It’s back to school and at Hootsuite, this means we will soon be completing our third annual diversity and inclusion survey. Last year about 60% of our organization participated in this voluntary, anonymous survey that asked questions about the different ways employees identify themselves, but also about the employee experience as it relates to diversity and inclusion. The results of that survey, while not unexpected, were frustrating. Like many tech organizations, we aren’t satisfied with our progress in building a diverse and a more inclusive organization. It is safe to say Hootsuite is pretty homogenous. Mostly White and largely male, in critical areas like software engineering and leadership. We have, of course, made positive impacts. Early results from a new promotion process, indicate the new process is contributing to more opportunities for people in underrepresented groups. We have redesigned our interview and selection process, and have strong adoption in specific groups and key aspects of the process.
My frustration stems from our lack of progress in shifting the composition of the organization, and the disparity between the experiences of people from underrepresented groups versus dominant groups. It’s not surprising that people who identify with groups that are underrepresented in the company feel less positive about belonging, fairness, decision making and diversity in the organization. While I believe we are on the right track to change, I am impatient and wonder how much change can be created with evolution instead of revolution.
In many organizations—particularly technology companies—we have put our faith in the often-cited meritocracy, and in our ability to be personally objective in the face of implicit bias, despite research showing both can make bias more persistent.
At Hootsuite, we have approached the change required to create a more diverse and inclusive organization at an individual level but also at a structural or systemic level, creating the infrastructure and processes to mitigate bias and enable more inclusive decision making. But for technology organizations, structure and process is not always a welcome solution. Hootsuite is an organization where agility and speed are a badge of honour. While the first step towards change is the conceptual agreement that a more diverse and inclusive organization is not only the right thing to do—but also critical to the organization’s long-term success—at some point we need to take the step from theoretical commitment to actual commitment. I will admit these days I am feeling a little fed up with the excuses that often pop up with respect to hiring. All the reasons we don’t have enough patience and time to build a diverse candidate pool for critical senior leadership hires, or why the hiring profile is based on requirements that almost guarantee you won’t find a woman or person of colour to fill the role. Especially at senior levels, if our definition of a successful candidate is based on our historical understanding of organizations and the sustaining systems, we will never hire anything but white men. You need someone who has done a COO role for 10 years? How many women or people of colour were given that opportunity in the last decade?
I am a big fan of Jeffery Pfeffer’s work, particularly The Knowing Doing Gap, which examines why we often fail to turn knowledge into action. If we want to make meaningful change and build a diverse and inclusive organization, it’s not enough to be a theoretical believer, to be a fan of the game, but not an actual player.
Results require the discipline to stick to plans and processes, without making exceptions or cutting corners. Anything we choose to do requires effort, and investment. There is a ‘cost’ of some sort, extracted for change. If there was nothing demanded of us, change would be easy.
Building a diverse and inclusive organization is a long-term commitment, and the challenge for leaders is discipline and a willingness to match action with words.