US and Global Diversity – The Inclusion Paradox

I’ve tried to keep this blog separate from my politics, on purpose. In an effort to appeal to all LGBT readers; whether they be Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Tea Party…you name it, I’ve stayed away from espousing my views on any political candidate or on any political footballs other than making known my views on DADT and same-sex marriage. I won’t shy away from the human rights and equality issues like DADT and marriage that affect us all, regardless of our politics, because presenting authors with viewpoints on both sides of those kinds of issues is the right thing to do.

When I was growing up, I lived in a typical middle class neighborhood that was predominately white. My parents practiced an odd kind of bigotry against most blacks that did not, however, extend to our black neighbors on either side. I left home for the Army at 17 and never looked back. I was exposed to people from all over the country, from all races, and from all walks of life. As time went on, I was exposed to people from all over the world. My world view opened and expanded. Some of that was the Army exposing me to roommates of different races, cultures, and religions and also the Army formally teaching me “tolerance”, and some of it was learned from experience over time.

In the early 1980s “Tolerance” was the name of the game. I always thought that was a horrible word. To tolerate someone or something, in my eyes, is to “put up with” it or them. Tolerance does not equate to understanding or acceptance. I was happy to see the word begin to disappear from corporate and political rhetoric by the mid 2000′s and to be replaced by “Diversity”.

Corporations started touting diversity training around about 2004 or 2005. They made their staffs more “diverse” or they paid lip service to the idea of more diversity in their companies. They did little however to include diversity needs in their way of thinking about the benefits they offered their employees, or about the products and services offered to their customers.

Diversity didn’t have any great impact in U.S. politics until the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections. All of a sudden we had a viable, charismatic, “young” (in terms of most who had gone before him), black candidate for President and a female Vice President running mate for the other candidate for President. Both sides pledged diversity in both their cabinets and in their staffs. We all know that Barack Obama won the Presidency. His win sealed the deal on the most diverse collection of politicos and aides ever to grace Capitol Hill. What does that mean for the rest of us?

In his book, The Inclusion Paradox: The Obama Era and the Transformation of Global Diversity, author Andres Tapia, addresses that question and much, much more. Tapia takes the “dream” of diversity a step farther in his book and teaches that it’s all about inclusion and just what, exactly, inclusion means with regards to different groups and different cultures. He shows us that diversity is about more than sensitivity and paying lip service to cross-cultural awareness. It’s not just about achieving a work force that looks different. It’s about figuring out exactly what the cultural differences and issues are and then using that new awareness to build those learned cultural sensitivities into the way that we do business. It’s about really understanding a workforce that thinks differently.

Tapia uses many examples of what I would call sticking points in The Inclusion Paradox, to illustrate just how far we need to go to be both diverse and inclusive. He sites examples like the difficulties of white females managing African American males who in turn manage white males, Indian (Asian) teams managing U.S. based businesses, Muslims making global real estate decisions from their offices in Dubai and so forth. He says we must call out differences rather than attempt to minimize them for better understanding. He, again, uses many examples including those of pharmaceutical companies who are finding it important to do trials and document findings not only by sex but by race and culture as the same durg may react very differently in the body chemistry of a white male vs a Latino male vs an African American Woman.

This book is very interesting and highly recommended as a “must read” for anyone in business, healthcare, government or politics at any level.