82,910
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Redirected page to Diversity and inclusion) Tag: New redirect |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Removed redirect to Diversity and inclusion) Tag: Removed redirect |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}There is ''actual'' diversity — assembling teams of actually different people from different backgrounds, of different ages, genders, races, with varying cultural perspectives and who hold a diverse array of experience, expertise and opinion — and then there is [[diversity and inclusion]], a second-order derivative of that, which is currently the subject of an in-vogue land-grab by a particular faction of the [[human resources]] military-industrial complex. The latter, despite its name, is curiously homogenous in outlook and output and disarmingly intolerant of contrary opinion, being founded as it is on a political disposition rather than, specifically, an abstract aspiration to make an organisation more effective. | |||
It is also one of the sacred cows of the modern dialectic, so —other than to find mild amusement in its irony, we won’t have a lot to say about it — the [[JC]] picks his fair share of battles. That one is a bridge too far. | |||
As for actual, first-order diversity, bring it on. This isn’t just a case of emulating Benetton commercials or marking out soft play areas and safe spaces. It is to recognise that a homogenous, familiar group with shared values and a single perspective — whatever its ethnic, gender or cultural bias — will be ill-equipped to deal with the problems and opportunities that [[complex system]]s — especially ones that are [[tightly-coupled]] — are certain to throw up. | |||
Seeing all of us comprise, inhabit, and are immersed in [[complex system]]s ''all the time'' — merely [[complicated system|complicated]] or [[simple system]]s are highly unusual over the run of human discourse<ref>Artificial zero-sum contests like [[Chess|Games]] and sports are obvious exceptions, as is theoretical (but not practical) science.</ref> — this isn’t just airy-fairy management babble to put out on the corporate Twitter feed on Pride Day. | |||
Yet our institutions — even those with a [[Humble|humble-bragging]] D&I directorate — are singularly resistant in practice to this idea. [[Legal department]]s are populated not just by lawyers, but by lawyers educated at Russell Group universities and trained at [[magic circle law firm|magic circle]] firms, at which they have had a singular, batshit crazy, view of the world beaten into them. There are no [[Behavioural psychology|behavioural psychologists]], no marketers, no [[Complexity theory|complexity theorists]] among them. All of these disciplines have meaningful things to say about the management of contractual relations. There may be a [[chief operating officer]], but she will be an accountant with an MBA. She will fret that there are too many men in management roles, as if a few more female Russell Group graduate, [[Allen & Overy]] alumni would make any difference. | |||
Homogeneity risks: | |||
*[[Group think]] | |||
*Inability to produce alternative solutions: if everyone around the table came from McKinsey, they’ll tend to apply the same techniques and approach problems the same way | |||
Cultural |