotiator and manager.

Empathy is not absolution. You can internalize the ideas of others and still vehemently disagree. There is a reason that Special Forces are trained to understand the cultures in which they will operate and it isn’t because it makes them nicer people. It’s because it makes them more lethal operators.

Learning that not everyone thinks alike is one of life’s most valuable lessons. Yes, coercion is often a viable strategy in the short-term. But to build something that lasts, it’s much better if people do things for their own reasons, even if those reasons are different than yours. To achieve that, you have to understand their motivations.

Myth #3: Diversity Equity And Inclusion Is About Enforcing Rules

In recent years corporate America has pushed to implement policies for diversity, equity and inclusion. The Society for Human Resource Management even offers a diversity toolkit on its website firms can adopt, complete with guidelines, best practices and even form letters.

Many organizations have incorporated diversity awareness training for employees to learn about things like unconscious bias, microaggressions and cultural awareness. There are often strict codes of conduct with serious repercussions for violations. Those who step out of line can be terminated and see their careers derailed.

Unfortunately, these efforts can backfire, especially if diversity efforts rely to heavily on a disciplinary regime. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out long ago, strict rules-based approaches are problematic because they inevitably lead to logical contradictions. What starts out as a well-meaning effort can quickly become a capricious workplace dominated by fear.

Cultural competency is much better understood as a set of skills than a set of rules. While the prospect of getting fired for saying the wrong thing can be chilling, who wouldn’t want to be a more effective communicator, able to collaborate more effectively with colleagues who have different viewpoints, skills and perspectives?

To bring about real transformation, you need to attract. You can’t bully or overpower. Promoting inclusion should be about understanding, not intimidation.

Myth #4: People Are Best Motivated Through Carrots And Sticks

One of the things we’ve noticed when we advise organizations on transformation initiatives is that executives tend to default towards incentive structures. They quickly conjure up a Rube Goldberg-like system of bonuses and penalties designed to incentivize people to exhibit the desired behaviors. This is almost always a mistake.

If you feel the need to bribe and bully people to get what you want, you are signaling from the outset that there is something undesirable about what you’re asking for. In fact, we’ve known for decades that financial incentives often prove to be problematic.

Instead of trying to get people to do what you want, you’re much better off identifying people who want what you want and empowering them to succeed. As they prosper, they can bring others in who can attract others still. That’s how you build a movement that people feel a sense of ownership of, rather than mandate that they feel subjugated by.

The trick is that you always want to start with a majority, even if it’s three people in a room of five. The biggest influence on what we do and think is what the people around us do and think. That’s why it’s always easy to expand a majority out, but as soon as you are in the minority, you will feel immediate pushback.

We need to stop trying to engineer behavior, as if humans are assemblages of buttons and levers that we push and pull to get the results we want. Effective leaders are more like gardeners, nurturing, growing and shaping the ecosystems in which they operate, uniting others with a sense of shared identity and shared purpose.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Does Diversity Increase Team Performance?

1 Reply

Does Diversity Increase Team Performance?

GUEST POST from David Burkus

It’s often said by teams that “diversity is our strength.” We take for granted the idea that diverse teams bring more lived experiences, ideas, and solutions to the table. When asked, “How does diversity affect teamwork?” most leaders assume that teams composed of individuals from different backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives are more likely to approach problems from various angles and come up with innovative solutions. And hence most leaders assume that diversity is a source of greater performance.

And while that’s true—it’s not as clear cut as we assume.

When you look at the research, the relationship between diversity and high-performing teams isn’t always a positive correlation. For diversity to truly enhance teamwork, teams need to establish psychological safety and build shared understanding. Otherwise, diverse ideas, perspectives, and experiences can cause more friction than innovation.

In this article, we will explore the importance of psychological safety and shared understanding in diverse teams. By understanding the impact of diversity on teamwork and implementing these practices, teams can harness the full potential of their diverse members and achieve better problem-solving and value creation.

Psychological Safety

Psychological safety is crucial for diverse teams to tap into the benefits of diversity. When team members feel psychologically safe, they are more likely to share their ideas, take risks, and engage in open and honest discussions. As a leader, it is essential to create an environment where team members feel comfortable expressing themselves without fear of judgment or negative consequences.

One way to build psychological safety is by demonstrating vulnerability as a leader. When leaders openly share their own challenges, mistakes, and uncertainties, it creates a safe space for team members to do the same. This builds trust and shows that it is acceptable to take risks and make mistakes. By embracing vulnerability, leaders can set the tone for open communication and encourage team members to bring their authentic selves to the discussion.

Another important aspect of psychological safety is teaching respectful dissent. Disagreements are inevitable in any team, but it is crucial to handle them in a productive and respectful manner. Encouraging team members to express their differing opinions and perspectives fosters a culture of healthy debate and prevents the formation of echo chambers. By establishing guidelines for respectful dissent, teams can ensure that disagreements are seen as opportunities for growth and learning rather than sources of conflict.

Shared Understanding

Shared understanding is important for diverse teams to work together effectively. When team members have a clear understanding of each other’s work preferences, strengths, and weaknesses, they can collaborate more efficiently and leverage each other’s skills and expertise. Building shared understanding requires intentional efforts to create an environment where team members can openly discuss their working styles and expectations.

One strategy for building shared understanding is to use exercises like the “manual of me.” This exercise involves team members sharing information about their preferred communication styles, work habits, and personal preferences. By understanding each other’s preferences, team members can adapt their communication and collaboration approaches to accommodate different working styles.

Creating a team working agreement is another effective way to establish shared understanding. This agreement outlines the team’s norms and expectations, addressing questions about how the team wants to work together. It can cover topics such as communication channels, decision-making processes, and conflict resolution strategies. By collectively defining these guidelines, teams can ensure that everyone is on the same page and reduce misunderstandings or conflicts that may arise due to differences in working styles or expectations.

Diversity, when combined with psychological safety and shared understanding, enhances teamwork, and leads to improved performance. By creating an environment where team members feel safe to express themselves and fostering shared understanding, teams can tap into the full potential of their diverse members. Embracing diversity as a strength allows teams to approach problems from various perspectives, leading to better problem-solving and value creation. And that helps everyone on the team do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on September 11, 2023

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Hire for Diversity and Empathy to Drive Innovation

Leave a reply

Hire for Diversity and Empathy to Drive Innovation

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

One of the questions I get asked quite often, both at conferences and when coaching executives, is what type of personality is best suited for innovation so that they can optimize their hiring. Are technical people better than non-technical people? Introverts better than extroverts? Is it better to hire foxes or hedgehogs?

The first thing I tell them is that there has been no definitive research that has found that any specific personality type contributes to innovation. In fact, in my research I have found that there is not even a particular kind of company. If you look at IBM, Google and Amazon, for example, you’ll find that they innovate very differently.

The second thing I point out is that every business needs something different. For example, Steve Jobs once noted that since Apple had always built integrated products, it never learned how to partner as effectively as Microsoft and he wished it would have. So the best approach to hiring for innovation is to seek out those who can best add to the culture you already have.

Foxes vs. Hedgehogs

In Good to Great, author Jim Collins invokes Isaiah Berlin’s famous essay about foxes and hedgehogs to make a point about management. “The fox,” Berlin wrote, “knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Collins then devotes an entire chapter to explaining why hedgehogs perform better than foxes.

Yet as Phil Rosenzweig points out in The Halo Effect, this is a highly questionable conclusion. Even if it were true that the most successful companies focus on one core skill or one core business, that doesn’t mean that focusing on “one big thing” will make you more successful. What it probably means is that by betting on just one thing you increase your chances of both success and failure.

Think about what would have happened it Apple had said, “we’re going to focus just on computers” or if Amazon had focused on just books. There is also evidence, most notably from Philip Tetlock, that foxes outperform hedgehogs on certain tasks, like making judgments about future events.

So the best strategy would probably be to hire a fox if you’re a hedgehog and to hire a hedgehog if you’re a fox. In other words, If you like to drill down and focus on just one thing, make sure you have people around that can help you integrate with other skills and perspectives. If you like to dabble around, make sure you have people who can drill down.

Introverts vs Extroverts

We tend to see leaders as brash and outgoing, but my colleague at Inc, Jessica Stillman points out that introverts can also make great leaders. They tend to be better listeners, are often more focused and are better prepared than social butterflies are. Those are great qualities to look for when adding someone to add to your team.

Still, you wouldn’t want to have an entire company made up of introverts and, in Social Physics, MIT’s Sandy Pentland explains why. Perhaps more than anything else, innovation needs combination. So it’s important to have people who can help you connect to other teams, both internally and externally, bring in new ideas and help take you in new directions.

Consider Amazon, a company that is not only incredibly successful but also highly technically sophisticated. You might expect that it hires a lot of introverted engineers and I’m sure that’s true. Yet the skill it is most focused on is writing, because it understands that to create a successful product, you need to get a lot of diverse people to work together effectively.

So much like with foxes and hedgehogs, if you’re an introvert you should make sure that you have extroverts that can help you connect and if you are an extrovert, make sure you have people who can focus and listen.

Technical vs. Non-Technical People

By all accounts, Steve Jobs was never more than a mediocre engineer, but was clearly a legendary marketer. Nevertheless, he felt strongly that technical people should be in charge. As he once told his biographer, Walter Isaacson, in an interview:

“I have my own theory about why the decline happens at companies like IBM or Microsoft. The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The product starts valuing the great salesmen, because they’re the ones who can move the needle on revenues, not the product engineers and designers. So the salespeople end up running the company.”

Yet the story is not nearly as clear cut as Jobs makes it out to be. When IBM hit hard times it was Lou Gerstner, who spent his formative professional years as a management consultant, that turned it around. Steve Ballmer clearly made missteps as CEO of Microsoft, particularly in mobile, but also made the early investments in cloud technology led to Microsoft’s comeback.

So much like with foxes vs. hedgehogs and introverts vs. extroverts, the choice between technical and non-technical people is a false one. Far more important is how you build a culture in which people of varied skills and perspective can work closely together with a shared sense of purpose.

Today, as we enter a new era of innovation, organizations will need a far more diverse set of skills than ever before and building a collaborative culture will be key to success.

Collaboration Is The New Competitive Advantage

Over the past few decades, the digital revolution has shaped much of our thinking about how we advance a business. Digital technology required a relatively narrow set of skills, so hiring people adept at those skills was a high priority. Yet now, the digital era is ending and we need to rethink old assumptions.

Over the next decade, new computing architectures like quantum and neuromorphic computing will rise to the fore. Other fields, such as genomics and materials science are entering transformative phases. Rather than living in a virtual world, we’ll be using bits to drive atoms in the physical world.

That will change how we need to innovate. As Angel Diaz of IBM told me a few years back, “…we need more than just clever code. We need computer scientists working with cancer scientists, with climate scientists and with experts in many other fields to tackle grand challenges and make large impacts on the world.”

That’s why today collaboration is becoming a real competitive advantage and we need to focus far less on specific skills and “types” and far more on getting people with diverse skills, backgrounds and perspectives to work together effectively.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and an earlier version appeared on Inc.com
— Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Discomfort Caused by a Diversity of Perspective

Leave a reply

The Discomfort Caused by a Diversity of Perspective

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When your organization doesn’t want to hear your truth because it contradicts a decision they’ve already made, that’s a sign of trouble. It’s a sign they’re going to do what they’re going to and they don’t care all that much about you. But, what if they’re wrong? And what if your perspective could snatch victory from the flames of an impending train wreck? As someone who cares about the company and thinks it would benefit from hearing what you have to say, what do you do?

When you have a culture that makes it clear it’s not okay to share divergent perspectives, you have a big problem.

In domains of high uncertainty, increasing the diversity of perspective is the single most important thing we can do to see things more clearly. In these situations, what matters is the diversity of culture, of heritage, of education, of upbringing, and of experiences. What matters is the diversity of perspective; what matters is the level of divergence among the collective opinions, and what matters most is listening and validating all that diversity.

If you have the diversity of culture, heritage, education, and experience, congratulations. But, if you’re not willing to listen to what that diversity has to say, you’re better off not having it. It’s far less expensive if you don’t have it and far fewer people will be angry when you don’t listen to them. But, there’s a downside – you’ll go out of business sooner.

When you have a perspective that’s different than the Collective’s, share it. And when there are negative consequences for sharing it, accept them. And, rinse and repeat until you get promoted or fired.

Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Downside of Likemindedness

Leave a reply

The Downside of Likemindedness

GUEST POST from Rachel Audige

You know that extra buzz of care you feel for people like you? That might be you caught up in like-mindedness bias. We have a tendency to seek out people like us and ideas like our own. That may be just fine but let’s not kid ourselves that it fosters new thinking!

It’s hard not to enjoy kindred spirits. There is something very comforting about spending time with people who share similar values and desires, but I tire of meetings and work situations where people speak of the pleasure of being with folk like them:

“It is so good to be amongst like-minded people,” I heard in a local business meeting that I attend to be challenged.

“An event for the like-minded,” is supposed to attract us to an innovation event.

“Feeling like meeting like-minded women over lunch?” says an invitation I receive in my inbox.

We welcome people, but the sub-text is that they need to ‘be like us’. “There is nothing wrong with you as long as you look like, think like, act like, lead like, advance like, decide like, keep time like, create like, socialize like and consume like us,” writes Nancy Kline in More Time To Think.

It is a bias at large in the workplace and, indeed, in most other places. We just seem to want to self-replicate.

More pervasively, even social media algorithms nourish this thinking and feedback to us only the ideas and world views that we have ‘liked’. The result is that our own narrow views are played back to us in a mind-narrowing echo chamber. This is not an innovative ecosystem, it’s more like an echo- system where our own thoughts and ideas are reflected back at us.

This is not an innovative ecosystem, it’s more like an echo- system where our own thoughts and ideas are reflected back at us.

I believe this obsession with like-mindedness stems from a range of factors including:

▶ A fear of being different. Our desire to fit in and belong is usually greater than our willingness to stand out.

▶ A false idea of mateship that tells us we can only be ‘mates’ if we get on. We see this a lot in countries like Australia and New Zealand.

▶ Avoidance of conflict. In organizations where we are not encouraged to challenge the leadership or each other, some will choose to behave as though they agree to avoid any negative consequences.

▶ Fear of rejection. This is the people-pleasing side where people show agreement whether they agree or not.

▶ Need for Approval. This is very apparent in many large corporations and can lead to a passive/defensive culture in an organization. It may be amplified by the fact that for many the HiPPO (the bias where we defer to the Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) is offshore and there is a sense that we need to walk the corporate line.

▶ And lastly, what Nancy Kline would see as an untrue limiting assumption, that someone else’s divergent thinking ‘does not count’; a sense that we are—or our thinking is—superior.

“When we all think alike, there is little danger of innovation” — Edward Abbey

I don’t believe that like-mindedness is conducive to innovative thinking or the best decision making. I have sat on a board where the CEO and Chair were so close they did not call each other out on important matters. I have also been in a team where the Head of Sales and Head of Marketing were being told they should agree of things when I was convinced that each of them was likely to be more effective if they represented their divergent take on the customer, strategy and long-term versus short-term priorities.

A CREATIVE CULL

The like-mindedness bias not only impoverishes thinking but excludes those who are ‘un-like’ us in a variety of ways. Some expressions of this like-mindedness bias and its consequences that I have witnessed with regards to creative thinking are:

▶ Groups that place too much value on similarity and getting on. As a result, they are less likely to bring divergent thinking into the room. They may then consciously — or unthinkingly — not invite those who we believe are not ‘like them’. I have seen this lead to ideas that are less rich and less inclusive of a diverse range of views where I had to speak up for the absent (needless to say, I also had blinkers and would have left people out).

▶ Countless idea generation sessions where we have not consciously asked the question: who does this idea exclude? We tend to be very good at looking for benefits and challenges but many workshops have fallen into the trap of the mythical notion of ‘one size fits all’. This could exclude any number of people.

▶ I recall a meeting where a panel was seeking creative ideas around addressing the disproportionately low number of women positions of power in Australian businesses. Incredibly, only two men were in a room of over 100 women. This was unlikely to bring the most creative ideas or engage those that needed to be part of the conversation.

▶ Conversely, I have run a roundtable explicitly for people living with disability and upset a person who was hard of hearing and was seated at the back of the room, unable to lipread. Albeit unintentional, we need to watch out for ‘micro-aggressors’; those (seemingly) little things that remind people that the world wasn’t built for them. We talk a lot about ‘scalability’ in innovation. But how can we see something as truly scalable if we are leaving out about 15% of the population?

Most of us have been in a meeting — creative or otherwise — where the unwritten rule involves sacrificing more challenging, disruptive ideas for consensus and groupthink. In a creative session, if my goal is to get on with another person, I am unlikely to improve on their ideas. I am also unlikely to contradict them. This leads to a lowest common denominator effect whereby we settle on what is agreeable to all.

If we are not pushing each other for better, we are likely to stop at safe, possibly ‘vanilla’ concepts. This erodes our creative edge and our point of difference. Nancy Kline clearly sees the danger: “We worship at the altar of homogeneity. Actually, we sacrifice there… Homogeneity sounds so nice. Same, comfortable, familiar, predictable. But it is ruthless. And it infects even our conception of how to slay it.”

The most helpful way of exploring the many negatives of the like-mindedness bias and its impact on innovation is to highlight the value of its opposite…

DIVERSITY | DIVERGENT THINKING | INCLUSION and UNIVERSAL DESIGN

One of the most powerful measures to keep most biases in check is to invite diversity, divergent thinking and actively foster inclusion.

Mid-Covid-19 discussions in Australia, I was delighted to hear Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy’s response to a question about whether he agreed with the different stakeholders involved in making wellbeing decisions. He replied that it was preferable for them not to agree and that their decisions would be better for it.

Diversity is manifesting an understanding that each individual is unique and recognising individual differences. These differences may be in ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs or other ideologies. As Kline states: “The mind works best in the presence of reality. Reality is Diverse.”

‘Diversity’ has been part of the business vernacular for years now. Diversity is the mix. What matters is how we make this mix work once we combine different backgrounds, vocabularies, paradigms and processes. That’s inclusion. Not getting this right can whitewash creativity and, potentially, undermine the inclusiveness of any creative output.

Dr Jennifer Whelan, founder of Psynapse, offers a simple illustration of why diversity is preferable. Whelan describes two rooms. In the first room, you see people just like you; people who share the same language, skin colour, gender and even background. You can relax, these are ‘your kind of people’. You can build rapport, make assumptions, enjoy high levels of certainty. It feels efficient.

But there are risks to this, warns Whelan: “Too much agreement means we don’t consider alternative solutions, or discuss a broader range of ideas. We are at risk of groupthink and biases because we don’t have a fresh set of eyes on how we’re thinking. We don’t feel challenged so we go with the easier option and stick with tried and tested solutions. While some of the routine things we do at work might not suffer, when it comes to some of the more challenging things, this room acts as an echo chamber.”

In the second, you open the door to a room full of people who are both different to you and to each other. In this room, you’ll have to bring your A-game. You’ll need to listen more attentively and be better prepared.

“This second room doesn’t feel as comfortable as the first room. You have to work a lot harder and the outcome might not be as predictable,” says Whelan. However, this room has many potential upsides. This is likely to be a space which is more conducive to creativity. A place where more varied ideas are aired, less shortcuts are made and people are more likely to notice what might otherwise be overlooked.

Room one is more comfortable but it is less well equipped for creative thinking and is more prone to biases, errors and assumptions.

“Getting more comfortable in room two, the diverse room, is the goal of inclusion and, without inclusion, room two can risk higher levels of conflict. Different perspectives and ideas aren’t explored without an open, curious mind, so the team’s diversity can go to waste,” says Whelan.

So, what can we do to counter the like-mindedness bias to disinvest in sameness and think more inclusively and creatively and ‘make the mix work’ in our innovation?

My experience of corporate innovation workshops and idea generation sessions is that we focus on desirability, feasibility and viability but forget to ask the question: Who am I excluding?

It strikes me that we need to overlay—or better, underpin— all our creative thinking and work on new product and service design, process enhancement by this consideration and constantly strive to iron out the kinks to make whatever we are creating as inclusive as possible.

We also need to include universal design principles in our idea generation criteria: is it equitable? Flexible? Simple and intuitive? Is information perceptible? Is there a tolerance for error? Does it require low physical effort? Is the size and space adequate for approach and use? Who might this idea exclude? If we want to dial up our creative outputs, we need more divergent inputs. We need to actively seek out or create places where we will encounter different-minded people; divergent thinking and diverse group identities.

As Brené Brown says: “Daring leaders fight for the inclusion of all people, opinions and perspectives because that makes us all better and stronger.

“That means having the courage to acknowledge our own privilege and staying open to learning about our biases and blind spots.”

NOTHING KEEPS BIAS IN CHECK LIKE INCLUSIVE DIVERSITY

Whatever we are creating, we shouldn’t be considering difference after the fact. Literally — and metaphorically — we need to come up with ideas, systems, processes, designs, websites, buildings…where each and every person can enter through the front door.

I work on a simple premise that innovation should be geared towards making our lives better. When this view is shared, diversity really needs to be front and centre of any initiative. Online and off, we need to follow the thinking of the likes of Todd Rose, co- founder and president of non-profit Project Variability, who challenges the ‘myth of the average’ and recommends that we ‘design to the edges’ and optimise our processes, structures, systems, products and communication for the full range of human characteristics, traits, abilities and interests.

I have always found that my ideas can be improved and sharpened by people who think differently. As long as I listen to those voices with respect and interest — and genuinely contemplate the ideas of others.

I am convinced that we think better and are more likely to look at things from more angles with different perspectives in the room. This is why the best idea generation happens with multidisciplinary, cross-functional, cross-ability groups.

I’m not scared of a ‘clashing’ of ideas and debate. It keeps me sharp and it keeps me grounded. It keeps complacency at bay. It leads to more meaningful outcomes. I am conscious that my comfort with conflict may be another person’s discomfort.

Even when I’m overly partial to an idea, I try to think inclusively and not defensively, I try to make a point of inviting diverse voices to pipe up. Being challenged is a necessary part of the creative process. We need to embrace the discomfort.

Whatever we are creating, we shouldn’t be considering difference after the fact. Literally — and metaphorically — we need to come up with ideas, systems, processes, designs, websites, buildings… where each and every person can enter through the front door.

If you are interested in overcoming biases to enhance your innovation effectiveness, check out: “UNBLINKERED: The quirky biases that get in the way of creative thinking…and how to bust them” at www.rachelaudige.com

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Diversity as a Catalyst for Innovation

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s hyper-competitive global market, organizations are continuously striving for innovative solutions to complex challenges. With the world growing more interconnected, the concept of diversity and inclusion has become not just a moral obligation but also a strategic advantage for innovation. A diversified workforce brings varied perspectives and skills, fueling creativity and driving transformation. In this article, I explore how embracing diversity serves as a catalyst for innovation through insightful case studies and evidence-based practices.

The Power of Diverse Perspectives

Diversity comes in many forms, including but not limited to race, gender, age, cultural background, and professional experience. Each aspect of diversity contributes unique lenses through which problems can be viewed, thus sparking fresh ideas and innovative solutions. It allows organizations to empathize with a wider array of customers and respond to their needs in nuanced ways.

Case Study 1: IBM’s Diversity Initiative

IBM is a leading example of how diversity can drive innovation. Recognizing the wealth of different perspectives afforded by a diverse workforce, IBM instituted “Diversity 3.0.” This initiative aimed not just to hire diverse talent but to embed inclusion into the very fabric of its operations.

By creating diverse teams tasked with innovation projects, IBM discovered that such groups were able to solve problems more effectively and create products that resonated globally. For instance, the formation of a multicultural team led to the development of IBM Watson’s language translation services. Through the team’s varied backgrounds and insights, IBM was able to refine Watson’s capabilities, making it a powerful tool across different languages and cultures.

Case Study 2: The LEGO Group’s Diverse User Base

The LEGO Group showcases how embracing diversity can influence product development and innovation. Traditionally, LEGO had focused on a narrow demographic. However, by engaging with a more inclusive user base, LEGO discovered untapped potential in diverse customer insights.

LEGO’s creation of the “LEGO Ideas” platform, where fans of all ages and backgrounds could submit and vote on designs, allowed the company to leverage this diversity. It resulted in innovative sets that appealed to a wider audience, such as the “Women of NASA” set. This initiative not only boosted creativity and market reach but also reinforced the brand’s commitment to inclusion.

Strategies for Harnessing Diversity

  • Inclusive Leadership: Leaders must create a culture where diversity is valued and where different voices are heard. This involves not only recruiting diverse talent but also ensuring they feel empowered to contribute.
  • Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Encouraging collaboration among teams from different cultural backgrounds can foster creative problem-solving and lead to innovative breakthroughs.
  • Training and Education: Providing continuous learning opportunities about the benefits of diversity and developing skills to manage diverse teams can pave the way for sustained innovation.

Conclusion

Diversity is no longer just a metric to be achieved, but a critical driver of innovation. By fostering an inclusive culture, organizations can draw on a broader spectrum of ideas and perspectives, leading to groundbreaking innovations. As the world continues to change at a rapid pace, those who embrace diversity as a catalyst for innovation will not only survive but thrive.

Let us commit to weaving diversity into the strategic fabric of our organizations and unlock the full potential of our collective creativity.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Navigating Diverse Expectations of Inter-generational Workforces

Leave a reply

Navigating Diverse Expectations of Inter-generational Workforces

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s dynamic professional landscape, organizations are increasingly characterized by a unique composition of inter-generational workforces. This fusion of Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z in the workplace offers immense potential for innovation, provided that leaders understand and navigate the diverse expectations and work styles inherent to each generation.

Diverse Expectations in the Workplace

Each generation brings its distinctive perspective shaped by the world events, cultural shifts, and technological advancements they have experienced. Here are some condensed insights into the expectations and characteristics of each generation:

  • Baby Boomers: Value job security, loyalty, and are often motivated by position and titles.
  • Generation X: Appreciate work-life balance, are independent, and often act as a bridge between older and younger employees.
  • Millennials: Seek purpose-driven work, value collaboration, and prioritize digital communication.
  • Generation Z: Are digital natives, expect rapid feedback, and value diversity and inclusion highly.

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Tech Innovators Inc.

Tech Innovators Inc. is a rapidly growing technology firm with a vibrant mix of employees across generations. The company noticed a frequent clash between the collaborative approach of millennials and the more structured communication style preferred by Baby Boomers.

To address this, the company initiated a mentorship program where employees from different generations were paired together. The aim was two-fold: older employees gained insights into digital collaboration tools, while younger employees learned about industry history and strategic planning.

The result was a harmonious blend of traditional experience and modern efficiency. Productivity saw a notable increase, and employee satisfaction metrics rose by 20%. The mentorship program became a cornerstone in fostering an inclusive and resilient workplace culture.

Case Study 2: GreenFuture Energy

GreenFuture Energy, a leader in sustainable solutions, faced challenges with inter-generational team dynamics, primarily the differing expectations around feedback and professional development.

In response, GreenFuture implemented regular “feedback forums” where real-time feedback was encouraged across all levels. Each forum was designed to be a safe space promoting open communication, facilitated by trained mediators to maintain respect and constructive dialogue.

This initiative empowered Gen Z employees to express their innovative ideas and receive guidance, while Baby Boomers and Gen X provided context and depth through their rich experience. As a consequence, team initiatives became more innovative and execution rates improved by 35%.

Strategies for Navigating Diverse Expectations

To harness the potential of an inter-generational workforce, organizations must adopt intentional strategies:

  • Foster Open Communication: Encourage transparent dialogues where all generations feel heard and valued.
  • Promote Inclusive Leadership: Develop leadership teams that reflect the generational diversity of the workforce.
  • Provide Tailored Professional Development: Offer training programs that cater to the distinct learning and career growth needs of each generation.
  • Leverage Technology: Use digital tools to bridge communication gaps and streamline collaboration across diverse teams.

Conclusion

Successfully managing an inter-generational workforce requires more than understanding generational stereotypes. It demands a genuine commitment to building a culture of inclusivity and adaptability, where diverse expectations are not just acknowledged but leveraged for organizational growth. Through strategic initiatives and open-minded leadership, companies can transform potential inter-generational hurdles into opportunities for innovation and enhanced team synergy.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Impact of Cultural Differences on Innovation

1 Reply

Innovation and Impact of Cultural Differences

GUEST POST from Jesse Nieminen

The effects of cultural differences for innovation are an interesting and extremely multifaceted topic.

For most of us, it probably goes without saying that cross-cultural and multicultural capabilities are crucial in today’s globalized and hyperconnected world, and innovation is no exception. These capabilities are especially important if you’re working on it in a large international organization, as many of our customers are.

Such an organization must obviously think about how to adapt new innovative products and services to the cultures and unique characteristics of different markets and regions. But, in addition to that, they also need to manage the cultural differences within their organization while trying to innovate. Given that we have customers all over the world, it’s a theme we often get asked about.

And, of course, there’s also the age-old debate about the cultures of certain regions or countries being better suited to innovation to begin with.

So, in this today’s article, we’ll dive deeper on this nuanced topic and each of those three themes around cultural differences in innovation. We’ll also end by providing you with practical advice on how to look at and take these into account in your innovation work.

How can cultural differences be observed?

However, before we dive deeper, let’s first take a step back and consider the question of how to observe cultural differences in the first place.

I’m sure we all agree that there are significant cultural and behavioral differences between people coming from different backgrounds, be it based on geographical, ethnic, religious, or just the past corporate cultures people have been a part of.

As these differences are often hard to pin down, people usually have an innate urge to try to group people into specific buckets to make sense of those differences. There are significant challenges in doing that as it can lead to putting people into predefined boxes and reinforcing stereotypes, and then treating people based on those stereotypes instead of the individuals they really are. That is why these kinds of approaches shouldn’t be considered universal truths or used as recipes for making decisions even from a purely pragmatic point-of-view, let alone from an ethical one.

Still, with that major caveat, there are also benefits in using such frameworks since they can help us make sense of the world in a more structured way. They can help everyone get a better understanding of the big picture and can serve as a starting point for creating a shared understanding, as well as debating the practical implications of cultural differences.

There are many such methods available, but the general approach is always the same: to break a culture down into several behavioral and/or value-based dimensions ranging from one extreme to another, and then rating each culture on each of these dimensions to form an overview of their respective cultures.

The most popular and widely researched of these are probably the GLOBE project, and the Hofstede cultural dimensions model, but there are also other popular ones like the Culture Map. Each of these frameworks uses the above described approach, and most of the research on them is primarily focused on the differences between individual nations. Having said that, the same approaches have also been applied to other levels, such as gender, organizational, etc. often just with slightly different dimensions.

Next, we’ll briefly explain the Hofstede cultural dimensions model because it’s one of the earliest, and by far the most popular model in the field. If you’re already familiar with the model, you can skip the next paragraph and jump right into the takeaways.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Geert Hofstede worked at IBM back in the 60’s when it was one of the first true global, multinational corporations. As part of his work on improving cross-cultural communication, he ran the same survey on values for more than 100,000 employees from different countries and analyzed the differences, which then led to the creation of his model some years later.

Initially the model consisted of four dimensions, but upon additional research, has since been expanded to six. I’ll briefly explain each of these next, and then share a few examples to illustrate how that works.

Power Distance Index (PDI) determines how equally power is distributed and how hierarchical a society is. High scores indicate a structured and hierarchical society, whereas low values indicate a more distributed power structure and willingness to question authority.

Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV) looks at how heavily individuals are integrated into groups. This is mostly self-explanatory, but it’s worthy pointing out that collectivist cultures are highly loyal to the close-knit groups they belong to.

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) determines how much ambiguity and uncertainty a society is comfortable with. High scores indicate that a society values clear, often strict, rules and guidelines and believes in there being a “singular truth”. Low scores mean that a society is more willing to explore new ideas and divergent thoughts and is less structured overall.

Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS) is of a dimension that’s subject to some controversy, but here refers to values associated with traditional gender roles. A masculine society values achievement, assertiveness, and material rewards for success, whereas a more feminine one values cooperation, modesty, care, and quality of life.

Long-term orientation vs. Short-term orientation (LTO) is pretty self-evident. Long-term oriented societies tend to think more about the future and view adaptation and pragmatic problem-solving as important, whereas more short-term oriented one tends to value traditions and the current state and be less willing to change.

Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND) in turn refers to how much a society indulges and encourages freedom for individuals to “just have fun and enjoy life”. More restrained societies tend to have stricter social norms regarding such behavior as they see these indulgences as counter-beneficial for bigger, longer-term ambitions.

There’s been some research on how these tendencies affect innovation, and as you can probably guess, some tend to be more favorable for high innovation performance than others. Which brings us to the big question: are some cultures intrinsically better at innovation than others?

Are some cultures better than others at innovation?

Well, in short, the answer is yes. At least to some extent. As mentioned, there’s research that shows a relatively strong correlation between certain cultural characteristics and innovation performance.

However, here it’s worth pointing out that almost all of the research done on the topic would seem to focus on country level data as that is widely and freely available thanks to studies like the Global Innovation Index (GII).

While certainly useful, we should take these findings with a grain of salt due to a number of factors, such as the studies again being high-level generalizations based on correlations, and the indices like GII being predominantly focused on inputs for innovation such as education and R&D spending. Even the output focused parts tend to be a bit biased towards activity metrics, such as number research papers and patents, instead of the real value and economic impact of innovation.

What’s more, I think it’s important to point out that most natural cultures evolve much slower than the GII rankings change, so it should be quite evident that there are also many other factors than culture that affect these scores.

But with that out of the way, let’s now look at the actual findings.

Characteristics of top innovation cultures

Based on the available studies, there would seem to be a pretty good consensus on the ideal innovation cultures having the following characteristics on the Hofstede model, in rough order of importance:

  • Low power-distance
  • High levels of long-term orientation and pragmatism
  • High levels of individualism
  • High levels of indulgence
  • Low levels of uncertainty avoidance
  • Lower levels of masculinity

These findings are obviously mostly in line with what most of us think of as a pro-innovation culture, so there aren’t really that many surprises here.

If people can question authority, are comfortable with ambiguous and uncertain environments, and can think about the long-term instead of just the next quarterly results, innovation is a lot more likely to happen.

While there’s more to innovation performance than culture, certain characteristics are likely to lead to a culture being better at innovation.

In most studies, the level of masculinity seemed to make the least amount of difference of any of the variables for innovation performance. Some studies found no correlation, but some did find a preference for a feminine, more collaborative culture instead of the more competitive and assertive, masculine one.

However, in my opinion, the most interesting findings are that high levels of individualism and indulgence are favorable for innovation, when intuitively we might think that a culture that is more collaborative and favors restraint and delayed gratification would be preferable.

This can be explained with the way that the Hofstede dimensions are constructed.

A more collaborative culture is one where certain in-groups, typically your own family, come first, and where loyalty and obedience are absolute values. So, collaboration according to the Hofstede model isn’t so much for the “greater good”, but more about the benefit of that specific “inner circle” ahead of your own interests. More individualist societies, on the other hand, tend to be more comfortable disagreeing, exploring, and “letting the best ideas win”, which is what likely led to these cultures over-performing.

A similar explanation also applies for the preference for indulgence. According to the authors of the study linked above, people in indulgent cultures have a greater drive for improving things and making life more enjoyable, and are generally more optimistic, which they viewed as the primary factors driving innovation here, perhaps alongside a general willingness to just try new things.

So, in that context, I do think the findings make sense, but I think it’s also a good example of some of the challenges associated with more nuanced sides of these cultural frameworks.

Takeaways from country level innovation performance

Looking at the GII study, and the mapping of the top countries from that to the Hofstede model, there are a couple of points worth noting out.

Viima Hofsted Insights GII study of cultural dimensions

First, the top countries in the GII are pretty much what most people would probably expect. The top 15 consists primarily of the US, the Nordics, as well as some Western European and East Asian countries.

However, the interesting part is that when we map these out to the Hofstede model, it’s immediately obvious that even the top performing countries are essentially all over the spectrum. Once we look a bit closer, it’s also evident that no individual country has the perfect innovation culture, as defined above.

To elaborate further, I think there are a few key takeaways from all of this:

  1. There’s more than just one way to be a great innovator
  2. While there are a few distinct types of cultures that generally do better, every culture has its own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to innovation
  3. You can improve your odds of succeeding at innovation by quite a bit if you recognize the biases of your culture that are likely holding you back

Top performing organizations should thus take these biases and cultural differences into account, and purposefully shape an organizational culture that is distinct from the average of any individual country and instead designed to drive more innovation. Here, diversity can be a real asset, but that’s another massive topic on its own.

Every culture has its own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to innovation. You can improve your odds of succeeding at it by recognising the biases that are holding yours back.

Having said that, there’s quite a bit more to creating this kind of an innovation culture than just what the Hofstede model captures, and we’ve written about that in detail in this earlier article.

However, one aspect that I’d like to highlight here is that innovation is requires a strong combination of both exploration and execution, so your culture should have a good mix of capabilities in both extremes.

If you’d like to start shaping your culture in practice, you can download our free Innovation Culture Toolkit for actionable tools that can help you do just that.

With that said, let’s now move on to the more practical implications of cultural differences for innovation work.

Multi and cross-cultural innovation capabilities

Let’s start from the first and most obvious challenge innovators in a globalized world face: how can their products and services, as well as sales and marketing efforts be relevant when doing international business, especially in different, highly culturally diverse regions?

In certain situations, and for certain products, it can be completely fine to just do minor localizations like translations, and primarily use the same channels, models, and messaging across the world. This will keep things much simpler and there are situations where these benefits can outweigh the costs for both your customers and your business. For example, this is the route we’ve so far decided to take with Viima.

Having said that, if you don’t adapt your offering and operations to different cultural and market preferences, you often can’t reach your full potential. In some situations, it might even take a completely different approach to reach the same goal in different cultures.

P&G is these days often cited as an example of a multinational company that has been able to successfully grow in emerging markets, but one of the lessons they learned the hard way was that just operating with the same products and models as they did back home wouldn’t work.

For example, according to ex-CEO Lafley, when P&G decided to focus on the baby-care market in Asia, the initial approach was to just cut away material from the diapers sold in Western markets. The problem was that to get to a cost-level that was acceptable, they had to cut out so much that the products no longer worked as intended. Once they went back to the drawing board and created an entirely new product with a completely different design focused primarily on costs instead of the latest technology, they succeeded in creating an attractive product and eventually became the market leader in China.

Pampers Cultural Tailoring

However, in most cases, either extreme isn’t the way to go. You need to look for a solution that allows you to build on your strengths, but still cater to the different cultural preferences of those whom you choose to serve – and usually that isn’t everyone.

Of course, for most of us who are innovators, that isn’t really that different from what we do anyway: we know that whatever great ideas we have, many will never survive first contact with the real world.

Cultural differences and local preferences of different markets are just another variable that we’ll need to take into account in our innovation work. Still, if you’re aiming for international business, it is a topic that you’d be wise to consider during your development process as it can save you a lot of trouble down the road.

Now, if you already have team members that are intimately familiar with these different cultures, it’s just common sense that the whole process is likely to be quite a bit smoother. And the evidence backs it up: this is one of the reasons for diversity being an asset for innovation.

But with that, let’s finally cover the practical considerations of what all of the above means for our organization before we wrap up.

Managing cultural differences within the organization

This is of course another massive topic, so we’ll keep things focused and will seek to provide you with the three key principles we’ve generally found to work well for getting great innovation outcomes in an international, multicultural organization in our work with such organizations.

While many of these are quite practical, depending on your role, you might not be able to put all of them into practice right away. Still, I’d recommend thinking about ways you can apply the same core ideas within the scope of your innovation work.

Cultural Differences for Innovation

Communicate about cultural biases and expectations openly

To illustrate this, I’ll share a story from No Rules Rules, which is a great book that I’d warmly recommend if you’ve made it this far into the post.

Before Netflix expanded internationally, it had a somewhat stereotypical US style task-oriented culture. It was quite common for employees to have lunch while working on their computers. However, as they expanded to Brazil, it quickly became obvious that this was a bit of a problem as, in general, Brazilians really value the relationships built over shared meals. As a result, early employees didn’t exactly feel welcome.

After some time, this came up in discussions, and while it was a trivial thing to fix, it still made a huge impact on morale. And not only did that help them adapt to local habits, but the changes also enriched the culture of the organization globally.

Netflix is known for its company culture

So, the takeaway here is that it’s important to pay attention to cultural differences and discuss them openly. Usually, the issues are easy enough to fix, but when they aren’t discussed, you easily miss them, and that’s what leads to many challenges down the road. The reality is that most people won’t be familiar with everyone else’s culture by default and expecting that to be the case just isn’t realistic.

Have core values and some norms, be flexible on the rest

Each organization’s culture is a result of its background. A sum of its parts, if you will. Be it the nationality of the company, past strategic and hiring decisions, and even simple practices and ways of working that have stuck around for one reason or another.

A few of these factors are core for the identity and competitiveness of the organization, and it’s these core values that you should hold on to. However, most of these factors are simple habits that are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Making the difference between the two is key.

The core values and norms are something you simply need to succeed as an organization, and those you simply can’t compromise on. New employees, whatever their background or experience, do need to adhere to these few essentials. And for that to happen, you need to train them on these values and principles and tell why that is so important for your organization.

You should be adamant about upholding your core values, but be flexible and willing to give up or change the more inconsequential parts of your culture so that it can evolve and improve

On the other hand, the rest of inconsequential norms and habits you should be willing to give up or change when needed so that everyone can feel welcome and be the best version of themselves. Everybody doesn’t have to be a carbon copy of one another.

But there’s more to it than just that. The right changes can, in fact, make your culture better. This is essentially what “hire for culture add, not culture fit” means in practice.

Let’s again use the Netflix lunch example. Was it crucial for the company to have employees to eat at their desks? Of course not. It was just an inconsequential habit. However, it was vital to have the new Brazilian employees feel welcome, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it improved the company’s performance. Plus, introducing this conscious habit globally helped have a positive impact elsewhere too!

Shared Lunch Brazil

The same can be applied even within the scope of your innovation work. For example, if you’re working on a new medical device, quality and safety are much more important than absolute speed to market. On the other hand, for a consumer web app, it’s probably the other way around. The exact values mentioned here aren’t important, it’s that they should support your strategy and innovation capabilities.

Figure out what the true core values and norms are for your innovation efforts, and make sure to reinforce these – and then be flexible on the rest.

Push decision-making down whenever possible

We’re a strong advocate for decentralized innovation. I won’t recap the whole topic here, but in a nutshell, it’s people who are closest to the market and the real work that often come up with the best ideas. Also, a decentralized approach allows you to dramatically scale your innovation work, which is key for long-term results.

While we’d argue that this is usually the preferable approach, it’s even more important when you’re operating in a multicultural and international environment, as we pointed out earlier.

Not only is this likely to lead to better decisions, but it’s guaranteed to improve the accountability and motivation of the employees making those decisions, which will lead to better results.

This is a key characteristics of the Netflix culture, and CEO Hastings prides himself in doing as few decisions as possible. And, at large, it’s seemed to work really well for them.

However, a market where they are struggling is India. And, at least on the surface, it looks like the problem has been that they’ve tried to adapt the same success formula to India as most other markets: using local top talent to produce new hit TV shows. The problem is that apparently Indians value sports and movies much more than they do TV shows, which has led to competitors focused on those areas dominating the market and a big commercial disappointment for Netflix. From the outside, it’s hard to say if they didn’t really live up to their values here, or if the mistake happened regardless of that. Still, I’m sure there were people on the ground in India that knew of these cultural preferences beforehand.

India Cricket

In practical terms, there are naturally some opportunities and capabilities that make sense to work on centrally, but in an international organization there are also plenty that would be best tackled by empowering people further down the organization to make decisions that best drive the key interests of the organization.

For example, some of our customers have launched big international innovation campaigns or other initiatives and struggled. They might find it difficult to engage people in the field because the centralized effort just doesn’t feel relevant for many of these people, or they might not be able to implement enough good ideas with that same centralized approach.

While there are others that have succeeded in similar centralized efforts, our most successful and advanced customers have nearly without exception evolved the way they work to really embrace innovation at the scale of the organization at large.

…and make sure innovators have the support they need

However, for that decentralized approach to work, you need to guide and support the people innovating across the organization. This is of course not specific to just an environment where there are cultural differences, but for innovation in general.

You likely have plenty of smart and capable people working for you who’d be more than capable of driving innovation, but if they don’t have the right resources, tools, and mindset, they might struggle.

So, in practice, you should:

  • share strategic priorities, and make sure people continue to work towards those
  • provide tools and resources that help people with the innovation process
  • communicate and oversee the above-mentioned core cultural values and norms of the organization
  • help people with challenges in being heard, understood, or taken seriously by others
  • help facilitate discussions and share innovation best practices between different parts of the organization

Often, the most convenient way to accomplish the above goals is to make these efforts a priority of your centralized innovation team, instead of having that small team try to drive innovation themselves.

The right approach and specific methods, tools, and frameworks obviously depend on the situation, but the point is that with the right support, you’ll find that people will often surprise you with the innovations that they’re able to create. The key to success with this model is to proactively invest in improving capabilities and supporting innovators across the organization.

Anyway, with this kind of an approach, you can move from just trying to manage cultural differences, to embracing and using them to drive value for your organization.

Conclusion

The topic of cultural differences is such a complex and nuanced topic that  we’ve barely scratched the surface on here, even though this has been a pretty long article.

But to summarize, if ignored, cultural differences can become a big challenge for innovators. Yet, if embraced and properly managed, it can turn out to be a real advantage for you.

The first step is to understand that these differences exist in the first place, and that teams and people from different backgrounds are likely to have certain strengths, but also certain weaknesses, when it comes to innovation.

Then, reflect on what the ideal culture for innovation looks like in your specific business, and discuss these differences openly with your team.

And finally, try to approach the whole process systematically, with the help of tools like our Innovation Culture Scorecard, one by one addressing challenges that are holding your team back from reaching its true innovation potential.

As mentioned, when embraced and properly managed, cultural differences can turn out to be a real competitive advantage for an innovator.

This article was originally published in Viima’s blog.

Image credits: Viima, Pixabay, Unsplash, Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Fueling a Culture of Innovation with Diversity and Inclusion

Leave a reply

Fueling a Culture of Innovation with Diversity and Inclusion

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, the capacity for innovation stands as a critical differentiator among leading organizations. At the heart of fostering this innovation is the commitment to diversity and inclusion (D&I). The melding of varied perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences not only drives creative outcomes but also builds resilient, adaptive business enterprises. As thought leaders at the helm, we must champion a culture where diversity and inclusion are not mere policies but key drivers of innovation.

The Power of Diverse Perspectives

Diverse teams bring a wealth of perspectives that ignite creativity and challenge entrenched assumptions. A study by Boston Consulting Group found that diverse management teams lead to a 19% increase in revenue due to innovation. When individuals from different cultural, gender, and generational backgrounds convene, they contribute unique viewpoints that enhance problem-solving capabilities and stimulate breakthrough innovations. The convergence of these perspectives facilitates more rounded and comprehensive decision-making processes, which can yield novel products and services.

Case Study 1: Global Tech Innovators

Consider the case of a leading global technology firm that set out to invigorate its product development process. By championing a diverse workforce, the firm curated project teams inclusive of members from varied cultural backgrounds, educational disciplines, and genders. This not only mirrored their diverse customer base but also fueled unprecedented growth in innovation-led initiatives.

One notable success involved a team working on a next-generation wearable technology. By leveraging insights from team members in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, who understood the regional health and wellness nuances, the team developed features that resonated globally, driving product adoption in markets previously untapped. This was achieved through a continuous dialogue fostering an inclusive atmosphere where all team members felt empowered to voice their ideas without fear of dismissal or ridicule.

Fostering an Inclusive Culture

Building a truly inclusive culture involves more than just assembling a diverse team. It entails creating an environment where all employees feel valued and heard, and where contributions are recognized and rewarded. Organizations should implement training programs that underscore the importance of inclusivity, where leaders are equipped to nurture and mentor diverse talent.

“An inclusive culture is one where every employee can bring their full selves to work and contribute towards the innovation journey.”—Anonymous

It’s crucial for leadership to model inclusive behaviors that permeate throughout the organizational culture. This can include forming employee resource groups that celebrate diversity or establishing forums for open dialogue and collaborative ideation sessions. The net result is a fertile environment ripe for innovation.

Case Study 2: Healthcare Innovators

The healthcare industry illustrates another compelling example where D&I powered innovation. A national healthcare provider faced the challenge of designing patient outreach programs that connected with a wide array of demographics. By integrating a diverse group of healthcare professionals, the provider was able to tailor communication strategies to suit different cultural norms and practices.

The diversity within the team ensured that the insights went beyond mere language translation, addressing deeper cultural contexts, and resulting in higher patient engagement and satisfaction rates. The innovative outreach models developed were expanded into full-scale implementations that fundamentally transformed patient-provider interactions across various communities.

Sustaining Innovation through Continuous Commitment

To sustain innovation, organizations must maintain a steadfast commitment to D&I. It is an ongoing journey requiring regular reflection and renewal of strategies. Metrics should be in place to measure the impact of D&I efforts on innovation outcomes, with goals evolving in response to the shifting dynamics of the workforce.

Success stories and best practices should be shared throughout the organization, highlighting how diversity and inclusion have propelled improvements and sparked new initiatives. This storytelling not only inspires but also reinforces the value of D&I as fundamental pillars of innovation.

Conclusion

Fostering a culture of innovation through diversity and inclusion is not optional in today’s competitive business world—it is imperative. The cases presented exemplify how embracing a broad set of voices leads to solutions that are not only innovative but also deeply resonant with a global demographic. As leaders, our role is to build and sustain environments where diversity and inclusion are integral to our organizational DNA, driving forward our vision for continuous innovation.

This article is designed to provide a thoughtful exploration of how diversity and inclusion fuel innovation, along with practical case studies to illustrate these principles. Let me know if there are any further changes or additions you’d like to make!

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Principles of Inclusive Design

Leave a reply

Creating for All

Principles of Inclusive Design

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In our rapidly changing world, designing products and services that serve a diverse user base has never been more important. Inclusive design is not just a trend; it is a movement towards accessibility, equity, and respect for human diversity. At the heart of this approach lies a profound commitment to creating solutions that are not only user-friendly but fully accessible to everyone, regardless of their abilities or circumstances.

In this article, we will explore the core principles of inclusive design and illustrate them with two compelling case studies. By understanding these principles, designers and innovators can craft experiences that are not only innovative but profoundly inclusive. For further insights, explore our articles on Five Immutable Laws of Change and Human-Centered Innovation.

Core Principles of Inclusive Design

Inclusive design involves several key principles:

  • Recognize Diversity and Uniqueness: Understand the varied needs of different users and design with empathy.
  • Create Flexible Solutions: Develop adaptable solutions that can cater to a broad range of needs.
  • Offer Equal Use: Ensure that products and services provide the same means of use for all users, avoiding the need for adaptation or specialized solutions.
  • Offer Equitable Experience: The experience should be equally satisfying for everyone, encouraging user engagement and delight.

Let’s delve into two real-world examples where these principles are skillfully applied.

Case Study 1: Microsoft and the Inclusive Design Toolkit

Microsoft has been a pioneer in applying inclusive design principles. Their Inclusive Design Toolkit is a testament to their commitment to accessibility and innovation.

The toolkit was created based on extensive research and user feedback, and it offers guidelines that help designers create products that consider a wide array of potential users. For instance, Microsoft Word now includes accessibility checkers, which assists users in creating documents that are accessible to people with disabilities.

One significant feature is the ability to provide real-time subtitles during video calls on Microsoft Teams. This functionality addresses the needs of hearing-impaired users, foreign language speakers, and those in noisy environments, showcasing Microsoft’s commitment to creating flexible, equitable solutions.

Case Study 2: OXO’s Universal Design Approach

Another exemplary application of inclusive design principles is found in the work of OXO, a company that revolutionized kitchen tools with its commitment to ease of use for all.

OXO’s journey began with a simple potato peeler. Sam Farber, the founder, realized his wife, who had arthritis, found it difficult to use traditional peelers. The solution was the OXO Good Grips range, featuring soft rubber handles that were comfortable for everyone, whether or not they had physical limitations.

This universal design approach has become a staple of OXO’s philosophy, ensuring that their products are accessible, functional, and engaging for a diverse user base. The success of OXO emphasizes the power of inclusive design to create products that resonate with, and are appreciated by, a vast audience.

Conclusion

Inclusive design is not just about compliance or accessibility; it is about creating experiences that resonate with everyone. As demonstrated by Microsoft and OXO, companies that embrace inclusive design open the door to innovation, engagement, and satisfaction.

By adhering to the core principles of inclusive design—recognizing diversity, creating flexible solutions, ensuring equal use, and offering equitable experiences—we can achieve a more inclusive world. For more strategies on this transformative approach, explore our writings on Five Immutable Laws of Change and Human-Centered Innovation.

As designers and innovators, the call to action is clear: Let’s build a future that is open, accessible, and welcoming to all.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.