I’m not naturally given to introspection. However, on a recent development course, I was asked to reflect on my leadership style and how my life experiences have shaped it. A psychometric questionnaire confirmed my self-image as a naturally confident person, willing to challenge, and comfortable with being challenged.
So far so good, I thought; good leadership behaviours and a big tick for me. But as others in the group spoke, I started to ask myself – arguably at least 20 years too late – how much of my leadership style, indeed my whole world view, has been influenced by the simple fact that for my whole career I have been a majority in every room I have walked into.
Informed by that insight, and inspired by the ACT’s Guiding Principles for Diversity and Inclusion, I have since been challenging myself on how I can better lead for diversity. The Principles are a great start and, applied well, should contribute to increasing diversity among those ‘in the room'.
In some ways though, creating a diverse team is the easy part. Recruitment is a set-piece where a well-run HR process should support good decision making. One example from GSK is seeking to ‘de-gender’ recruitment ads. Studies suggest women are less likely to apply for a role unless they meet most of the stated requirements, while men might apply if they fulfil one or two. Being thoughtful around what is required, versus ‘nice to have’, can bring a more diverse slate.
Much of my leadership style, indeed my whole world view, has been influenced by the simple fact that for my whole career I have been a majority in every room I have walked into
Having built a diverse team, the real challenge is to leverage that diversity to drive better outcomes. This requires inclusion. Studies suggest a badly led diverse team will underperform a well-led homogenous one. This makes sense. If my team bring different approaches and perspectives, but I expect them all to think and act like me, then I undermine their ability to contribute. I most likely also create tension within the group. How can we avoid this in our teams?
One helpful question might be: “Who speaks first in your meetings?” Earlier in my career, the answer was usually me! Partly a natural tendency, but it often felt more efficient. If I shape the question at the start, and offer a recommendation for discussion, then we won’t spin our wheels. Right? Well, not always…
Offering views for challenge can be helpful – but as I’ve become more senior in my organisation, some people are less willing to challenge. I often force myself to speak last – allowing discussions to develop before I contribute. I hadn’t previously thought about this as leading for diversity specifically – but cultural or societal expectations can make some groups less willing to challenge than others.
So, who speaks first instead? You might think the subject matter expert – but questioning or challenging the expert can be even harder than the boss. Maybe juniors should contribute first – but am I offering enough rope to hang themselves? The right answer varies depending on circumstances and personalities – but asking the question is a good first step to inclusion.
If my team bring different approaches and perspectives, but I expect them all to think and act like me, then I undermine their ability to contribute
Work allocation matters too. If the CFO needs something urgently, I might allocate to someone who will deliver in the way I would – less rework and quicker outcomes. But is there a risk that the person who thinks like me is someone with a similar background to me – and if they always get the senior visibility, is their career being advantaged?
At this stage, I am still learning. Leading a diverse team to fulfil its potential will be harder. But many of the leadership behaviours required can help all teams – and we can start to practise them now.
Tim Woodthorpe is group treasurer at GSK