Diversity is a Better Way, But You Have to Believe In It!

Uniformity is Not, But You Have to Know Why

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

Diversity is a Better Way, But You Have to Believe In It!

Uniformity is Not, But You Have to Know Why

One memorable episode of The West Wing television series addressed two vacancies on the US Supreme Court. The dilemma was how to nominate strong justices who would be both individuals of conviction and able to interact positively with the full panel of justices.

During interviews at the White House with potential nominees, two candidates with opposing views on many issues engaged in a dialogue. White House staff overheard them. They noted how well they handled the conversation, remaining focused on the issues without becoming personal.

Then they overheard their plan to go to lunch together as friends. At this point the staff knew they had their two candidates.

(At least, this is how I recall the scene more than 20 years later.)

The Debate

America is engaged in a debate about whether it is better for us to be a society defined by diversity or uniformity. Heterogeneity or homogeneity.

Loud, public, political action focuses on de-emphasizing diversity and highlighting homogeneity. Instead of empowering all individuals, it empowers “our kind of people.” It masquerades as meritocracy when it seems to be more about blind loyalty and personal prejudices.

It is neither a dialogue nor a debate. Rather, it represents a scenario of dramatic controlling actions that overlook the beauty of true collaboration among diverse individuals and causes.

It institutionalizes the polarization in American society that has become increasingly raucous over the past half-century. Reversing the social revolution that began in the 1960s. A revolution that had significant positive aspects as well as some less favorable ones.

What is happening now is a new social and political debate—even revolt, that will ultimately fail due to the intense reaction to it. Remember Newton’s Third Law of motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Personally Painful

For me, the assault on diversity is very painful. To use a colloquialism, “I was just not raised this way,” which means diversity was hardwired into my brain from childhood forward.

I was fortunate to be raised in a Christian home that taught me every person is valuable. Created in the image of God to live and love. No person or group is greater or lesser than another.

Jesus died for everyone, allowing all of us to be sisters and brothers in Christ. No race or ethnicity is more holy than another. Or to be the leaders while everyone else remains followers.

Every person possesses spiritual gifts, life skills, and personal preferences that contribute to the mosaic of individuals and causes that is the United States of America. We must discover effective ways to empower all the talents God has bestowed upon people.

A powerful synergy of collaboration that utilizes each person’s unique perspective is essential for the journey.

My Contribution to This Debate

What I contribute to the current debate—which must shift to a dialogue rather than remain a debate—is a steadfast commitment to collaboration. This must foster a synergy among diverse individuals and groups to achieve the most beneficial goals for our society.

It represents a commitment to a higher value centrist approach, rather than to either of the polar opposite positions that divide us. This higher value centrist approach is not about compromise. It focuses on building a society that transcends the current positional approach. It embraces a principled framework.

It requires not only higher value principles but also individuals of high personal integrity who are perceived as trustworthy and willing to set aside their personal goals for the uncommon good of all.

A Conviction About Diversity

I enjoy learning. Even in my retirement, I strive to continually acquire new knowledge. I explore ideas and perspectives that challenge me.

Many years ago, I was introduced to a personality inventory based on brain science that helps people understand their thinking and acting styles. Including how they process information and experiences. As well as the order in which they do so.

When applied to a group of people who interact with each other and the surrounding world, patterns emerge regarding how the group operates.

Without going into too much detail, it is enough to say that some groups function in a harmonious and homogeneous manner, while others do so in a diverse and heterogeneous manner.

Individuals who function harmoniously often share similar thinking and processing styles. In contrast, those who operate diversely tend to exhibit various styles. Indicating that members of the group may have somewhat to significantly different approaches from one another.

Which is Better—Harmony or Diversity?

It depends.

If fast, repetitive decisions need to be made over a short-term period, then styles that are harmonious with one another are desirable. For example, in an emergency or disaster requiring a quick response to commands or easy consensus, either (1) harmonious styles are essential or (2) a group that has worked together for a long time and understands the styles of group participants is necessary.

In long-term projects or ongoing relationships, a variety of styles is necessary to ensure that all perspectives are considered. This can eliminate blind spots or unknowns that could negatively affect the ongoing process. Additionally, it is important to address the inevitable transitions and changes that always occur over time.

Harmony long-term is a weaker and short-term approach. Heterogeneity is a stronger and more lasting approach. Harmony, when forced, can be inflexible and lead to disruption or destruction. Diversity can flex when essential, but ideally at a pace that is innovative rather than one which disrupts or destructs the overall system.

Harmony is more likely to yield to the subjectivity of those in authority during decision-making. Heterogeneity tends to view situations systemically, concentrating on what is best for the whole.

A crucial aspect to note in an organization or movement is the tendency of leaders to surround themselves with individuals who share their thinking and processing styles.

This tendency undermines the organization. It results in more negative feedback from the rest of the staff who possess diverse thinking and processing styles. As well as from people outside the organization who are being served.

An Example

I was once a part of an organization with more than 100 staff members who all completed and engaged in learning activities regarding the personality inventory referenced in this article. They were then able to understand the diversity of their team and use this new knowledge for effective decision-making and actions.

The leader of the organization liked to reorganize the staff every year or two. The next time he reorganized, many individuals who closely matched his thinking and processing style received promotions. While those who did not faced demotions.

This marked the beginning of a malaise in the overall culture and functioning of the organization. It marginalized people with thinking styles unlike the organizational leader. Depressed those who realized what had happened to them.

Even understanding harmony and diversity is not a guarantee that diversity will be practiced. It takes insightful, mature individuals with a principled framework and not a subjective agenda.

How does this thought align with what is happening in our government now?

A Few Questions

1. Where do you see our country headed regarding harmony and diversity?

2. Is this where you believe our country ought to head?

3. What would you like to see?

Above all, what is the Christlike approach?