Let's call the Simon Henrys out when they are gross but let's not pretend workplace toxicity is a problem of individuals - and we need more than just the status quo with a side order of diversity
Opinion: The best, most exciting and creative work experiences are ones where I am in a group of people with multiple perspectives and experiences, and we are exploring a big problem and solution together. In these rooms everyone is valued for who they are, and all perspectives are treated as bringing another strength to the discussion. It's not always comfortable of course, and it certainly requires people to be open to learning new things and to put aside the idea that they are “the expert”.
It absolutely needs people to have some mastery of the feelings that arise when you bring people with different life experiences, needs, skills and perspectives together to solve a challenge. But get it right and the workplace and the work that is produced just zings.
Organisations and workplaces that don't seek to create a place where multiple perspectives flow, or in many cases actively block it, are still among us, and far too plentiful. Last week, Simon Henry’s racist and misogynistic comments about My Food Bag co-founder Nadia Lim was a reminder of the type of people such organisations don't just allow but actively encourage into leadership positions, and in many cases reward. It is organisations and the mindsets or shared culture within them that cushion and enable such people.
However, in conversations and commentary about Henry, there has been a strong focus on the individual and his behaviours: “a dinosaur”, “a 1970s throwback”, “he needs to change his attitudes”. While important points, the focus on the individual and his behaviour, and the framing of him as a single person acting outside of acceptable norms who needs to do better, work to obscure those harder-to-see systems and structures that lead to many people like Henry being actively sought and encouraged into positions of leadership in our organisations in the first place.
We can, and should, lift our gaze from this individual behaviour and use it as an opportunity to talk about what systems or solutions will ensure that the strength of multiple perspectives is a principle on which our businesses, organisations and workplaces are built on. The bonus being we shift (or oust) attitudes like Simon Henry’s in leadership because systems are an important enabler of behaviour. Rob Campbell wrote a great piece on what boards can do (if they have a future focused mindset). I have been musing on a few things that might help lift our gaze as a society to the changes that will make a big difference and ensure people like Henry don’t get carried aloft to the top of organisations.
Reframe the ‘diversity’ conversation
For most people there has been a recognition that our organisations, especially the leadership of them, reflect a very limited group of people from our many communities. We are told we should have a wider group of people represented in the organisation, and if we do, it will make us better somehow - usually in terms of money. It's a very shallow conversation that doesn't get to the actual problem (or solution) at the heart of monocultures, which is that the incumbent culture and perspectives are treated as the strongest and best, the norm from which alternative perspectives are simply “other”, and just nice to have add on to help make us more money or tick a box. Certainly, in this thinking challenging perspectives are rarely seen or treated as good if not actually better than current perspectives. Rather the thinking is that if we just invite a few “divergent” perspectives in, we can keep operating the perfectly adequate (and by inference best) status quo systems with a few different identities in there. Status quo with a side order of diversity thanks.
What this type of “diversity” conversation obscures is the reality of the structures and policies and practices that have encouraged one way of thinking and one group of people to become leaders and shape the organisation, while actively blocking others with different perspectives and experiences from doing so. Which is how the “diversity hire” ends up being shat on from a great height - individuals who are “diverse from” are dropped into systems that are actively toxic to their perspectives and experiences.
The alternative to the diversity conversation is talking about how to create organisations that embrace and encourage the strengths of many people. Specifically, we look at how our policies and systems and structures may be acting to block many people from leadership and what the alternatives to those existing ones are. An example of this would be creating anti-racist and anti-misogynistic policies and practices before we ask “diverse” people to bash their heads against the barriers that remain (including toxic men at the top).
Great organisations will recognise and build on the strengths that sole mothers, disabled people, people who did their study later in life, men who take time out to care for children or don't act in stereotypical “successful man” ways, and Pacific women have. It will be a benefit to most of us as human beings with many challenges that arise in life if we all have organisations that work for most people (not just a select few). In addition with layered perspectives and experiences embedded in the DNA of our organisations, we can drive vibrant, inclusive, innovative and exciting work and ways of addressing our big challenges.
We don't need an invitation to the boring and inflexible table with a narrow set of ideas and perspectives on the world, we need the whole table turned on its head.
Valuing and seeing people as people as a core competency
Along with a reframe of the diversity conversation, there is value in rethinking the competencies of leadership. It of course goes hand in hand with building organisations that embrace the strengths of all people. Regardless of who we are, many of us would have experienced toxic people as managers and leaders. Under these conditions we often experience being dehumanised in some form or other. Yet most of us thrive when we are seen and valued for who we are, at home and at work. So there are behaviours related to this need that we can encourage across organisations and in leaders.
A focus on seeing the value in everyone can help build better practices around people’s performance and the support they need to do well, it will give more time and space for finding and building on people's skills and unique perspectives, and enables better conversations about what is happening when a job is not working for a person.
Not everyone starts off knowing how to value all people, that is what competency frameworks and performance metrics are there for. To ensure people know where they are expected to have skills, set out the behaviours that reflect their presence, and provide the right support for them to achieve competence. People on boards should be working to ensure these systems of competency measurement and improvement are in place for their leaders, especially people on well-paid boards. They should ensure these competencies reflect a broad range of inclusive leadership values, including being a good and decent human being who can value and see everyone who works with them.
So sure, let's call the Simon Henrys out when they are gross. And for those of us with the hands on the levers, let's build organisations to prevent people with these views being seen as leaders when they clearly are not. We can be ambitious about the different kinds of organisations we can create to achieve the things that matter and what leadership is. It will probably even help us shift what we value and the goals we pursue to our collective benefit.
