Rethinking Agile in the Light of Diversity and Inclusion: A Retrospective Process

Posted on by mistynodine

The Agile Manifesto and the ensuing emergence of Agile development methodologies were a great step forward in helping the software industry move past the clunkiness and slowness of the existing waterfall-like methods. However, Agile is a methodology authored entirely by western males in an industry dominated by men. Because of this, Agile relies on values, thinking processes, communication practices and working styles that are comfortable for western males but not necessarily aligned with other types of people. For instance, Agile assumes that all team members have equal privileges with respect to communication and bringing their ideas to the table. Agile inherently values speed (velocity) and pace as an appropriate measure of productivity. Agile assumes that the best solutions emerge naturally from self-organizing teams working incrementally in close collaboration with the customers. 

While Agile has many good features as a methodology for software development, the Agile assumptions work against members of the non-dominant groups in a workplace. This is because:

  • Agile approaches do not take into account that employees of the non-majority group are often muted, and therefore do not incorporate into its routines mechanisms that enable their voices to be heard and factored into product and team planning.
  • Agile approaches do not take into account that different people process, reflect and work best at different paces at different times. It tends to penalize people that process more slowly and/or more deeply, for example.
  • Agile approaches do not tend to take into account that listening to and planning around minority group values and priorities takes time and effort, but may unearth more problems earlier, may spur products to be more creative, and may better support a wider variety of customers. 

In order to bring together teams that include and embrace input from these groups, and to reap the benefits of being truly diverse and equitable, Agile needs to be agile. We need to take steps to examine its assumptions and understand where to make changes. Doing so requires bringing members of other groups into the software methodology discussions, listening carefully to what they have to say while factoring out  our own natural biases, and enabling them to provide honest feedback and input on how these methodologies can evolve to support a more diverse and inclusive work environment.

Basic concepts in group psychology

Before launching into a discussion of Agile, there are some key psychological concepts that are useful to understand.

We start out with a notion of groups. Whenever you have a number of people working together, they will form into groups naturally. These groups may form based on things like common traits, experiences, cultures, and interests. We mentally have an affinity towards people in our own groups, and attribute different levels of respect to others based on the groups where we mentally place them. We are more inclined to listen to and accept some groups over others. Our in group consists of people we perceive as sharing many of our beliefs, attitudes, values, and language of communication. With the other groups, our out-groups, there is less overlap.

This natural clustering of coworkers into groups has several effects. The dominant group at work, the organizational in-group, defines the tone of the working conversations. It dominates the values, thinking processes, communication processes and working practices of the group. The coworkers who are in a minority group must make a greater effort to understand the dominant group’s values and thinking. They must take the effort to make their communication, and working practices “fit in”. This innately places a higher cognitive load on the people in the out-groups, which leaves them with fewer reserves for their actual work. This is explained in more detail in my article on masking.

In addition to the increased cognitive load there is the problem of in-group favoritism and out-group negativity. In-group favoritism is “favoring members of one’s in-group over out-group members … in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways”. Out-group negativity is “punishing or placing burdens upon the out-group”. How out-group negativity often works out in the workplace is that behaviors that are acceptable from a member of the dominant are punished when done by a member of the minority. For example, in a setting dominated by males, if a male is assertive that may be considered as a leadership strength, but if a female does the same thing she is more likely to be considered to be pushy and her behavior something to correct (e.g., see Gender Bias is Real).

Finally there is the issue that minority groups are often muted. The muted group theory states that the dominant group is the group that creates the communication system, and that members of the minority need to learn the dominant group’s communication system in order to express themselves. Because the minority groups have different values, thought processes, etc., they may be unable to express their ideas clearly in the dominant group’s communication system. Because they have difficulty expressing themselves, the minority groups often are ignored by the dominant group. This leads to the members of the minority groups being “overlooked, muffled, and invisible” [1].

To summarize, because we as humans naturally form groups, with one group dominating, members of the minority groups inherently have problems with communication and fitting their working practices into those of the dominant group, with being productive in the face of additional expectations that are placed on them, and with speaking and speaking up in settings where their ideas are overlooked and suppressed. These consequences follow from basic psychological principles.

How Agile Assumptions Impact Inclusion

As I mentioned before, the Agile Manifesto was authored by a group of western men, and thus inherently leans towards that kind of value system. The Agile Manifesto works hard to address the real problems inherent in waterfall software development methodologies. It is important to preserve the real forward progress in development speed and flexibility that we gain from Agile methodologies as we evolve our best practices for software development. However, due to the nature of the committee that authored it, their underlying biases are incorporated into the proposed solution. These biases include values concerning communication and collaboration, measures of productivity and methods for making progress. These are not necessarily bad values. Rather, they are values that are biased towards a particular way of thinking and working. Hence, they do not always mesh with the values of a more diverse population.

In this section, we will discuss six basic assumptions made within the Agile manifesto and how they work against making our Agile teams more inclusive.

Assumption 1: Communication is a universal privilege

The values in the agile manifesto include “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools”, “Customer collaboration over contract negotiation” and “Responding to change over following a plan”. In other words, you figure out things like project objectives and requirements by interacting (usually verbally) with the customer, preferably on a regular basis. The development of the product becomes a (mostly oral) team effort between the customers/stakeholders and the developers. 

These values make the inherent assumption that the privilege of being able to speak and to be listened to is shared equally by all. However, when you enter a diverse corporate setting, where there is a dominant group and one or more minority groups, this assumption cannot be made. Likely, the privilege of being able to speak and to be heard and respected is owned almost entirely by the dominant group in the workplace. Muted group theory states that these design conversations are likely to take place using the language and communication processes of the dominant group. The resulting design reflects the understanding and concerns of the dominant group. The tendency will be to mute the members of the minority groups; their voice will become overlooked, muffled and ignored. The values, priorities, suggestions and ideas of the muted individuals do not get brought to the table, or get dismissed quickly. This effectively removes them from the collaboration. 

Assumption 2: We all communicate best the same way

One underlying tenet put forth in Agile is that oral communication is the most efficient communication method:

“The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.”

– Agile Manifesto

Face-to-face communication can be efficient in the situation where all people feel equally comfortable and able to engage in it. This is often true among the members of the dominant group. However, muting, by definition, means that the members of the muted group are less comfortable engaging in the conversation and/or speaking up, even when they have the capability to articulate their input clearly and their input is important and/or significant. Additionally, some minority groups do not do well with speaking as a form of communication, but still do valuable work. For example, a person who speaks English as a second language may need extra time to process verbal input and to  understand English-based nuances in what people are saying. Some autistic people think best in writing or pictures, and at the same time often have different and useful perspectives on the challenges at hand. People who are wheelchair-bound often have their heads at a different level from others, which can be a barrier to breaking into a conversation. Deaf people may need to communicate through assistive technology. The ultimate result of relying heavily on face-to-face communication in Agile organizations is a tendency to discount and undervalue minority groups.

Contrast this approach to systems that use processes and tools, and contract negotiation. These systems usually include some form of writing down things like architectures and requirements. A communication approach that includes more writing and relies less on face-to-face conversation often helps in situations where oral communication is difficult. A combined oral/written approach enables members of more different groups to understand common design and implementation goals, which helps them work together more efficiently. Writing things down increases the number of different channels of communication and helps those who learn and communicate better through writing or visualization. 

Writing things down also gives everyone mental space. All of us do better when we have space to think and process. Face-to-face conversation requires a person to process in real-time, and is often strewn with challenging behaviors like people  interrupting or speaking over other people. Writing things down provides room for people to understand and reflect more deeply on the things that are being discussed. While it is important not to go too deeply down the reflection rabbit hole, some deeper thinking can streamline software development and help avoid problems in the future.

Assumption 3: Velocity is a good metric for overall productivity

The Agile approach of frequently delivering small increments has many advantages. The stakeholders have an early idea of what the product will look like, and can react appropriately. Early hands-on experience with a product provides the  opportunity for the perhaps not very clear requirements to be embodied into something concrete and accessible. It helps the end users to bridge the gap between description and hands-on visualization. Seeing a concrete prototype or visualization can help people resolve ambiguities and can be used to sharpen and modify requirements. This value is embodied in the Agile methodology:

“Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.”

– Agile Manifesto

This idea of delivering in small increments has led to the use of velocity as a metric for the success of an agile team. If you assign points to increments, you can then measure productivity by measuring how many points a team completes in some period of time. This view of productivity, however, prioritizes quantity over quality. If your metric for productivity is velocity you will work to improve it, simply because you are measuring it. However, velocity just means you deliver stuff quickly. It does not mean you deliver features well. It does not mean that what you deliver will meet the wants and needs of your diverse set of customers who will use the products and services you are developing. It does not even mean that you will deliver things that are likely to meet your own needs at future stages of the development of the product.

This idea of velocity works against diversity in several ways. If we look at the psychological concepts related to groups and language, we can see that different groups have different languages (ways of thinking, ways of behaving), and that gap means that it is harder to communicate between groups than it is to communicate within groups. The natural shortsighted approach to speed up development progress in the short term is to mute some people whose inputs you do not understand or value. Muting has the effect of quashing the diversity of input into solutions but also makes it easier for the rest of the team to reach a consensus. However, trying to increase velocity naively in this way eventually will slow you down. This slowing down happens naturally due to 

  • increased technical debt in the product or service code base,
  • increased “cultural debt” – how your internal company culture affects your product development and how well your team works together, and 
  • decreased representation of the types of people in your customer base on your development team, which affects the likelihood that your product or service to the types of customers no longer represented.

The more different people from different groups interact, the harder it is to communicate deeply, and the harder it is to reach any form of agreement. This difficulty slows down communication speed and hence also slows down product development in the short term. It takes practice and trust to overcome this problem, but the long-term dividends are worth it. A diverse team that has learned to bridge the communication gaps and work together well can be extremely creative and productive.

Assumption 4: People can always work at a constant pace

In addition to using velocity as a metric, Agile also has this notion that a team can work at a constant pace, and each of the individuals can contribute at a constant pace. The best teams find their pace and stay at it.

“Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.”

– Agile Manifesto

This assumption often does not hold. Being able to do your job at a constant pace is a luxury. In general, it requires a stable living situation, a support group that allows you to go to work even when you have basic problems such as childcare or transportation, and the mental health to have the stamina to deliver results at a constant pace. Many people do not have these support systems. The canonical 1950s husband with the stay-at-home wife and the stable, lifetime job had significant support systems in place. People who have been raised with a comfortable income and have a financial buffer can gain some stability from that. Sad to say, in this modern world, many people do not have these support systems. Working mothers. Racial minorities. Autistic people. People with mental illness. Disabled people. Yet these are often the diverse people we want to attract to a diverse workplace.

If we are going to optimize our workforce to enable each person to contribute to the fullest, we need to deal with the fact that external circumstances impact the pace at which a person can work. The work bandwidth you see from them varies over time. There is no innate reason why someone who can give you 100% this month but nothing next month is any less productive than the person who can give you a steady 50%. Yet the former person becomes a problem, while the latter person is okay because they are predictable and help the team maintain a ‘constant pace’.

Reflecting back on metrics, then, there are better and more diversity-friendly metrics for productivity, ones which are tied more to the business objectives than to coding or tickets or burndown rates. For example, the features that the team is developing can be tied to business objectives, and team productivity tied to new features per quarter. This metric has the advantage of encouraging creativity and the development of new features, while disincentivizing developing them in a way that increases technical or cultural debt. Working collaboratively, using everyone’s strengths, helps the developers perform better against this metric as well. This metric, also, is calculated over quarters, not sprints – smoothing the way for some sprints to be less productive (for a variety of reasons), but enabling a focus on supporting faster execution on longer-term objectives.

Assumption 5: The best way to progress is incrementally

Agile assumes that the best way to get to a good solution and a good architecture is incrementally; that a good solution will emerge from incremental steps.

“Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.”

– Agile Manifesto

Incremental progress leads to a focus on the short term, quicker conversations. “What are the next steps?” But often even when the end vision is clear and the requirements are not changing, different groups may see different paths to the end. One person may see a path that starts out being harder and with longer steps, but leads to a cleaner, more extensible and more intuitive implementation, while another person may see a path that starts out easier but the way the start happens leads to a less clean and extensible implementation. In any given situation, it is likely that the steps that are logical for one person are not logical from the point of view of some other person with different experiences and values.. For example, often the person who is a slower thinker, who deliberates many options, may see things that others don’t, but that affect the development of the product in intangible ways. However, the slower thinker may be unable to vocalize these concerns at the pace that the team is moving. This kind of situation is particularly true when something new is being developed and the path to a solution is not a well-trodden one.

When people come from different cultures and different perspectives, where their values of generalization vs specialization differ, where their notion of collaboration differs, and where there are different ideas on how the product or service should support a particular class of user  — these all impact what steps to start with as well as how to take the steps and in what order. Since these differences align with how people think, they also frequently align with the groups. That is, often there is a particular start path that is basically agreed on by the dominant group, and other paths that align more with the minority groups. One setting where this is evident is when you have an older, more experienced engineer working with younger, less experienced ones. The older person is likely to try to fold in concerns about maintainability and flexibility at an earlier stage of the development process. Another example occurs when you have a disabled engineer trying to include disability-friendliness into the project earlier. When one or the other group is muted, the initial steps taken in the process may preclude the very real long-term effects on product applicability, maintainability and durability that the muted person is trying to convey.

Assumption 6: The best solutions emerge organically

“The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.”

– Agile Manifesto

Because of its incremental nature and the mindset of being able to change your software and requirements early and often, there is an assumption that a good architecture and good products will emerge. Yet self-organization works well only when all of the team members are listening to each other and valuing each other’s input equally. However, as stated earlier, we tend to listen to and value the input of our own group above others. When one group dominates, the minority groups are often muted and unable to contribute things that would improve the architectures, requirements, and designs. In the long run, though, the dominant group does not retain the key to the best architecture, or the best requirements, or the best designs.

This muting of the minority groups has an impact in the longer term on the group composition. Because they are not listened to, the members of the minority groups are seen as not contributing to the architecture, requirements, and designs. As a result of their muting, they become less valuable to the group, and eventually the group ‘self-organizes’ them out. When a person is not listened to and is organized out, often the architectures, requirements, and designs are not as strong, creative, and durable as they would have been had the person’s input been considered more deeply.

Call to Action

Despite what I have said above, I do believe that Agile is a really good step forward in software development processes. I do appreciate not being trapped in the days of ever-changing requirements documents with little or no development time. Those were very discouraging and unproductive times.

So what is there to do next? How do we move forward from here? I would say, the answer is mostly in the who, not the how. Ask the groups who were muted because they were not represented in the original process of developing the Agile manifesto. Let them map a path of change from within.

One of the Agile strengths is that it bakes in time and space for reflection into the software development process.

“At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.”

– Agile Manifesto

Reflection allows time and space for thinking and improvement. Now is a good time to apply these reflection principles to the Agile manifesto itself. 

This retrospective process is an exercise that should include all sorts of diverse members across the software development and Agile community. We need to listen to their stories. Where is it working well? What could be improved? Specifically, what aspects of Agile could be improved to facilitate the software and tech industry in the process of becoming more diverse, inclusive, and equitable? How can we open up the discussion to enable people in minority groups (gender, race, neurodiversity, disability, etc.) to speak for themselves about where improvements can be made, and to express concrete changes? How can we change the agile ceremonies, assumptions and metrics to ensure that all working and communication styles are accommodated and no voice is muted?

Learning to listen, understand and accept what everyone has to say despite our own biases is a key competence to develop and use throughout this retrospective process. This means looking at different modes through which underrepresented people can communicate their ideas and concerns. A second key element is understanding and embracing the long-term value of inclusion and diversity within software development. A third key element is developing the underlying mindset that diversity is a win-win proposition for all – a mindset that brings everyone to the table naturally.

Agile naturally incorporates the willingness to evolve and improve our processes. We already do this with our technical processes and our day-to-day working together, but we can expand this approach to improving our recognition that each person on the team as someone who belongs, has strengths and has unique contributions to make. Teams work best when all members work to communicate, understand and trust each other better, and where people work through their differences respectfully.

Listen. Value. Include. The Agile process inherently supports teamwork and evolution. In the spirit of Agile, it is time to do a deep meta-retrospective on the Agile manifesto and the processes and rhythms that derive from it.


[1] Griffin, Emory A (2011). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN978-0-07-353430-5.

We All Need To Do the Work

Posted on by mistynodine
A colony of Adelie penguins on the Yalour Islands in Antarctica.

Summary

We begin with the premise that the ability to sustain diversity in your company and to reap its advantages requires good inclusion practices to be built into your company culture. For your company to be inclusive, everyone needs to do the work to bridge the cultural and communication gaps between people of different races, ethnicities, genders, neurotypes, abilities, backgrounds and experiences. Diversity practices run into difficulty when policies and structures are centered around dividing people into groups and treating employees in different groups differently. Inclusion practices give each employee a place of belonging and provide for both development and accommodation universally across all employees. An inclusion culture enables a diverse employee group to thrive, and naturally attracts a more diverse job applicant pool.

Examples of good inclusion practices include:

  • Embracing diversity as a benefit and a corporate value, from the top down.
  • Ensuring that the diverse population is represented at all levels and in all functions of your company.
  • Encouraging a culture of respect where employees listen to, make space for and work to understand all of their fellow employees.
  • Assuming all employees are competent, honest and desire to do well until proven otherwise.
  • Communicating clearly and regularly with each employee about expectations, tasks, and any difficulties they might be experiencing.
  • Collaboratively resolving problems and conflict, being sure all sides have been able to air their concerns before determining paths forward, and that the path forward is both realistic and addresses the concerns of all sides.

A couple of years ago, I quit my job in technology. I love technology and really enjoy thinking about data and efficiency. However, there was another concern that I wanted to spend some time thinking about, and that was that there were so many autistic people I knew that were having a hard time interviewing, finding a job, and (more importantly) sustaining that job. 

Over the years, beginning with my very first job, I have worked with many people who presented in the way an autistic person does. While I never asked for any diagnoses, I was to some extent able to appreciate the challenges that they face. Furthermore, I actually had very positive experiences with many of them – lots of creativity, thinking out of the box, innovative solutions to things, a strong focus and desire to get the job done. So why was the work environment often so unfriendly and inconsiderate towards them?

I thought, with my experiences both as a parent of an autistic child and as a person who worked with many autistic people, I understood where they were coming from. I thought that my experiences as a basically minority population (older women) in a field that was dominated by a different population (younger men) would have taught me what it was like to be in a situation where you were chronically misunderstood and discounted. I thought that my good intentions would prevent me from doing anything that would hurt or discount the population I wanted to support. I was so wrong.

With my considerable google skills at hand, I set out to figure out what the existing best practices were to support autism in the workplace. I started to grasp the concept of neurodiversity, and instantly sought its benefits. However, I was also picking up on a lot of material coming out of a deficit or disorder view of autism.

I tried laying out my ideas on how to support this new concept of neurodiversity into some sort of a training or teaching methodology that I could use to help non-autistic people understand their autistic coworkers better. This resulted in a set of training slides that I was trying to refine. Thankfully for all involved, at that time I also had the good fortune of meeting Tim Goldstein, an autistic person who does neurodiversity training. He volunteered to review the training slides for me from his autistic perspective. I jumped at the opportunity to get such useful feedback.

I do not remember much about what Tim said to me after he read the slides, but I do very vividly remember my main takeaway: “You should listen to some more autistic people before trying to do something like this.” Wow. Great feedback, directly to the point, in true autistic style.

So, what did this experience teach me? One of the things I took away from that experience is that no matter how many biases I have experienced against me, and no matter how much I have worked to go against my own unconscious biases, I still have things to learn. Even though I thought I had a handle on some aspects of diversity due to being a female engineer I did not actually have a handle on neurodiversity. Just because I have been disregarded, put down and muted does not mean I do not do the same to others, intentionally or unintentionally.

Having both desire for and experience in relating with people who are very different from me did not prevent me from big mistakes in the area of diversity. One huge mistake I made was not considering representation – basically, that if you are talking about or speaking for some group, your primary input on what you are saying comes from members of that group and vetted by members of that group. Better yet, you do well just to amplify what they are saying themselves. The people in a minority group are much better experts on that group than people who have studied that group but are not a part of it. 

When I listen to representative people in a group, I gain a better understanding of their experience. When I listen respectfully, with an open mind, and through the lens that we are all fellow humans here on earth – then I gain the wisdom that comes from their direct experiences and thinking. When I listen to many people in a group in order to get a feel for the group, I learn the span of diversity within the group and can respond to each member as an individual, but within their group’s common experiences and context. This holds both for when I am a member of an advantaged group listening to members of disadvantaged groups, and vice versa.

This whole process led me to think about inclusion a lot more than I had been. I had a diversity mindset, but it was abundantly clear to me that I did not have an inclusive mindset.

Diversity-First Thinking or Inclusion-First Thinking?

True inclusion is not about managing groups and getting groups of people to get along. It is not about categorizing people so that we can attach them to our favorite generalizations about that kind of person and what they need or desire. It is not focused on things like genders, races, religions, cultures or abilities – ideas which divide people. 

Why do I say that grouping ideas divide people? Start with the fact that in any social situation, power is already distributed unevenly. Because of this, any grouping concept can and often will be used by the groups that are more powerful to maintain and increase their power over the groups that are less powerful. People in the groups that are less powerful fight back just to receive the same considerations and benefits as those in the more powerful groups. Being in one group or another defines your experiences. Your lack of shared experiences with the other group hinders dialogue, empathy and trust. In this way, dividing people in groups sets up unhealthy patterns of antagonism and opposition between the groups.

True inclusion means moving from the notions of “us” and “them” to the unified notion of “us”. It is about helping everyone understand one another and learn how to incorporate everyone’s strengths into the team. It is looking at each person and treating them as a valid, equal partner with their own individual abilities, desires, history, experiences, needs and concerns. Some people historically have been muted – their input has been ignored, spoken over, marginalized and/or mocked. For those people, treating them equitably means paying special attention to their voices and elevating those voices to the point where their input is considered on an equal footing with others’. When there is a conflict, treating people equitably is about each side listening to and working to understand the concerns of the other side, and looking for solutions to the conflict that meet everyones’ concerns. Inclusion means we are all in this together. We look for input from all involved. We solve problems with all involved. We all do the work together.

Doing inclusion well naturally leads to doing diversity well. That is, how well a company does inclusion has a direct impact on how well they do diversity. Diversity increasingly is becoming important in the workplace. The benefits of including diverse employees in a company are well-documented – for example, see  [Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter], [How Inclusion Matters], [Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage]. Diversity improves when a company in its core values, from the executive level down, believes that diversity is advantageous and desirable. The best people I have worked with are those who truly looked at diversity as an advantage, an enabler for more relevant and creative work.

Diversity metrics are useful in keeping an eye on things, but true diversity can be hard to measure. Diversity metrics can leave unmeasured populations out – for example, an autistic white male may be counted as being in an advantaged population (white men) when in actuality he is in a very disadvantaged population (autistic). Additionally, the things you may be interested in measuring may be things that an employee does not want to disclose. 

While diversity metrics may be useful, the metrics themselves inherently group and divide. Because of this, diversity metrics need to remain firmly as evaluation metrics, used for seeing where biases still exist within a company. Since doing inclusion well enables doing diversity well, the place of diversity metrics is to give the company an indirect window on the strength of their inclusion culture. When diversity metrics are used instead to drive the hiring and retention processes in the company it is like putting the cart before the horse.

Rather, the focus on hiring and retention does best when it is driven by inclusion considerations. When a company focuses on inclusion, they incorporate hiring and retention processes  such as Universal Design Inclusivity, an approach to diversity that is coming out of the neurodiversity movement. It is a different kind of thinking – one that comes from realizing that we all are different, we all have strengths and needs, and we all do best when the company universally strives to give us work that fits into our strengths, and accommodates us based on our individual needs. Everyone is supported, and no one is left out.

How do we become more inclusive?

In my article Breaking Out of In Group Thinking, I talk about the notion of in-groups and out-groups. Psychological group theory brings us directly to the point that we all have to work against our nature in order to be inclusive and welcoming to people who are different from us. We never completely get there. Yet, we also consider that America was predicated on a declaration that states that all are created equal, that we all have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Being inclusive and treating all people equitably is a goal worth striving towards.

Work towards diversity at all levels

From differences come balance and completeness

Diverse representation at all levels means that the groups, departments, and seniority levels within your company all have a wide range of different kinds of people, and that within such a diverse group all employees operate on equal footing. Each person respects, listens to, and responds to each other person in the team – there is no favoritism. Diverse individuals occupy significant roles – in the executive suite, in human resources, in product development, in operations. If your company just engages a token diverse Human Resources person, or engages in diversity theater without real impact among the employees, this is not diverse representation. 

Diverse representation means that employees are connected with and teaming with people both very like themselves and people who are very different from themselves. More marginalized populations can benefit from connecting with people who have similar experiences, cultural backgrounds, strength/weakness profiles both in hiring and mentoring. However, they also benefit from things that currently often only can be provided by the less marginalized populations – sponsorship, mentoring, networking and career development. Similarly, more dominant groups benefit from communication skills and understanding of differing viewpoints that come from the more marginalized populations, leading to greater creativity and to the development of products that support a wider range of people. Thus, diversity benefits everyone.

A company also benefits when diverse representation is present during the hiring process. Much can be learned about the interviewee by looking at them through different lenses and different experiences. For example, an autistic interviewer is likely better able to understand the capabilities and competencies of a fellow autistic interviewee, while a non-autistic interviewer may better be able to judge how best to enable the team the interviewee is interviewing for to create a welcoming environment for them.

Model and encourage listening and collaboration

Problems happen when someone isn’t listening

When you are interacting with a person who is different from you, has different communication patterns from you, and responds to experiences differently from you, listening to them is the key to understanding how to work with them and to support them. An equitable organization supports and models good listening practices at all levels of management, and especially at the executive level. An inclusive organization is characterized as a place where everyone is listened to, where everyone’s voice is considered valid, and where everyone can speak in safety.

When you are interacting with a person, no matter what your initial impression is, it helps to set the relationship off with a good footing when you presume competence, honesty, and an intention to do well. Is Joe describing how a work situation is affecting him? Assume Joe is competent to evaluate that situation’s impact on himself, even if you would have reacted very differently. Is Mary stating that she would be able to focus better if she had a more secluded cubicle? Assume she is competent to figure that out, as opposed to thinking she is being manipulative to get a better cubicle. Is Alex struggling with a challenging relationship? Listen with empathy, and without offering unsolicited advice. Alex probably has already thought about whatever advice you are about to offer. This is not to say that people are always competent, honest, and desiring to do well – rather, it means that it helps to start out from this presumption until proven otherwise. The lens you listen with will affect the whole conversation.

A second key component to listening is to ask open ended questions. Open-ended questions are ones that invite complex answers, and do not predispose the person to answer in a specific way. During my coaching training, and as a practicing coach, I have learned the value of open ended questions and how they empower people to express themselves more deeply and reflectively. Questions that are not open make assumptions that the answerer may not share, or even that they find irrelevant or demeaning. Open-ended questions give the responder the freedom to reply in their own communication patterns, according to their own thought processes. Thus, they are an efficient strategy to enable understanding of commonalities and differences between the participants.

A third key component is to give people space to process the question, reflect, and formulate an answer. When two very different people are interacting, their thought patterns and communication patterns are different. When you ask such a person a question, they need to reflect on the question and what you are actually asking, and translate it into their own patterns of thought and communication. Then they need to reflect on the translated question, which may be something they have not previously considered or thought about. Once they come up with a response that they are willing to share, they then need to translate that response into a form that you, the questioner, will be more likely to understand. Processing, reflecting, and responding to the question takes time – the more differently you think, the more time it will take. However, taking time at this point to wait for a thought-out answer helps prevent misunderstandings. Misunderstandings can waste time later; the current wait is worth it.

Finally, it is important to remember that each person that we interact with is facing their own challenges – possibly a diagnosis, or a stressful circumstance, or other situations in the work environment that you are not aware of. Each individual has the right to decide how much of their personal challenges they are comfortable talking about, and to whom. Listening in this space, where you realize that there may be other things going on that you do not know about and have no need to know about, and not pushing or forcing the person to disclose what they do not want to disclose, has the effect of building trust and support. It is okay to accept a person’s input and requests as being valid even though you do not understand all the reasoning and circumstances behind it.

Communicate clearly across the organization

Communication is key to organizational health

Looking at the nature of in-groups, out-groups, and muting, we see that the issue that divides groups is that each group uses language in different ways – thus, the nature of the divisions among us are rooted in communication. Listening helps us understand our communication differences. The knowledge acquired through listening to each other gives us the understanding and facility to adapt our communication patterns to each other’s communication styles.

In order to do their job well, an employee needs to receive clear and understandable communication about the expectations related to their job, both in general and on a recurring basis. To ensure that a job expectation is understood, the employer does well to check back with the employee on their understanding of a job and its scope. The employee does well to ask questions to ensure that their understanding aligns with the company’s expectations. A good example of clear day-to-day communication is work items or tickets in the software development world. A good ticket specifies the requirements of a new software feature, defines who is generating the requirement – and thus, who needs to accept that the software implements the feature, and works according to a definition of “done” which clearly indicates when the work on a ticket is complete. This can be distilled to defining what needs to be completed, who are the stakeholders who will be using the finished product, and what the expectations are for a product to be completed.

Communication between an employee and their manager is key to a broader understanding and clarification of overall job requirements as well as expectations regarding team roles and responsibilities. Regular one-on-one meetings between an employee and their manager ensure that the employee has a discreet place to bring up uncertainties and struggles. Employees benefit when they have more continuous feedback on what the expectations are on them and how well they are meeting those expectations. When the employee is not meeting expectations, collaborating with them to identify where the challenges are and involving them in working through those challenges sets them up for success. It helps if these meetings have a rhythm of topics and questions that supports the manager in doing their work and ensures consistency of the meetings within an organization and management level. A consistent rhythm also systemetizes the management process, making it less likely for bias to be introduced within a given relationship. 

Lastly, and possibly the hardest communication to establish, are the processes around reporting and resolving conflict. This includes reporting difficult situations, reporting belittling and harassing behaviors and around resolving interpersonal conflicts. Especially in a company with increasing diversity, where the equity lessons are still in the early stages of being learned, communication differences will exacerbate interpersonal relationship challenges. When left unaddressed, conflict, harassment, and other undesirable situations increase. As with management meetings, it helps if there are regular, known, and possibly anonymous channels for raising concerns. One example is to put out regular surveys on how the employees feel, how connected they feel and how well they feel they are enabled to contribute to the company and to grow in their careers. Equally important to uncovering conflict is how it is resolved. In any conflict situation, it is crucial for all sides to be able to provide the input they feel is necessary for understanding their viewpoint. A good interpersonal resolution process is non-judgmental and collaborative, allowing each party to voice their side, listen to the other side, and respond to the other side before working together to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. It helps when this process is done under the mediation of fellow employees who are trained and skilled in listening and unbiased facilitation, especially when the conflicting individuals are at different levels in the management or social hierarchy.

In conclusion …

I believe that when a company strives for inclusion, at all levels and in all ways, then diversity and equity will follow. If you want your company to become more diverse and to remain more diverse, it requires a broad mindset change to one that embraces difference as an asset. An inclusive organization pays attention to things like representation, listening, communication and collaboration. These cultural values apply across the company, ensuring equity and a level playing field for all employees. The result is a win-win for all.

Breaking Out of In Group Thinking

Posted on by mistynodine
Lone Gentoo Penguin thinks about approaching a group of Chinstrap Penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn: Breaking Out of In Group Thinking.

This article discusses some of my thoughts around group psychology and its impact on developing a diverse and inclusive workspace. I believe that some of the psychological concepts discussed in that article – in and out groups, muting – have a direct impact on how we treat others at work, and especially those who are very different from ourselves.

It is important to note that by this time I had had a rather long career in tech. I had graduated from MIT, worked in many different tech jobs, gotten an advanced degree, been the technical lead on several research teams, been a Principal Investigator on a DARPA (US government) research project, led a data science team, and had many other accomplishments under my belt.

The interviewer showed up late, and started talking. He told me how it was so nice that I wanted to learn data analytics. He mentioned that they had some really easy problems to start on so I could learn gradually. He said that they would help me all I needed so I could have some early successes.

Clearly he had not read my resume. Clearly he was going off the fact that he was looking at a fifty-something woman who had the audacity to think she was qualified to apply for a senior position in data science. Though his words seemed like he meant to be encouraging or supportive, they were totally off the mark.

I tried to bring the interviewer up to date by bringing in anecdotes from my experience and by asking intelligent questions, but he did not appear to be particularly engaged in the interview nonetheless. Naturally I declined to continue with the interview process.

That day, the company I was interviewing with lost something. They lost the chance at hiring a person who had already proven herself to be competent and innovative, and who checked off every check box in their posted job requirements. They also lost the chance at having a different kind of voice – an older woman’s voice – to have input into the design and implementation of their products.

When you look at a potential or current coworker, do you think about how their differences could enhance your business or your team? Alternatively, do you look at coworkers who are different from you as less competent or harder to work with? Do you view diversity as enhancing or dividing?

In-Group Thinking

A long time ago, when the world was much more primitive, we as humans organized into tribes. A tribe was a group of people who lived together, supported each other, and protected each other. In this setting, it was natural for my tribe to distrust your tribe – each tribe was competing for stuff from the same pool, and you wanted your tribe to survive. 

We still maintain this mentality today, but I would argue that our notion of “tribe” has changed. Its original sense was, “a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers.” [Merriam Webster] The more modern sense is, “a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest.” For example, when Steve Silberman wrote the book Neurotribes, he was discussing groups of people and their neurological similarities and differences. 

This same notion of tribes aligns well with the psychological notion of groups. Groups in the workplace identify with each other for a variety of considerations, including things like race, age, neurology, religion, ability or gender. Closely related to this is the idea of culture or cultural lenses, in that a group of people often identify together as a group because they share similar cultural lenses. In many cases, the people in the same group have similar backgrounds, similar experiences, and similar ways of reacting to others. Their language, both verbal and body language, revolves around common teachings and expectations. These all feed into the way they view, interpret, and interact with people outside of their group. The tribal mentality still holds.

I believe that much of our struggle with implementing truly inclusive workplaces is rooted in group psychology and how our minds work.  That is, underpinning the challenges of diversity and equity is the fact that our basic psychology is wired to be discriminatory. For example, in my interview experience described above, the interviewer clearly had me mentally grouped according to his notion of the technical abilities of the fifty-something year old women he knew. He had not taken an unbiased look at my experience. I was grouped and classified.

Group psychology says that whenever you have a number of people working together, they naturally form into groups. This natural clustering of coworkers has several effects. We mentally have an affinity towards people in our own group (our in-group), and attribute different levels of respect to others based on their groups. The predominant group at work defines the tone of the working conversations. It dominates the values, thinking processes, communication processes and working practices of the group. The coworkers who are in other groups then must make a greater effort to understand the predominant groups’s values and thinking, and take the effort to make their communication, and working practices to “fit in.” This innately places a higher cognitive load on the people in the other groups, which leaves them with fewer reserves for their actual work. This is explained in more detail in my article on masking [The High Cost of the Mask].

In addition to the increased cognitive load we have the issues of in-group favoritism and out-group negativity. In-group favoritism is “favoring members of one’s in-group over out-group members … in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.” Out-group negativity is “punishing or placing burdens upon the out-group.” Behaviors that are acceptable from a member of the predominant group are punished when done by members of other groups. For example, in a setting where males are predominant, if a male is assertive that may be considered as a leadership strength, but if a female does the same thing it is more likely to be considered to be pushy and a behavior to correct. Another place favoritism often occurs is in decisions about advancement and promotion. In-group favoritism leads managers to excuse deficits in a person in their in-group, assuming they will learn to do better. At the same time, these same deficits may be a barrier to advancement to a person in an out-group.

Finally, there is the issue that minority groups are often muted. The muted group theory implies that the predominant group is the group that creates the communication system, and that members of the minority need to learn that communication system in order to express themselves. Because the minority groups have different values, thought processes, etc., they may be unable to express their ideas clearly in the predominant group’s communication system. In fact, ways that they would express themselves naturally may be interpreted incorrectly by members of the predominant group. Consequently, the predominant group often fails to understand what the minority group is saying, takes the easy way out, and ignores or dismisses the minority group. This effectively mutes the minority group’s input. “Mutedness results from the lack of power and might lead to being overlooked, muffled, and invisible. [Griffin, Emory A (2011). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill].

Because we as humans naturally form groups, with one group dominating, people who are not members of the predominant group inherently have problems with communication and fitting their working practices into those of the predominant group, with progressing in their careers due to additional burdens and punishments beyond those placed on members of the predominant group, and with speaking and speaking up in settings where their ideas are overlooked and suppressed. 

Becoming More Inclusive

So many of the inclusion problems in the workplace are effects related to groups, group privilege, and the reduced ability of muted groups to participate in the workplace at their full capacity. Because the notion of groups and group favoritism is so deeply rooted in our psychology, working against this mentality is challenging. As I have worked through my own journey to break free of my own biases and favoritism, I have specifically taken up certain cultural values. Embedding these values into a workplace is an important step in making it more inclusive.

Learn to be comfortable with people who think differently from you and have different worldviews and values.

Get to know people from different groups, cultures and mindsets. When we do not know multiple individuals in some other group, we tend to stereotype them, and this stereotyping leads to biases. Getting to know a wide variety of people helps us to remove that tendency to stereotype, which helps get rid of some of the bias.

As a data engineer, data scientist and data architect I have been responsible for creating and maintaining data and model pipelines to support many different aspects of the businesses I have worked in. It was easy in my setting to get to know the people in the predominant group – in this case younger, male software developers. However, many times I was one of the few data people who regularly talked to the people who used the different data related products – the customers of the products as well as the salespeople, the business analysts, the finance people, etc. Often, these people were very different in terms of their priorities. The sales people wanted the sales data to stay consistent and predictable so that they had an easier time explaining it to the customers. The female customers wanted to make sure there was no gender bias out of the data. The older engineers were looking to make the pipelines maintainable and lower technical debt. Without getting to know these other kinds of developers and consumers of the data, and effectively un-muting them in our conversations, I would not have been aware of some of these priorities, and would have delivered data products that were less useful.

Part of learning to be comfortable with people who are different from you is learning to be comfortable in the space of not knowing or not understanding. Just because you do not understand another person does not mean that their thoughts are invalid. For example, when I first started talking to the sales side of the organization in a company, I could not really understand why their thinking could lead them to prefer less accurate but consistent data to more accurate but less explainable data. Initially, I had a strong value towards data accuracy that really went against the grain of what some of the sales people were saying. I had to accept that they had a different value long before I really understood what the differences were and why those differences were there. I think this also happens a lot with disability and accessibility. When I look at articles like I’m deaf and this is what happens when I get on a Zoom call, it is clear that the deaf worker’s team related much more to his issues when they had experienced some of what he was going through. However, for many, the experiences that shape their needs are long-term and harder to grasp. When we listen, accept and react to people’s stated needs without understanding, this goes a long way to giving them a sense of belonging in the group.

However you go about learning to be comfortable with people across groups, it is hard work. In Confronting Bias: Thriving Across Our Differences – How can you prevent yourself from saying the wrong thing?, Vernā Myers says, “. … If I would say there was any daily practice, it would be curiosity, but then also the willingness to do the work of understanding others.” We may start with accepting what we do not understand, but in the long run interactions smooth out when we can see the world from the other person’s perspective and understand their concerns. It is hard to reach out to, listen, and accept people we do not understand. It is hard to push into that, be curious, learn, and start to understand. It is hard work to develop bridges across the different cultures in the group. In the end, however, the ability of team members to build these bridges results in better team relationships, the ability to be inclusive with more diverse team members, and the benefits of being able to leverage the wider variety of experiences that a more diverse team brings to the table.

Look for where muting and exclusion is occurring in your team

Teams and workplaces have in-groups and out-groups. Out groups tend to be muted at least to some degree. We know this because we have terms related to muting appearing increasingly in our language – mansplaining and manterruption, othering, code switching, and many others.

You can start to understand where muting and exclusion are occurring by paying attention to lines of communication in the people you work with. 

  • In meetings, who is talking and who is not talking? Who is interrupting whom? Who is generating the ideas and who is taking credit for those ideas? 
  • In the company cafeteria, who is sitting together? Who is excluded? Who is talking to whom? 
  • When there are informal meetings, who is there? If the discussion involves a number of stakeholders in the topic of the meeting, who is not there? Why were they not invited? Are the same people consistently not being invited?
  • When there is a time of personnel evaluation and deciding on promotions, who is pushing for the promotions of whom? Are there characteristics that people are saying are desirable in one person and undesirable in another? What signs of favoritism do others see in you? What signs do you see in others?
  • In one-on-one meetings, what is the other person trying to tell you? If you ask them where they perceive that they fit in the group, would they say they are a critical member, on the edge, or somewhere in between? If they say they are nearer to the edge, can they articulate why they think that? How much do they trust you and the situation, so that they can speak frankly?

Once you have identified where people and groups are being muted, and by whom, you have a lens on who is actually in the in group and who is in some out group. You also, as a consequence, have a lens on where some of the unconscious biases are occurring in the different groups. This exercise, if done well, is bound to lead to some discomfort, as well as some realization of what needs to be done to bring the muted people into the work group. As you and your team become more comfortable working across cultures and groups within the workplace, you all will develop skills that will enable you to embrace inclusion more fully.

Listen and respond to every person’s voice

An inclusive group is one in which the ‘in-group’ contains all of its members. Every voice is listened to and no voice is muted. People whose voices tend to be muted have their voices elevated, and people who tend to dominate are encouraged to sit back and listen. The group that works towards being unified and inclusive develops a new set of customs, new methods of discourse and new ways of communication that are welcoming to all of the members.

When one of my companies updated their software development processes, one of the ways that they broadened their capacity to listen was with the increased use of anonymous brainstorming techniques. In Why Brainstorming Works Better Online, one of the things Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic points out is that virtual anonymous brainstorming enables feelings of anonymity, which means that ideas are judged more objectively. If we think about this in terms of muted groups, what virtual brainstorming does is to give the minority groups a chance to speak objectively and to have their ideas listened to and evaluated on the same footing as the ideas of the dominant group. Anonymous input is effective in many other areas as well – I have seen it work well for things like for asking questions after a presentation, and for soliciting input in retrospective-style meetings.

Having an open and thoughtful process for proposing new ideas, both large and small, is also a good way to create this kind of work culture. In Radical Candor, Kim Scott describes an “ideas team,” which was committed to listening to and responding to any idea that anyone brought to them. If the ideas team rejected the idea, they needed to give a clear explanation of why they rejected it. If they accepted the idea, they were empowered to give the person who proposed the idea some resources to actually work on it. No idea was allowed to be left to languish. This process empowered everyone to be able to suggest an idea and have it be considered seriously. Since the ideas team were independent evaluators, they could consider the idea with respect to its benefits to the company and not be swayed by team politics.

Approaches to idea generation like anonymous input and ideas teams enable groups to perform well partly because they naturally cause people to listen to a wider variety of inputs. The norm is to be dismissive of ideas proposed by people outside of your in-group, regardless of the merit of the idea. When you remove the option to respond according to group politics, you are forced to listen to a broader set of ideas springing from people with a wider variety of world views and experience. This alone may account for the increase in creativity and product relevance that comes when your groups become more diverse and inclusive.

Key Takeaways

Embracing diversity and inclusion requires reaching across groups and cultures, and learning to understand people with different values and world views. This process goes directly against our innate psychological tendencies to favor our in-groups and mute our out-groups. To reiterate, in a workplace setting, people who are not members of the predominant group have challenges related to fitting their communication and working practices into those of the predominant group, progressing in their careers due to additional requirements beyond those placed on the predominant group, and  having their ideas overlooked and suppressed.

Being welcoming and inclusive to a wide variety of people requires both a mindset shift and hard work. The mindset shift is to one that embraces and values diversity, and results in the building of a culture of diversity and inclusion into the day to day working values of the company. The hard work involves learning, looking and listening:

  • Learn to be comfortable with people who think differently from you and have different world views and values.
  • Look for where muting and exclusion is occurring in your team
  • Listen and respond to every person’s voice.

Having a more diverse and inclusive workplace both improves company morale internally and also correlates with concrete financial and brand benefits. It is hard work, but worth the effort.

On Coaching for Teamwork and Diversity

Posted on by mistynodine

My years of working in the tech industry taught me many things about teams, and the many characteristics you want to see in a team. You want the team to be productive. You want the team to be creative. You want the team to get along well. You want everyone to be willing and able to bring their full selves into the work of the team.

When teams do ‘team’ well, you see all of these characteristics, and the result is magical. Good interpersonal dynamics in the team lead to mutual trust and support, which boost creativity and productivity. The team works through conflict in ways that ensure that every voice is listened to and accepted.

Our mission is to support the creation and maintenance of work environments where all individuals are welcomed, respected and supported, all voices are listened to, and all are free to contribute their best. Achieving this goal requires building good teams, and not just teams with good ‘velocity’ or teams whose ‘task burn-down rate’ is steady.

This is where diversity enters the picture. There is mounting evidence that diverse teams also increase creativity and productivity. Certainly if your company has a more diverse team, it is better at understanding the needs of a broader set of consumers of your product — for example the article How Diversity Can Drive Innovation notes that “inherently diverse contributors understand the unmet needs in under-leveraged markets … a team with a member who shares a client’s ethnicity is 152% likelier than another team to understand that client”. A well-functioning diverse team brings a broader set of experiences, needs and values into product discussions, so the resulting product can serve a wider audience in a more intuitive way.

Building a team which is both diverse and good (by the characteristics above) is challenging. However, having good teams and having diverse teams both require the same soft skills – things like welcoming people who are different from you, listening to them, supporting them, understanding their situations. Diversity training teaches a lot of theory, but does not do much to help teams apply what they have learned to their team situations. In fact, some even find diversity training to be threatening, especially when not coupled with efforts to make all groups feel accepted and valued. Other trainings, such as training in communication, empathy and listening, also are beneficial for building good teams, but again, hard to apply. Coaching is an approach that can help solidify these lessons into concrete improvement — for example, a study on executive coaching shows that training with coaching dramatically increases productivity over just doing the training without the coaching.

Because of this, we advocate that you supplement your diversity training with coaching for teams and managers to help them apply the lessons they have learned into the daily operation of their own teams. Our approach is to work with you, starting from your own trainings, and to provide coaching to selected teams within your organization as related to those trainings. Coaching sessions include group sessions with the team, individual sessions with the team manager, and laser sessions (short sessions which focus on a specific situation) with individual members. Please come and check us out!