This is the second part of a blog series. I will be publishing part 3 on Diversity tomorrow. You can find all my posts here.
So what is real diversity at work, as far as I am concerned?
I started being really interested in diversity when I was working in the UK, furthermore when I worked for San Francisco headquartered companies. Although I worked for very different companies, I noticed that being surrounded by people who thought in a similar way, liked the same things, had pretty much the same photos on their desks and used the same vocabulary, made me uncomfortable. I sometimes felt like I was part of a sect. Sure enough, I was surrounded by men and women, gays and straights, and people of various ethical origins, but something was not resonating.
At Google for instance, the average IQ was very, very high when I worked there (pretty sure this has not changed), and during my time there, at Google’s London European centre, everyone was 30 yrs old, from a rich background, with a USD $200,000 top MBA, a very analytical mind and such a load of ambition you could smell it from a mile away. Although I loved many things about this remarkable company, this particular detail made me uncomfortable.
Diversity for me is having a healthy variety of ways of thinking, of seeing things, of prioritizing things, of labeling incidents as urgent or important (or not!), of dealing with crisis, and questioning the status quo.
This mix (and not gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity) is the mix that I look for in a company and try to build in my department.
Prioritising versus going wide: Due to my experience working with tech start-ups, I tend to like to prioritise, start small, test, create a template, then reiterate and grow gradually.
At Betsson, one of my colleagues in the C-suite is the exact opposite of me. She dreams of launching lots of brands in several markets, promoting all products. AND I LOVE IT! I love it because she challenges my way of thinking. Often, we agree and meet somewhere in the middle, which is often the healthiest option for the company. Sometimes, we agree to disagree, I prioritise like I know how to, and in her department, off she goes trying tons of things to see what sticks.
Ambitious versus stable: In the motion picture “The Other Boleyn Girl” there is a wonderful question that Katherin Scot Thomas’ character asks when one of her children is in jail and the other one is about to be executed: “When did ambition stopped being a sin and became a virtue?” Granted, it’s wonderful to build a team of ambitious and clever people. But it’s also a nightmare to have to deal on a daily basis with the over ambitious expectations of the Generation Y (the generation who have grown up being told they’re “special” and as a result think they should be CEO at the age of 25).
I would highly recommend to any head of department to make sure there’s a healthy break down of ambitious and stable people in their team. Great that 60% of your workforce wants your job, they’ll work hard and aim high to grow fast. But it’s also great that 40% of your workforce is happy where they are, focusing on the job to be done, learning how to do it better every year with no plan to become a leader or even a manager.
The math is simple, hierarchy is a pyramid with limited space at the top. Ambitious people who don’t make it to the top, will leave. Stable people won’t try to make it to the top, they will stay, teach others, help hire, fuel the company values as you grow and consistently deliver.
Instincts versus analytical skills: In tech there’s no shortage of analysts, Data Scientists, talented contributors who make sense of trends and data and empower others to make decisions. I am not going to say anything against making decisions based on data because this is how I have been formatted by 15 years in tech. What I would like to highlight here is that instincts DO have a role to play in the work place even though it’s trendy to completely dismiss them.
Actually, try starting a sentence with “My gut feeling is…” in a meeting, you’re likely to be escorted out of the building in less than 10 minutes! I think this is wrong! It’s wrong because our instinct, AKA “gut feeling”, AKA “hunch” is actually a report that our super-powerful subconscious brain delivers to us in a fraction of a second, much faster than our conscious brain ever could. This report is not verbalized, it does not look like a graph, it comes in the shape of a feeling, be it an outbreak of sweat, a ball in your stomach, a sudden burst of energy… Ignoring it completely means ignoring the power of the 90% or so of our brain we don’t use consciously, and to me it sounds like a big fat waste.
It’s the “little voice of wisdom” in your head. Didn’t you recently say you should have listened to it more? Working with people who ONLY base their decision on data feels as unbalanced as working with people who only base their decisions on hunches. Data and guts, both are required to continuously make sound decisions.
Academic education versus street-wisdom: We all know it, a high percentage of successful entrepreneurs out there don’t even have A levels. Yet, they’re having a blast, surrounded by amazing teams, revolutionizing the world as we know it... We’ve all seen colleagues with shinny elite-school degrees who slowly rot in a dull job, loosing a bit of their sparkle every day. What does this tell me? We need a bit of both in any company.
I would encourage recruiters out there to value equally things like a university diploma and 5 years spent defending your country, to regard as favorably an MBA as having climbed the Everest, to rate a PHD similarly to having reached Olympic-level in a sport.
Having defended your country means you care for your team, you respect processes and hierarchy at the time when they’re most needed and you are brave in time of crisis. Having climbed the Everest means being reliable and functioning well as part of a team and having a very high pain threshold as well as never giving up. Having practiced a sport at Olympics level means being capable of extreme discipline, perseverance, and having the ability to challenge yourself every day. These traits are as beneficial to any company as shiny diplomas.
Risk adverse versus risk taking: Have you ever wondered why the vast majority of accounting and insurance firms look so… boring (sorry!)? What they do is anything but boring! An accounting firm can make you save a fortune, avoid going to jail or help you grow your business. An insurance company pays you while you can’t earn, provides for your loved ones if you die, replaces your stolen car… The reason why these companies look boring and often act boring, mostly is because… they’re full of accountants, led by accountants, or full of insurers, led by insurers! There isn’t sufficient diversity in there.
Being risk-adverse is a virtue… until you are only surrounded by risk-adverse people and then it becomes a plague, it slows you down, until the dust settles. If you were to throw a few “Crocodile Dundees” in there, you would be sure to spice things up, make these firms look a lot more palatable for young graduates, and generate more enthusiasm amongst customers.
Inside versus outside our industry: Tech companies tend to favour candidates who come from like-minded tech companies. Startups love people with an entrepreneurial background. I now work for a tech company who strongly feels it is first and foremost part of the “gaming and betting industry.”
There’s a lot to be said about hiring employees who “come from our industry.” Granted, they know the rules, the competitive environment, users’ behaviors, industry averages and benchmarks. However, I often feel there are also many benefits to be gained from employing people who come from completely different industries. They may not know the product or competition that well and need some training about compliances, but they bring an unparalleled fresh look on the way we’ve been doing things for a long time.
For Betsson for instance, this would be employees who come from the Tobacco industry (best trained on compliances in the world!), or the entertainment industry (playing a bit of roulette online is about taking a break, just like it is to watch a video on YouTube) or the sports industry (it helps to attract punters if you know your sports and the frame of mind of sports fans).
I would strongly advise any company to consider employees who do not come from the industry, alongside the ones who do. Different industries backgrounds bring various strengths and ways of functioning that cumulatively prepare a company for its future, as all industries gradually merge and blend in the eye of the online user.
Additionally, there is another group of potential employees that is often overlooked, but I believe can bring invaluable resources to a company. Come back tomorrow for my thoughts on this in the final section of my series, “Diversity Uncensored.”
Article may also be found on LinkedIn