Here's what I've learned after years of watching well-intentioned inclusion initiatives crumble: You cannot build sustainable inclusion on shaky belief systems.
It's interesting because you need inclusivity movements when you bring in broad diversity. We've been told broad diversity is a strength and yet, they require a lot of work to manage that many different value systems and cultural paradigms. Instead of broad inclusivity, why don't we focus on clustering group affinities? Hell, we do this already with college degrees and company departments. We don't toss a smattering of all disciplines in a single group. We break them down into Engineers, Accountants, etc. So why don't we allow similar grouping under what we typically call diversity?
It depends on how you define diversity and inclusivity.
Diversity is a given. The mixtures are never the same because human communities contain similarities, differences, and the tension and complexity of those mixtures.
It is harder to have mixtures with higher degrees of difference without then skills to manage the complexity and tension.
The outcomes without skills often lead to more conflict.
Yet, in organizations that build the skills into expectations of beliefs and behaviors, the cross pollination of perspectives and embodied experiences can yield novelty of solutions, new ideas, new markets, etc.
Many companies have clustered group affinities by single groups and while it makes people feel good because humans naturally prefer those who occur as part of familiar tribes, the re-separation and drawing of lines misses the point and power of mixtures-at least in organizations.
In societies or other human communities, the separation often creates greater conflict. That’s particularly the case when there is an absence of common aspirations pursued and encouraged with institutional support.
I would say, universities that don’t encourage cross-disciplinary work and degrees, especially these days are causing students harm.
Having depth in one discipline and little to nothing beyond that does not a well-prepared professional make.
I agree. The thing is, the Polymathic mindset has a large personality underpinning. Take the MBTI... there are Ss and Ns... Ss like the narrow focus and Polymathy are typically N.
In the Big 5, Polymathy requires high openness, middling agreeableness, and very low neuroticism.
I think there's a similar underpinning for broad diversity. Especially when the differences result in dramatically different cultural behaviors.
So yes, it's good to have broad diversity but it's hard to manage without building a new common ground so that not everything is different. There are also some who won't do as well with either Polymathy and broad diversity because we are all different. Ironic that our personality diversity makes inclusion harder. It's a fun balance that requires much more than what we've been doing as your article lays out.
It's interesting because you need inclusivity movements when you bring in broad diversity. We've been told broad diversity is a strength and yet, they require a lot of work to manage that many different value systems and cultural paradigms. Instead of broad inclusivity, why don't we focus on clustering group affinities? Hell, we do this already with college degrees and company departments. We don't toss a smattering of all disciplines in a single group. We break them down into Engineers, Accountants, etc. So why don't we allow similar grouping under what we typically call diversity?
It depends on how you define diversity and inclusivity.
Diversity is a given. The mixtures are never the same because human communities contain similarities, differences, and the tension and complexity of those mixtures.
It is harder to have mixtures with higher degrees of difference without then skills to manage the complexity and tension.
The outcomes without skills often lead to more conflict.
Yet, in organizations that build the skills into expectations of beliefs and behaviors, the cross pollination of perspectives and embodied experiences can yield novelty of solutions, new ideas, new markets, etc.
Many companies have clustered group affinities by single groups and while it makes people feel good because humans naturally prefer those who occur as part of familiar tribes, the re-separation and drawing of lines misses the point and power of mixtures-at least in organizations.
In societies or other human communities, the separation often creates greater conflict. That’s particularly the case when there is an absence of common aspirations pursued and encouraged with institutional support.
I would say, universities that don’t encourage cross-disciplinary work and degrees, especially these days are causing students harm.
Having depth in one discipline and little to nothing beyond that does not a well-prepared professional make.
You are pretty polymathic yourself. 😉
I agree. The thing is, the Polymathic mindset has a large personality underpinning. Take the MBTI... there are Ss and Ns... Ss like the narrow focus and Polymathy are typically N.
In the Big 5, Polymathy requires high openness, middling agreeableness, and very low neuroticism.
I think there's a similar underpinning for broad diversity. Especially when the differences result in dramatically different cultural behaviors.
So yes, it's good to have broad diversity but it's hard to manage without building a new common ground so that not everything is different. There are also some who won't do as well with either Polymathy and broad diversity because we are all different. Ironic that our personality diversity makes inclusion harder. It's a fun balance that requires much more than what we've been doing as your article lays out.