Our organisations fail to identify our expertise —they hardly try
This story is part 2 of “Your organisation upholds racism and discrimination”.
Organisations failing to identify expertise give racism and discrimination free rein
If you agree, or are willing to consider, that decision making increases risk and intuitively allows societal biases into the organisation — and that decisions are to be replaced by substantiated choices through the utilisation of expertise — then the question becomes what “expertise” actually is, and how to identify it.
The answer to this question — again a lengthy one — will show that the selection and recruitment efforts of most organisations not only fail to identify expertise, but also disadvantage the underprivileged even further.
“Expertise” has been defined as “the ability to contribute to achieve a goal against minimal risk”. But what does it take to minimise risk? What does this expertise consist of? And if it is to be identified, what to look out for?
In dynamic environments, if “experience” is not also accompanied by a “high level of perceptiveness” it doesn’t count for anything
“Expertise” consists of the combination of someone’s experience and someone’s level of perceptiveness — where “perceptiveness” is the ability to discern and understand the interrelated dynamics of a situation.
We all have an area of expertise. We are all able to minimise risk in certain situations. In our area of expertise we perceive the situation, the dynamics, the patterns and the interdependencies. In our areas of expertise we know what to do next.
If the environment we operate in is predictable and doesn’t change much, then we become experts predominantly through experience. But the more dynamic this environment is, the greater the importance of perceptiveness becomes. In situations with many unknowns, with many stakeholders, with changing circumstances and unique conditions, experience which is not also accompanied with a high level of perceptiveness doesn’t count for anything.
Our level of perceptiveness cannot be measured, but it can be easily observed
Experience is something that, generally, is easy to quantify. It is often measured in the number of times or years we have found ourselves in a particular environment with a particular responsibility. It is what we put in our professional résumé. Not so with perceptiveness.
Our level of perceptiveness — which to all intents and purposes is a trait — is not something we can measure, but it is something that can be readily assessed through observation.
Our level of perceptiveness — our (in)ability to see connections, to recognise how circumstance impacts outcome, to feel and take responsibility for what we do or fail to do — seeps through in everything we do. It determines our core values, the way we live our lives, and our behavioural characteristics.
Those in leadership-roles need to deal with change and require a high level of perceptiveness
Those who have a high level of perceptiveness readily treat others with respect, are willing to listen, and volunteer. They take responsibility, are trustworthy, honest, thoughtful, compassionate, non-abusive, accepting reality for what it is — and the list goes on and on. All of which is logically linked to a high level of perceptiveness, all of which can be easily observed, and all of which is also essential to make organisations thrive. In the figure below an overview of behavioural characteristics linked to a high and a low level of perceptiveness is provided.
Throughout our organisations, anything that is out of the ordinary lands at the feet of those who take on leadership-roles. People in leadership-roles have to deal with change. To do so successfully they need a high level of perceptiveness.
There may be no leadership-role taking place in a more dynamic and high risk environment than the presidency of the United States. To take this role on successfully — irrespective of political orientation — an extremely high level of perceptiveness is required. Also for this role the potential for success can be assessed on the basis of behavioural characteristics of the candidates.
Organisations failing to take someone’s level of perceptiveness into account amplify the effects of existing societal biases
Staying closer to home, whenever we enjoy working with and for someone in a leadership-role in our own organisation, it is because of something often called “soft skills” or emotional intelligence, making us feel appreciated and valued for our input, making us feel seen. This someone may be experienced, but managerial experience is of relevance only when results have been achieved in a demonstrably dynamic environment. It is never someone’s “detailed knowledge,” or the “number of years” in a particular role which makes us feel motivated and enjoy our work so much more.
But instead of selecting, or recruiting, on the basis of both experience and level of perceptiveness, the focus lies squarely on “experience” in most organisations. Which is perfectly fine for roles in static environments, but experience alone says very little about someone’s potential for growth or ability to do well in today’s increasingly complex world.
So on top of the decision making’s societal biases — which already put the underprivileged at a disadvantage when selecting or recruiting for leadership-roles or job openings — the focus on merely “experience” adds insult to injury: it puts a finger on the scale in favour of those who have been given the most opportunities in our society.
Wherever decisions are made expertise is lacking
The identification of expertise is the beginning of the thread that really does need pulling. And in various ways and forms some organisations are already doing it. It is not easy, but is necessary, and it comes with high rewards. To overcome this challenge one can simply begin by identifying decisions: wherever decisions are made expertise is either lacking or not utilised.
The systems we live and work in are immoral by design
Even when our colourless and genderless expertise has been identified and is thus available to the organisation — and assuming the work culture makes us feel safe enough to express it — we still have to contend with the demoralising consequences of hierarchical decision making.
We all have had to deal with the disappointment of having substantiated choices and ideas ignored, overruled and discarded — without any recourse — simply based on the other person’s position in the hierarchy. Decision making stifles our freedom, our autonomy, the use of our talent and motivation. We don’t feel trusted. We are treated as children, yet no attempt is made to make work more fun.
My frustration was real, yet I failed to see that I was privileged in my frustration also
It is out of a work-related frustration, too, that I started working on an approach to optimally utilise expertise. My frustration was very real, and it drove me to work on my approach over a period of four years. Yet all this time I failed to see that I was privileged in my frustration also. I always focussed on decisions increasing risk, never on decisions perpetuating societal biases.
I never before thought about how hierarchical decision making upholds racism and discrimination, because I have never been affected by it. Because I have been blind to the frustration of “not being given the opportunity”. Because the system has always handed me plenty of opportunities. My sense of comfort, my unmoving eyebrows, and my forward looking attitude (because nobody was tapping me on my shoulder) were merely the side-effects of ignorance.
Our systems are not amoral, they are immoral
I have never considered how decision making perpetuates societal biases, because the systems in which I live and work don’t question decisions. They don’t care about moral ethics. They couldn’t care less whether decisions are biased or not.
And so when societal biases enter our systems through decision making, our systems have no mechanism to identify and purge them. In fact, the opposite is true. The only thing our systems care about is that decisions are made by the appointed person in the hierarchy. If so, the system will use all of its power to support and defend this person and the decision made. Our systems are not amoral, they are immoral.
Nothing is more frightful than ignorance in action
At this point — having made my arguments — we can revisit the disturbing scene I started the related previous article with and see much more than just racial violence.
Thoughtlessly accepting your privileges is ignorance in action
As Johan Wolfgang von Goethe famously wrote, nothing is more frightful than ignorance in action. Here ignorance is not merely the absence of knowledge. “Ignorance in action” is: not caring, not taking into consideration, or not being aware of how we actively harm others.
When I looked away from the video-still, I looked away from “ignorance in action” in all of these three senses.
I looked away from someone applying deadly force unnecessarily and without a care.
I looked away from a system which “discouraged” colleagues from intervening because the deadly violence was applied by the highest in the hierarchy. A system which defines public safety as “the presence of justice” yet, in determining hierarchy, fails to take past racist behaviour into account. A system ready to use all of its considerable power against any bystander wanting to intervene. A system which so adheres to hierarchy, and is so impervious to any consequence of the decisions those in power make, that pressing one’s knee on someone’s neck for minutes can become something casual.
I also looked away from a system that has given me all these opportunities and unearned advantages which I have always thoughtlessly accepted. All these years I have been in a position to confront my unearned advantages. It never occurred to me. It took me twenty minutes of reading to realise that I also looked away from my own ignorance in action.
Yes, all of this also applies to your organisation
Every organisation lies somewhere on the spectrum between relying heavily on decision making (giving free rein to societal biases) and being virtually free of decision making. Between not making an effort to identify and utilise expertise, and successfully creating the conditions to utilise it optimally.
To the privileged organisational cultures appear free of racism and discrimination
Your organisation’s culture may appear inclusive and free of racism and discrimination — which is how most organisations appear to the privileged — but even exceptionally successful organisations which try to avoid all types of decision making may still be at risk of — unintentionally — turning less privileged but no less talented people away at the door.
To assess where on the spectrum your organisation (or your particular organisational unit) may be found is surprisingly easy. Organisations which lack a clear and or poorly communicated goal at every level, who strictly adhere to hierarchy, and who fail to identify let alone utilise expertise have no choice but to operate by decision making.
These organisations don’t know whether the right people are doing the right thing to arrive at something that is ambiguous to begin with. The “solution” these organisations arrive at to limit the impact of the risk that is all around them is “control”. It is an understandable reflex when nothing around you is transparent.
Organisational “cluelessness” expresses itself in “behavioural characteristics” — a reflection of the organisation’s “level of perceptiveness” and predicting (non-)performance
Control manifests itself in numerous ways. In rules, procedures and protocols, in layers of management, in directing, inspecting and coordinating, in the incessant production of lengthy reports filled with detailed information which nobody acts upon, in the drive to make and update plans pursuing targets created out of thin air, in numerous poorly prepared meetings with numerous attendees discussing numerous topics which ultimately can only be “resolved” by the one person entitled to make a decision.
The organisational “cluelessness” expresses itself also in “behavioural characteristics”: a reflection of the organisation’s “level of perceptiveness”. These can be readily observed from the outside and allow both for the prediction of (non-)performance as well as the (lack of) inclusiveness of its culture. A classic one is the need for periodic “reorganisations” in an attempt to reduce the debilitating cost of the system of control (“overhead”), which — as the need to manage the risk caused by decision making remains — is a predictably cyclical phenomenon. In the figure below an overview of organisational characteristics linked with a high and low level of perceptiveness is provided.
Ultimately and verifiably, the role decision making plays in the organisation expresses itself in the disparity between representation in the workforce and representation in leadership-roles throughout the organisation of race, gender, religion and cultural background.
Diversity programs — and how your organisation can *really* make a difference
So, concluding part two of this article, what is it that can be done to stop organisations from upholding racism and discrimination? To end the frustrations felt by those who bring their heart, their talent, their skills and their experience to the table, or are simply denied to sit at it? To transform a system which blindly protects the decision making powers of those in certain positions at the expense, also, of organisational performance?
Several things.
This is the topic of the third and final part of this article, to be found here.
****
A PDF of the entire article can be found here.
